I can make Kryo or Frogboy say so if you'd like.

Okay, judging from the gist of what you said: A game can not be good unless it does "new" things. Please, argue that sentence alone, but you can not edit the posts you have already made. And please, when you read this, realize I am not insulting you, nor do I try to, or aim to, or even wish to: I am simply hoping to correct what I see as a horrendously illogical and wrong argument.

I ask you, what has Sins done that is "new?"

Space battle? Oh wait, Homeworld did it better.
Planet management? Go play Masters of Orion 2, 3 was okay, but 2 is the best.
3D battle? Oh wait, they took out the 3rd axis, so Homeworld strikes again.
Diplomacy? Laugh.
Single player? Non existant.
AI/UI features? In the works.
Resource tracking? A little website called www.Ogame.com. Surprisingly similar in, oh wait, most aspects.

However, so as to not pull this thread too far off topic: I love Sins. Obviously, you do not, because it did nothing "new." Frankly, I am sorry your taste in video games is so skewed and prejudiced.

You mentioned that my phrase of Warcraft 3 blending "Role playing" elements was a lame phrase? I'm sorry? I really, truly, do not see where you are coming from there, since the game itself is rated by Blizzard as being such a genre. By the way, the "RP " in "RPG" stands for - guess what, "Role playing." Thus, the BLENDING of these ROLE PLAYING elements with the STRATEGY elements of an "RTS", again, different genres, blended together, in a game that didn't quite work, that can NOT be used to judge whether or not a game that has not been released will be successful, especially if they are different genres and franchises.

Back to Starcraft: I ask you, and this has nothing to do with the validity of your statements or the maturity of the poster, but how old are you? Were you around back when Starcraft came out? All I can say with any sure-ity is that I was. Starcraft succeeded because of EVERYTHING that it was, not just because of the release of Battle.net. In the beginning of Starcraft, you would be lucky to find five different custom maps, 3 of which not released by Blizzard themselves. No, the fan base, the audience, the adoration of instantly MILLIONS of gamers was for the game itself. Sure, inevitably the creative juices got rolling, and more custom maps started coming out than you could care to mention: I know, I was there, I beta'd many, but that is inconsequential. We all played melee. We all loved the different tactics and strategies - and, oh wait, you complain about the "supply depots being used as walls even though they aren't specifically called "wall"?" Guess what, every strategy game has done this, or has a similar quirk. Quirks and strategies and the like are present in EVERY GAME YOU CAN MENTION. Please, mention one, and I can tell you a strategy used by players not intended by developers. LRM spam, what?

World of Warcraft, for what it is, is inconsequential to this thread, however, I will shed some light: When the game came out, it was not because of it being an MMORPG, or a Blizzard game, or any one factor that you liked to tout being the "main" reason for its popularity; but a combination of all of that and the fact that it was a sequel to the "Warcraft franchise." Again, I was there. It proved to be a game that was fun for Blizzard fans to play, easier and more user friendly for MMOers to play, and most importantly of all, it killed Everquest. How could a "bad" game sell TEN MILLION subscriptions of MONTHLY FEES to people and retain such a large fan base as it has?

Back to Starcraft: Please, try massing those 400 "Heavy assault bots" against a medium/moderate level player. When you lose, don't just add that to the list of "Why SC Sucks." Starcraft was very much about a combination of tactics and strategy, and was very much well received by all who reviewed the game. Yes, there was hype existant (Operation CWOL, look it up.) due to a delayed release date, but what game doesn't have that. You mentioned that Starcraft 2 will be successful on Hype alone: I did not realize we had a fortune teller in our midst. Tell me, does Hillary really win, and does the world really die? Or is your ability to foretell future events - which, by the way, that guy called Einstein, as much as a hoax and a crack as he was, being smarter than you or I, said is impossible - only pertain to Blizzard's upcoming titles. You mentioned the "unique sides" not being new to Starcraft, and I can only assume you are talking about Age of Empires or the like, who featured not two, not three, but very many factions in their game play - however, this is different from Starcraft in that Age of Empires changed units and buildings and graphics of each faction to designate which ones were different, while Starcraft's factions were entirely new to each other. Maybe my mind is failing me and I am forgetting about which game you are talking about that had 3 unique factions with their own styles of gameplay, their own strategies, and their own units before Starcraft.

I agree that Starcraft had the new and unique StarEdit and Custom map settings, where no other game had done before - however, are you recognizing that Starcraft did something "new," and therefor can be considered a "good" game under your qualifications? However, again, if this were the case, your entire argument might just fall apart.

As for the campaign of Starcraft being "Mind numbing shit"...actually, no, I cannot see where you are coming from there. An epic story line that has far survived the original game, spawning many side stories and the like - mind numbing shit? Really? Granted, deus ex machina was used once or twice: who doesn't use it though. You can't find a game these days without it rearing its ugly head. Does this detract from the game, thus forcing the campaign story and gameplay in to such a title? I do not think so, or else where does Sins sit, a game that doesn't even have a story?

You say how Homeworld completely destroyed any credibility Starcraft might have had as a game, even though history and the facts have proven you wrong: if I recall correctly, Homeworld's story had a people exiled to a desert planet from their home by evil brethren similar to their old empire in every way, they found technology, they tried returning home, the enemy burnt their new home, they make their way across the galaxy (running in to an alien race of traders and a nebula housing crazed cultists who were once also part of their ancestor race) and beat their enemy, reclaiming their "homeworld." Great story, but, simply judging from the volume of both stories, Starcraft's wins.

What has Blizzard done that is New? Well, okay... lets see, the "Role Playing Strategy" genre that you just refuse to believe exists (hey, people don't believe in God and Evolution and stuff, it's okay), although if it doesn't exist, it isn't new. World of Warcraft is a huge improvement over the accepted MMO of the years before its release, that is, Everquest, thus allowing the game and the genre to be accessed by all of those little "idiot gamers" that just shouldn't be allowed to come in out of the fields, apparently, and boosting the game to popularity only dreamed of by, well, every other game that doesn't have the Lambda on its box.

I do not see how you can give a review of a game not yet released. I really don't. We can happily resume this conversation once the game is out, has been out for a few months, has been given the necessary chance to work out any kinks found by those players who, I believe, you termed "average idiot gamers," who just love to find those crazy little strategies like making "walls" out of something not called a "wall" that could potentially hurt the game. Once this happens, we will talk again.

Now, for an end note, again, I respect your opinion and your feelings, and do not think that this argument should extend past this thread (proper forum etiquette anywhere). Any hostility and strong emotion present in my post stemmed from disbelief at certain notions, or untruths/half truths that I felt strongly about righting.

With the patching comment, I would just like to point out the frequency of which patches have been released for Sins Again, not bashing the game, but simply wondering why you are here if this game is so similar to a game you simply cannot believe is any good...

For all the $$$ Blizzards made from World of Warcraft, I was expecting something more revolutionary than what current screens of the game show. Show me the money Blizz! and make an amazing game! Not some updated engine with "new" units!

Nah, I changed my mind. Blizzard only messed up once, with Warcraft III, and that is because they tried to do something that just does not work... like communism. I feel they still accomplished all their goals with the game. It just was not fun. Hence the popularity of DotA. The rules of the game changed so that it could be fun.

I think Blizzard will make a really fun and well-designed game, but I still look forward to sins's sequel. I hope they take a couple from Blizzard's book.

The original post is pretty close to trolling but what the hey.

Blizzard games are action-oriented. That's a fact. World of Warcraft is the 'slowest' game they've made and things still are relatively quick for an MMO.

This means Starcraft (and with a near 99% certainly, Sc2) are really tactics games, not strategy. There's nothing wrong with being this, and if the longevity and popularity of the original has shown anything, it's that people LIKE tactics games. Maybe you (OP) don't, but interestingly enough, your opinion != the world.

Does Blizzard lack originality? Sure. Warcraft is nothing special. Starcraft was originally planned as a Games Workshop product till that deal fell through (bet GW is still kicking themselves over it, though it happened pre-alpha (first alpha, even)), and the roots show very clearly in the basic art design abd backstory.

As others have said, what Blizzard does is polish. Their games are not immune to balance problems and bugs, but compared to just about every other game out there (Sins included) they shine in both respects on release. They may not innovate a great deal but they take what they do and do it very well.

Innovation is important, but not everything. If I get in a car, I'd rather have a car that drives well and is solidly built that will last me a long time, rather than a car with innovative new features that make it explode five feet down the road. It's possible to succeed without innovating and possible to innovate and fail. Of course, truly bad games fail to innovate AND fail to at least learn from the problems of other games they copy from.

No game 'deserves' success or failure just based on how innovative it is. Remember, the objective of a game is to be FUN. You can make a really innovative game that plays like utter crap and is no fun. Why should that deserve to succeed when you lost sight of your real goal trying to be fancy?

This isn't an argument against innovation; because things DO get old/tiresome, without innovating nothing would be fun, but more for the purpose. Any innovation in games should be for the purpose of making a fun game, not innovating just for the sake of being different even if it isn't any fun.

I am seriously going to sound really naive here for a second. I liked warcraft 3. It was fun(ok so I primarily played the campaigns for the story and cheated but still). When I did turn to skrimish mode, I found it awkward a bit but thats fine because I never liked skirmish in any of the warcrafts and starcraft(ok so I sucked, sue me!) I still think that they were well designed games that most importantly were fun! However at the same time I really dont think that SC2 will be the same or even feel like a continuation of the SC universe. Not to say that it will be a bad game or sell less but just the fact that the next gen engine that they are using takes away from part of the SC feel. Taking a look at the carrier animations from both games, the back drops, the other unit animations it really does feel a lot like WC3 for me. Playing both I can confidently say that WC3 and SC were different, really different.

Starcraft was original for its time as far as PC Strategy Games were. Starcraft 2 doesnt APPEAR to be, granted its hard to think of new elements for a strategy game when its taken nearly a decade for the sequel and their have been tons of similar 'space' games that have had to improve upon starcraft's set forth standards. Question will be has Blizzard stayed up par with what people except from this generation of strategy games.

They definitely possess the ability to dominate the market again, but it might take them a couple trys.

Uhh... this just jumped out at me in your post... he was talking about Supreme Commander =P

First of all Battle.net cannot be the reason for the big success. I think you heavily overestimate the ratio of Online-players/Non-Online players. Today its only around 15% of all gamers!
Back when Starcraft was released our internet connection was 4€/ an hour. No sane person would have wasted more than a couple of minutes a day online.
So Starcraft was played by lets say ~90% only in Single Player! It was the whole concept of epic story, easy gameplay and mostly flawless design(starcraft never crashed on my PC, Total Annihilation dozens of times).
I was quite young when starcraft was released and i haven't heard of blizzard before. And i just realized TA is a row of simple skirmishs and boring as hell, an starcraft is like a thrilling Movie.
It took me also about 4-5 tries to finish homeworld 2 because gameplay was too complex fur a short match(Especially with the annoying Ai, Torpedo frigates try to shoot small fighters instead of the enemy frigates...)
Warcraft 3 i finished in 4 veeery long nights. Why? Because it had a decent story. I agree with WyvernRyder. WC3 was a Rpg. If you don't like role playing go f*** yourself . No seriously if you hate a genre you shoudn't play it, or at least don't complain about it.
No one wants to hear your opinion. Those who want to inform themselves don't get any "neutral" informations from it. And those who don't like the genre don't care anyway.

Yeah, Clover, I saw that and slapped myself in the head. I think we are all in agreement here that, well, this thread... not so useful anymore... great points everybody.

99% of Starcraft's campaign maps were "you vs. big enemy base". Sometimes there'd be two enemy bases. Sometimes four! The objective was always the same - kill them all.

The 1% includes the 'bring unit x to y' and 'wait x minutes' that were thrown in once every ten 'skirmish' games.

How the fuck was Warcraft 3 an RPG? Because you had gear that'd give you +strength? Is that your definition? Do you have an extra chromosome? If that is your definition, you must be a fucking console gamer, or some other equally retarded slime.

Have you ever played Fallout, Baldur's Gate, or even a single game of Dungeons and Dragons in your life? Shadowrun? Rifts? Warcraft 3 as an RPG - jesus christ. Not even BLIZZARD called DIABLO a role-playing game, because it WASN'T, you stupid twats.

This edit being broken is really pissing me off.

Starcraft didn't sell 10 million units in 1998. Or 1999. Or 2000.

Initial sales were quite average, thank you very much. Yes, 'I was there' to quote Sir Ad Hominem Attacks up there.

I agree, and share your views on Starcraft.



Yet somehow, Sins succeeded quite well. Why? Because it combined the elements? HW might have done it better, but HW didn't have planet management. The fact that Sins' isn't all that intensive doesn't really make it a bad game. Remember that the game is a pioneer into a new type of RT4x. That doesn't automatically make it good, granted, but again: its success seems a pretty good indicator.
Please get your facts straight - it does have 3d battle. Admittedly, it isn't immediately obvious, but the third axis is very much there.