Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
So far I like the game, but I'm not seeing what everyone else is raving about. Its just a very solid, good looking, and well balanced RTS. The real strength in the single player game is great mission design. Its not just build and rush, but you have to employ the specialized units and think to complete them with the best success. But in the end, there just isn't any real progress in game play. After playing DOW2, and how they used interactive environments (buildings to garrison, rubble to use as cover, etc.) as part of the strategy, the gameplay in SC2 just feels... old. Honestly, it feels like a really good XBLA release of the original game when you are playing the missions.
The Wing Commander style "search for story" breaks in between missions are also well done, but again, very dated. 1990's dated. That said, I'll be playing this game for a while. It feels old, but it is still just so well executed, and fun, but I expected paradigm breaking game play from Blizzard, not an excellent homage.
|
I didn't read the reviews for the game, so I don't know what everybody is raving about either. But I would point out that Blizzard games have never really been paradigm breaking or even super-innovative. The RTS genre was invented by Westwood's Command and Conquer games, after all. World of Warcraft was far from the first MMORPG, and even its biggest fans acknowledge that it merely took the MMORPG genre and did it really well. And Diablo? That gameplay was dated even when it came out.
That said, I would be just as disappointed as you if I had been expecting a fundamental change to Starcraft 2. I'm actually playing the game because I want to see what happens next in the story (and if it's good enough, I'll continue to play the next two games).