<!--quoteo(post=1873954:date=Sep 9 2011, 08:47 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Sep 9 2011, 08:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No doubt SC2 benefited from SC1 and by the Blizzard name, however, if SC2 was some random game made by some random developer I still think it would receive praise and slowly grow over time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He went on to basically say what I just said, how most RTS games out recently we're not traditional and by releasing a traditional RTS they were, in a way, innovating based off what was available on the market.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, Starcraft 2 is, gameplay-wise, still a fundamentally 'old' game, relying on concepts that were tried and eventually outgrown by most RTS-game developers long ago. Obviously Blizzard knew if their game was too 'different' it could be rejected so they relied on that, but I just don't see an old-school style RTS game from some random dev doing that well. I don't think it would flop, but it certainly wouldn't have been praised as a 'Starcraft-killer'.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When Dustin Browder was asked, before SC2 released, if any innovations had been made he replied with something similar to "Yes, we're innovating by going back to the basics."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's a flawed and rather ridiculous concept though - the implicating that the 'old ways were best' is baseless and frankly absurd. I think most old-style games in various genres were frankly crude, ugly machinations that people tolerated because it was the best we had at the time - not because it was actually any <i>good</i>. Starcraft, Quake, these games weren't created because Blizzard or iD had some sort of 'vision' and really knew what they were doing. Gaming was certainly still in its infancy and was slowly evolving. Suggesting that Blizzard just happened to make the perfect RTS game in a time where everyone was still learning what made games even 'work' is like doodling on a napkin and realizing you just invented Cold Fusion.
Besides, for years after Starcraft most RTS games still followed the 'Warcraft model'. Population counts, resourcing... the entire reason they had to start with the gameplay gimmicks was because it was all a homogenous RTS soup. And not all gimmicks were bad. Total Annihilation was an RTS game that was about six years ahead of its time.
The fact is, Starcraft as an RTS game was the 'Half-Life' of RTSes. It was a perfect storm of achievement that propelled it to 'critical mass' at which point people were buying Starcraft because that was just what you did. Starcraft wasn't exactly well-balanced when it came out, it took Blizzard literally years of back-and-forth patching to achieve that. Honestly, I think what drove Starcraft's success more than the game itself was:
- Easy-to-use, intuitive map editor and advanced scripting interface. - Battle.net and how it enabled multiplayer RTS so easily for the first time - stat tracking, ladders, and ease of finding and joining games.
Let's be honest - the average guy who played Starcraft really wasn't playing Starcraft - they were playing 'Big Game Hunters v8234.23 XXXTREME DRAGONBALLZ'.\
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I remember when he said this I was so excited for SC2. As SC2's success as shown many others wanted a modern traditional RTS experience that had been lacking prior to SC2's release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what about Quake? Do you seriously think anyone could make a game that would recapture Q3A? Because nobody has, not with any serious success - I don't think Starcraft 2's success was so much about people wanting 'old school' RTS, I think it's because people have known for years that the only thing that could ever beat Starcraft 1 would be Starcraft 2. It really didn't matter what Starcraft 2 was, or what other games came out in the interim.
Let me put it this way - are you seriously suggesting that with Starcraft 2, even though people have been trying for a decade to compete with Starcraft's multiplayer mass, that despite thousands of people trying, Blizzard knew the secret formula all along and just *happened* to get lightning to strike twice and magically made a game so superior to their first that it finally defeated it on its own merits?
Or were people just passing over every other game because it 'wasn't Starcraft', and let SC2 take over SC1 because that was just how it was supposed to happen?
Ultimately, in another universe, Blizzard's 'Starcraft' could've played more like Perimeter, or Total Annihilation, or whatever, and maybe one of the random RTS games trying to differentiate itself from the 'RTS Soup' was a mimic of the gameplay of our universe's Starcraft - do you think, all other things being equal, that this game would've defeated the proto-Blizzard game, because the Starcraft-style gameplay is somehow superior?
Or would people have just been playing 'that' universe's version of Starcraft (which is more like Total Annihilation) and Bizarro-Temphage is having this exact same conversation regarding their version of Starcraft?
<!--quoteo(post=1873960:date=Sep 9 2011, 05:10 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Sep 9 2011, 05:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873960"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that's a flawed and rather ridiculous concept though - the implicating that the 'old ways were best' is baseless and frankly absurd.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said it was the best. I said by going back to the 'old ways' they were, in fact, innovating (aka changing) when compared to what was out at the time. There is no 'best' since everything is subjective to your preference. You said that Company of Heroes was freaking good; I don't think it was.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also think there's a lot of exaggerating there - for years after Starcraft most RTS games still followed the 'Warcraft model'. Population counts, resourcing... the entire reason they had to start with the gameplay gimmicks was because it was all a homogenous RTS soup.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're getting your timelines confused. Yes, for a few years after Warcraft most RTS games followed the WC model but keep in mind WC was released in 1994. I don't know the release dates of the above games I mentioned, and I don't care enough to google, but my statements were referring to the more modern RTS scene (2007/2008-current).
Well factor in Starcraft's popularity as an e-sport (lol). It wasn't you wanting to play an old-school style RTS game, it was a huge mass of people rejecting every other game to ever come out because somehow Starcraft was 'superior' when in fact it was only 'first'. Given how easily Starcraft 2 displaced Starcraft 1, it really wasn't actually because Starcraft 1 was uniquely good, it was simply because Starcraft 2 hadn't come out yet.
SC2 still did change a hell of a lot from SC1, and no other game has ever managed to compete with SC1. With that in mind, undoubtedly a large number of people should have rejected SC2, since 'features' are all subjective and esoteric... but this didn't happen, it pretty much replaced it in the e-sports circuit overnight.
Gamers are irritating, fickle people and they really just accepted SC2, just like that? Like I said, 'popular because it's popular'.
I'll also direct your attention to the pile of DotA clones... different from but hardly inferior to the 'original' (which had its own number of spin-offs) but none have seen as much success... is it because they're bad, flawed games, or is it because DotA 2 hasn't come out yet?
The only innovation Blizzard have pioneered is "trolling your forum users."
I don't think it's wrong to say that Blizzard has a kind of "critical mass" effect going, and their games are now simply popular BECAUSE they're by Blizzard. But I do maintain that this wasn't - hell, CAN'T have been - always the case. They became popular by establishing a reputation for polishing their games more than the Hubble Space Telescope, not for innovating, which they have never done.
<!--quoteo(post=1873967:date=Sep 9 2011, 05:42 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Sep 9 2011, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873967"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well factor in Starcraft's popularity as an e-sport (lol). It wasn't you wanting to play an old-school style RTS game, it was a huge mass of people rejecting every other game to ever come out because somehow Starcraft was 'superior' when in fact it was only 'first'. Given how easily Starcraft 2 displaced Starcraft 1, it really wasn't actually because Starcraft 1 was uniquely good, it was simply because Starcraft 2 hadn't come out yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For myself, I did want to play a traditional RTS but not one with the extreme interface limitations of SC1 (12 unit select, single building select, etc). The other RTS game I played was CNC:Generals and it's expansion, Zero Hour. That was as close to a modern traditional RTS game that I could get at that time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SC2 still did change a hell of a lot from SC1, and no other game has ever managed to compete with SC1. With that in mind, undoubtedly a large number of people should have rejected SC2, since 'features' are all subjective and esoteric... but this didn't happen, it pretty much replaced it in the e-sports circuit overnight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're trying to use the fact that I said innovation is subjective against me/for your own argument? Not sure here. SC2 did change from SC1 and there are those who don't play SC2 because of those changes. A BW community still exists and is still popular in its own right because many SC1 gamers (mostly high level amateurs and professional koreans) think SC2 had too many concessions for the general public (rally points, mulitple building select, smart spell casting, etc) and didn't like the unit changes (the removal of the Zerg's lurker and the Protoss's reaver are the most missed).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gamers are irritating, fickle people and they really just accepted SC2, just like that? Like I said, 'popular because it's popular'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SC2 is popular because 1) it's a well polished and bug/crash free game 2) most find it to be a relatively well balanced/fun game 3) it's the first AAA quality 'traditional RTS' released in <i>quite</i> a while 4) it's from a popular developer with a reputation of releasing quality games and 5) it's the sequel to the most popular RTS ever and was able to directly benefit from SC1's pro-scene. I feel like you're only focusing on points 4 and 5 and are completely ignoring the fact that SC2 is a good game.
SC2's production quality cannot be denied so clearly your dislike for the game is with it's general design. That is subjective. Just because you don't like SC2 doesn't make it a bad game that has no merits and is only popular because it was named Starcraft then released.
Steam's a ###### to publish on since it has no staging area for you to check what you're actually releasing until it's live. E.g. DLC in particular is a ###### to test (since you're patching using a system you have no way to properly test until it's live). Cut devs, especially indie devs, a little slack when they release the wrong thing or their releases don't tie together properly. Steam isn't quite as perfect as it seems from the outside.
<!--quoteo(post=1874127:date=Sep 11 2011, 07:25 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Sep 11 2011, 07:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874127"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is, what, the pot, that has been sitting in lava on the sun or something, calling the kettle black?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're talking about the guy who wrote a seventy three paragraph rant that some epic piece of software that lets you explore the entire known universe is crap because it had a lens flare.
<!--quoteo(post=1874182:date=Sep 11 2011, 12:28 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Sep 11 2011, 12:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874182"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You gotta admit it was a pretty ###### ugly lens flare.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I liked the lensflare in that game. Do you have a blog or something I don't know about? It was 3 sentences in the thread. I didn't think the game was very good because it presented me with no meaningful decisions, just graphical stuff to look at.
<!--quoteo(post=1874158:date=Sep 11 2011, 12:56 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Sep 11 2011, 12:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We're talking about the guy who wrote a seventy three paragraph rant that some epic piece of software that lets you explore the entire known universe is crap because it had a lens flare.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1874260:date=Sep 12 2011, 01:51 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Sep 12 2011, 01:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874260"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I liked the lensflare in that game. Do you have a blog or something I don't know about? It was 3 sentences in the thread. I didn't think the game was very good because it presented me with no meaningful decisions, just graphical stuff to look at.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He be talking about that space exploration program ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1874266:date=Sep 11 2011, 10:25 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 11 2011, 10:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He be talking about that space exploration program ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ya, in the thread about that program LoF wrote something like 3 sentences against it, not 73 paragraphs. 73 paragraphs is like a chapter in a book.
<!--quoteo(post=1874281:date=Sep 12 2011, 06:46 AM:name=Volcano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Volcano @ Sep 12 2011, 06:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874281"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't play it due to the bloom it hurts my eyes way to much :\<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I believe this is a toggle in options you can turn off. Although I cannot check right now, I'm sitting in school.
<!--quoteo(post=1874267:date=Sep 12 2011, 04:35 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Sep 12 2011, 04:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874267"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ya, in the thread about that program LoF wrote something like 3 sentences against it, not 73 paragraphs. 73 paragraphs is like a chapter in a book.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It IS within the realm of possibility that Temph was engaging in hyperbole.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1874313:date=Sep 12 2011, 05:35 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Sep 12 2011, 05:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It IS within the realm of possibility that Temph was engaging in hyperbole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's RIDICULOUS! Temph would NEVER do something like THAT!
@Volcano, if you are talking about in Dead Island, I saw that it's one of the hacks people have done in that modding thread linked earlier.
so, if you think it's worth it, you can risk a VAC ban to make the game playable :D
<!--quoteo(post=1874331:date=Sep 12 2011, 02:14 PM:name=Volcano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Volcano @ Sep 12 2011, 02:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874331"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unless my eyesight is that bad Svenpa I cant see it in the options menu<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My mistake, all the talking about the space sim got me confused where I was. Dead Island doesn't have settings for bloom unless you use the hack Thansal mentioned.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1874340:date=Sep 12 2011, 01:25 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 12 2011, 01:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This game is pretty fun, it'd probably be a lot better co-op but none of my friends have it as far as I know.
Also what bloom? I honestly don't get what people are saying about too much bloom, have you been outside? It's pretty bright out there.
I mean I wear sunglasses on cloudy days because it's too bright for my taste and I don't find the game too bright.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you live on some irradiated island of DEWM, surfaces do NOT glow like that! Hmm, never mind then... I just discovered the reason why this island is so bloomarific!
Anyone have any success with co-op? Friend just gets dropped after about 5-10 minutes and then can't rejoin unless we quit the game entirely and try again.
<!--quoteo(post=1874415:date=Sep 12 2011, 09:52 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Sep 12 2011, 09:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1874415"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyone have any success with co-op? Friend just gets dropped after about 5-10 minutes and then can't rejoin unless we quit the game entirely and try again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a 6 hour long session the day before yesterday, but when we tried to pick up where we left off it kicked my friend back to chapter 1 and he could no longer join me but I could join him :/ Thankfully we got to keep our levels.
<i>Will it get you VAC banned? It’s highly unlikely. The tool doesn’t modify any of the game files directly, which is what VAC looks for. It simply extracts the required files from the game’s data packs, puts them in the Dead Island folder in “My Documents†and makes the necessary alterations.</i>
An excellent tweaker. I have played the game for days now without getting VAC banned.
I'm up for playing with anyone who can speak English and have a decent mic and connection. Also, not being a total assbag helps as well ;)
Could be that I won't be able to coop until next week though.
And yeah, Dead Island Helper is a godsend. Super easy configuration. Does what it's supposed to do. Only thing missing from it is a sound fix, but that can be fixed with trial and error on the users part.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hoLadZotBuE"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hoLadZotBuE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center> If you only ever watch one video of Dead Island, watch this one.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He went on to basically say what I just said, how most RTS games out recently we're not traditional and by releasing a traditional RTS they were, in a way, innovating based off what was available on the market.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, Starcraft 2 is, gameplay-wise, still a fundamentally 'old' game, relying on concepts that were tried and eventually outgrown by most RTS-game developers long ago. Obviously Blizzard knew if their game was too 'different' it could be rejected so they relied on that, but I just don't see an old-school style RTS game from some random dev doing that well. I don't think it would flop, but it certainly wouldn't have been praised as a 'Starcraft-killer'.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When Dustin Browder was asked, before SC2 released, if any innovations had been made he replied with something similar to "Yes, we're innovating by going back to the basics."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's a flawed and rather ridiculous concept though - the implicating that the 'old ways were best' is baseless and frankly absurd. I think most old-style games in various genres were frankly crude, ugly machinations that people tolerated because it was the best we had at the time - not because it was actually any <i>good</i>. Starcraft, Quake, these games weren't created because Blizzard or iD had some sort of 'vision' and really knew what they were doing. Gaming was certainly still in its infancy and was slowly evolving. Suggesting that Blizzard just happened to make the perfect RTS game in a time where everyone was still learning what made games even 'work' is like doodling on a napkin and realizing you just invented Cold Fusion.
Besides, for years after Starcraft most RTS games still followed the 'Warcraft model'. Population counts, resourcing... the entire reason they had to start with the gameplay gimmicks was because it was all a homogenous RTS soup. And not all gimmicks were bad. Total Annihilation was an RTS game that was about six years ahead of its time.
The fact is, Starcraft as an RTS game was the 'Half-Life' of RTSes. It was a perfect storm of achievement that propelled it to 'critical mass' at which point people were buying Starcraft because that was just what you did. Starcraft wasn't exactly well-balanced when it came out, it took Blizzard literally years of back-and-forth patching to achieve that. Honestly, I think what drove Starcraft's success more than the game itself was:
- Easy-to-use, intuitive map editor and advanced scripting interface.
- Battle.net and how it enabled multiplayer RTS so easily for the first time - stat tracking, ladders, and ease of finding and joining games.
Let's be honest - the average guy who played Starcraft really wasn't playing Starcraft - they were playing 'Big Game Hunters v8234.23 XXXTREME DRAGONBALLZ'.\
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I remember when he said this I was so excited for SC2. As SC2's success as shown many others wanted a modern traditional RTS experience that had been lacking prior to SC2's release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what about Quake? Do you seriously think anyone could make a game that would recapture Q3A? Because nobody has, not with any serious success - I don't think Starcraft 2's success was so much about people wanting 'old school' RTS, I think it's because people have known for years that the only thing that could ever beat Starcraft 1 would be Starcraft 2. It really didn't matter what Starcraft 2 was, or what other games came out in the interim.
Let me put it this way - are you seriously suggesting that with Starcraft 2, even though people have been trying for a decade to compete with Starcraft's multiplayer mass, that despite thousands of people trying, Blizzard knew the secret formula all along and just *happened* to get lightning to strike twice and magically made a game so superior to their first that it finally defeated it on its own merits?
Or were people just passing over every other game because it 'wasn't Starcraft', and let SC2 take over SC1 because that was just how it was supposed to happen?
Ultimately, in another universe, Blizzard's 'Starcraft' could've played more like Perimeter, or Total Annihilation, or whatever, and maybe one of the random RTS games trying to differentiate itself from the 'RTS Soup' was a mimic of the gameplay of our universe's Starcraft - do you think, all other things being equal, that this game would've defeated the proto-Blizzard game, because the Starcraft-style gameplay is somehow superior?
Or would people have just been playing 'that' universe's version of Starcraft (which is more like Total Annihilation) and Bizarro-Temphage is having this exact same conversation regarding their version of Starcraft?
risk vs reward. reward wins.
I never said it was the best. I said by going back to the 'old ways' they were, in fact, innovating (aka changing) when compared to what was out at the time. There is no 'best' since everything is subjective to your preference. You said that Company of Heroes was freaking good; I don't think it was.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also think there's a lot of exaggerating there - for years after Starcraft most RTS games still followed the 'Warcraft model'. Population counts, resourcing... the entire reason they had to start with the gameplay gimmicks was because it was all a homogenous RTS soup.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're getting your timelines confused. Yes, for a few years after Warcraft most RTS games followed the WC model but keep in mind WC was released in 1994. I don't know the release dates of the above games I mentioned, and I don't care enough to google, but my statements were referring to the more modern RTS scene (2007/2008-current).
SC2 still did change a hell of a lot from SC1, and no other game has ever managed to compete with SC1. With that in mind, undoubtedly a large number of people should have rejected SC2, since 'features' are all subjective and esoteric... but this didn't happen, it pretty much replaced it in the e-sports circuit overnight.
Gamers are irritating, fickle people and they really just accepted SC2, just like that? Like I said, 'popular because it's popular'.
I'll also direct your attention to the pile of DotA clones... different from but hardly inferior to the 'original' (which had its own number of spin-offs) but none have seen as much success... is it because they're bad, flawed games, or is it because DotA 2 hasn't come out yet?
I don't think it's wrong to say that Blizzard has a kind of "critical mass" effect going, and their games are now simply popular BECAUSE they're by Blizzard. But I do maintain that this wasn't - hell, CAN'T have been - always the case. They became popular by establishing a reputation for polishing their games more than the Hubble Space Telescope, not for innovating, which they have never done.
For myself, I did want to play a traditional RTS but not one with the extreme interface limitations of SC1 (12 unit select, single building select, etc). The other RTS game I played was CNC:Generals and it's expansion, Zero Hour. That was as close to a modern traditional RTS game that I could get at that time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SC2 still did change a hell of a lot from SC1, and no other game has ever managed to compete with SC1. With that in mind, undoubtedly a large number of people should have rejected SC2, since 'features' are all subjective and esoteric... but this didn't happen, it pretty much replaced it in the e-sports circuit overnight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're trying to use the fact that I said innovation is subjective against me/for your own argument? Not sure here. SC2 did change from SC1 and there are those who don't play SC2 because of those changes. A BW community still exists and is still popular in its own right because many SC1 gamers (mostly high level amateurs and professional koreans) think SC2 had too many concessions for the general public (rally points, mulitple building select, smart spell casting, etc) and didn't like the unit changes (the removal of the Zerg's lurker and the Protoss's reaver are the most missed).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gamers are irritating, fickle people and they really just accepted SC2, just like that? Like I said, 'popular because it's popular'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SC2 is popular because 1) it's a well polished and bug/crash free game 2) most find it to be a relatively well balanced/fun game 3) it's the first AAA quality 'traditional RTS' released in <i>quite</i> a while 4) it's from a popular developer with a reputation of releasing quality games and 5) it's the sequel to the most popular RTS ever and was able to directly benefit from SC1's pro-scene. I feel like you're only focusing on points 4 and 5 and are completely ignoring the fact that SC2 is a good game.
SC2's production quality cannot be denied so clearly your dislike for the game is with it's general design. That is subjective. Just because you don't like SC2 doesn't make it a bad game that has no merits and is only popular because it was named Starcraft then released.
A lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is, what, the pot, that has been sitting in lava on the sun or something, calling the kettle black?
We're talking about the guy who wrote a seventy three paragraph rant that some epic piece of software that lets you explore the entire known universe is crap because it had a lens flare.
I liked the lensflare in that game. Do you have a blog or something I don't know about? It was 3 sentences in the thread. I didn't think the game was very good because it presented me with no meaningful decisions, just graphical stuff to look at.
Link
He be talking about that space exploration program ;)
ya, in the thread about that program LoF wrote something like 3 sentences against it, not 73 paragraphs. 73 paragraphs is like a chapter in a book.
Again, I believe this is a toggle in options you can turn off. Although I cannot check right now, I'm sitting in school.
It IS within the realm of possibility that Temph was engaging in hyperbole.
That's RIDICULOUS! Temph would NEVER do something like THAT!
@Volcano, if you are talking about in Dead Island, I saw that it's one of the hacks people have done in that modding thread linked earlier.
so, if you think it's worth it, you can risk a VAC ban to make the game playable :D
Also what bloom? I honestly don't get what people are saying about too much bloom, have you been outside? It's pretty bright out there.
I mean I wear sunglasses on cloudy days because it's too bright for my taste and I don't find the game too bright.
My mistake, all the talking about the space sim got me confused where I was. Dead Island doesn't have settings for bloom unless you use the hack Thansal mentioned.
Also what bloom? I honestly don't get what people are saying about too much bloom, have you been outside? It's pretty bright out there.
I mean I wear sunglasses on cloudy days because it's too bright for my taste and I don't find the game too bright.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you live on some irradiated island of DEWM, surfaces do NOT glow like that! Hmm, never mind then... I just discovered the reason why this island is so bloomarific!
I had a 6 hour long session the day before yesterday, but when we tried to pick up where we left off it kicked my friend back to chapter 1 and he could no longer join me but I could join him :/ Thankfully we got to keep our levels.
<i>Will it get you VAC banned? It’s highly unlikely. The tool doesn’t modify any of the game files directly, which is what VAC looks for. It simply extracts the required files from the game’s data packs, puts them in the Dead Island folder in “My Documents†and makes the necessary alterations.</i>
An excellent tweaker. I have played the game for days now without getting VAC banned.
Also, not being a total assbag helps as well ;)
Could be that I won't be able to coop until next week though.
And yeah, Dead Island Helper is a godsend.
Super easy configuration. Does what it's supposed to do.
Only thing missing from it is a sound fix, but that can be fixed with trial and error on the users part.
If you only ever watch one video of Dead Island, watch this one.