The two games couldn't be any different in my opinion. They share more in common in atmosphere than actual game play.
Natural Selection, more than anything, is a co-operative first-person shooter with strategy elements. It's not a strategy game with first-person shooter elements. While this game is innovative, I don't think it's as genre bending as people make it out to be -- it's still a shooter. It would be like calling Team Fortress 2 a strategy game because the engineer can change the course of a fight with structures. You can see strategy elements, but it's hard to deny that this game is a shooter, so you'll probably see fps fans buy it before Starcraft 2.
Well, i have already pre ordered both so, i love both games and im currently playing Starcraft 2. Sure, ill be the first to say it, i like Starcraft more as i love RTS but i also love NS so ill be around to play it =)
In starcraft i play to win, in NS i play more for the teamplay experience, so that is the biggest element for me, i hope it dosent go away in NS2 =) btw, NS Combat was the thing that destroyd NS for me, was fun in the begining but got really tiresome after a while...
Starcraft 2's release date doesn't impact me at all because Starcraft 2 can lick my balls. The first game was a horrendous waste of time, I doubt the second will be much better.
<!--quoteo(post=1754621:date=Feb 22 2010, 04:53 PM:name=mbs357)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mbs357 @ Feb 22 2010, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1754621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Starcraft 2's release date doesn't impact me at all because Starcraft 2 can lick my balls. The first game was a horrendous waste of time, I doubt the second will be much better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember a lot of people hated Half-Life 1 but loved Half-Life 2. Never judge a book by its cover or a game by its prequel.
Problem with Starcraft was that the entire game consisted of building just one unit as fast as possible and sending them all to the enemy base as fast as possible.
Maybe if your terrible at the game, go watch koreans play the game it rarely ends fast and building only one unit is instant loss. You are probably playing terrible maps with no choke points to prevent rush.
korvoJoin Date: 2009-11-19Member: 69427Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1754711:date=Feb 23 2010, 02:37 AM:name=celewign)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (celewign @ Feb 23 2010, 02:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1754711"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->btw sc2 looks really, really cool.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't agree with that. For me it looks like a SC-Mod for Warcraft 3. Of course I'm a bit prejudiced, but while you can see some kind of toy-style in SC2, you can see impressive entertainment in NS2... Well, if i had children, I think I would buy SC2 for them and play NS2 myself ^^
The single player interests me slightly, but the multiplayer... eh. The epic level of micromanagement required to play competitively is not for me at all. Now if they had evolved SC into something more next gen rts (not the old tried and true method) I would be more interested. But Blizzard are more iterators then inventors I suppose.
<!--quoteo(post=1755098:date=Feb 25 2010, 09:30 AM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Feb 25 2010, 09:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The single player interests me slightly, but the multiplayer... eh. The epic level of micromanagement required to play competitively is not for me at all. Now if they had evolved SC into something more next gen rts (not the old tried and true method) I would be more interested. But Blizzard are more iterators then inventors I suppose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game is exponentially easier to manage and play, at least compared to the first.
The limitations on the old game's engine really made it a mess. The ability, now, to hotkey infinite units, hotkey similar buildings (and produce from them on that one hotkey), and rally workers to resources just makes the game so much easier to approach. I really like the new Battle.net's division system, too. It gives you a sense of progression, even if you're brand new to the game. The system has matched me up pretty well so far. They record a colossal amount of information from your matches, so I can only imagine how they use that info to calculate your position in the ladder system.
Overall, the game feels fresh, and the limitations that bogged it down are completely gone. I'm a fairly new player, but I find myself strategizing instead of focusing on the tedious management aspects of the first.
I'm sure thats all true, but its still fundamentally a refinement of a type of gameplay that doesn't appeal to me. I'm still going to pick it up and give it a go, but I'm pretty wary.
<!--quoteo(post=1755098:date=Feb 25 2010, 05:30 PM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Feb 25 2010, 05:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The single player interests me slightly, but the multiplayer... eh. The epic level of micromanagement required to play competitively is not for me at all. Now if they had evolved SC into something more next gen rts (not the old tried and true method) I would be more interested. But Blizzard are more iterators then inventors I suppose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I bet the old hardcore micromacromadness all over the place isn't for everyone. I on the other hand love it. The more chaos and nearly unfair challenge the game has, the more I enjoy learning it.
To be honest, I'm glad that Blizzard isn't a team of innovators. They are probably the only team that isn't trying to create the next gen RTS. The only non-Blizzard game I've heard trying to renew the oldschool RTS tradition was Armies of Exigo and it got trashed in reviews, apparently partitially because it wasn't a next gen RTS game like every other game on the market.
Once again, for some reason no next gen RTS has worked for me. I tried some DoW (mostly SP though), but it felt far less responsive and concrete compared to SC and WC3. C&C 3 felt like a bad joke on singeplayer and the multiplayer seemed to involve 10 minute rounds of single unit mass mostly. I guess I should try DoW 2 and CoH next and put some time to get used to them.
<!--quoteo(post=1755332:date=Feb 26 2010, 03:34 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 26 2010, 03:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755332"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once again, for some reason no next gen RTS has worked for me. I tried some DoW (mostly SP though), but it felt far less responsive and concrete compared to SC and WC3. C&C 3 felt like a bad joke on singeplayer and the multiplayer seemed to involve 10 minute rounds of single unit mass mostly. I guess I should try DoW 2 and CoH next and put some time to get used to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, "next-gen RTS" is a relative term. DoW and CoH are in the vein of uber micro. Supreme Commander is the view of uber macro.
StarCraft is.. well.. kinda in the middle. And has workers. WarCraft3 was a shift to the micro due to the zomg so many spellz and upkeep system. I think StarCraft2 is a pretty nice return to the roots/basics with some good add-ons. Like the armor system, bonus damage, more transparent game elements in the UI, and map enhancements.
<!--quoteo(post=1755098:date=Feb 25 2010, 12:30 PM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Feb 25 2010, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The epic level of micromanagement required to play competitively is not for me at all. Now if they had evolved SC into something more next gen rts (not the old tried and true method) I would be more interested. But Blizzard are more iterators then inventors I suppose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "evolution" you mentioned is really just dumbing down an RTS game, in my opinion. World in Conflict and even Dawn of War 1 are some examples of atrociously bad "real time strategy" games. I don't call taking steps backward evolution or innovation, but to each his own.
Either way, what Blizzard has done with Starcraft 2 is pretty awesome. You mention you don't have the skill or the time to get the skill to play competitively. The good news is just about every other player doesn't either. Their ladder ranking system, which places similarly skilled players together in small ladders, is working really well and it's only a beta with 2,500 online at a time. When the playerbase is bigger you're all but guaranteed to be matched with players on a similar skill level once you get past your first 10 matches, which gauge your skill and place you in a league.
It's only a beta and I'm already having more fun in this RTS than any other and a good reason why is because of the matchmaking system. I consistently find people on my skill level and yet it's still competitive as I can watch myself climb and fall within my division on the ladder.
<!--quoteo(post=1755542:date=Feb 26 2010, 01:54 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Feb 26 2010, 01:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The "evolution" you mentioned is really just dumbing down an RTS game, in my opinion. World in Conflict and even Dawn of War 1 are some examples of atrociously bad "real time strategy" games. I don't call taking steps backward evolution or innovation, but to each his own.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. "Evolution" in games in general is a really murky subject, especially with RTS. More doesn't necessarily mean better, and some games don't need to be improved on, just refined. This goes for all games in general, not just video. But here we are, in 2010, and it's easy to argue that video games haven't evolved past aesthetics. Why are Nintendo consoles and games so insanely popular? They're accessible both in terms of audience and game play. Blizzard is following this model with Starcraft 2. Theoretically, once the game has hundred of thousands playing it, your grandfather could jump into Starcraft 2 and find a competitive bracket where could explore the game enjoyable. That, to me, is revolutionary, even though it's such a simple concept. RTS games are designed to be played with other people, but they have always been completely unapproachable because of the player skill discrepancies.
Anyway, I'm excited, if you can't tell. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine too, but the new Battle.net will change the way competitive gaming is handled, undoubtedly.
Comments
Natural Selection, more than anything, is a co-operative first-person shooter with strategy elements. It's not a strategy game with first-person shooter elements. While this game is innovative, I don't think it's as genre bending as people make it out to be -- it's still a shooter. It would be like calling Team Fortress 2 a strategy game because the engineer can change the course of a fight with structures. You can see strategy elements, but it's hard to deny that this game is a shooter, so you'll probably see fps fans buy it before Starcraft 2.
Sure, ill be the first to say it, i like Starcraft more as i love RTS but i also love NS so ill be around to play it =)
In starcraft i play to win, in NS i play more for the teamplay experience, so that is the biggest element for me, i hope it dosent go away in NS2 =)
btw, NS Combat was the thing that destroyd NS for me, was fun in the begining but got really tiresome after a while...
The first game was a horrendous waste of time, I doubt the second will be much better.
The first game was a horrendous waste of time, I doubt the second will be much better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember a lot of people hated Half-Life 1 but loved Half-Life 2. Never judge a book by its cover or a game by its prequel.
You are probably playing terrible maps with no choke points to prevent rush.
just watched some husky vids on youtube
just watched some husky vids on youtube<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you get tired of Husky, there's some other feeds on <a href="http://www.teamliquid.net/sc2/" target="_blank">team-liquid.net/sc2</a>
I don't agree with that. For me it looks like a SC-Mod for Warcraft 3.
Of course I'm a bit prejudiced, but while you can see some kind of toy-style in SC2, you can see impressive entertainment in NS2...
Well, if i had children, I think I would buy SC2 for them and play NS2 myself ^^
The game is exponentially easier to manage and play, at least compared to the first.
The limitations on the old game's engine really made it a mess. The ability, now, to hotkey infinite units, hotkey similar buildings (and produce from them on that one hotkey), and rally workers to resources just makes the game so much easier to approach. I really like the new Battle.net's division system, too. It gives you a sense of progression, even if you're brand new to the game. The system has matched me up pretty well so far. They record a colossal amount of information from your matches, so I can only imagine how they use that info to calculate your position in the ladder system.
Overall, the game feels fresh, and the limitations that bogged it down are completely gone. I'm a fairly new player, but I find myself strategizing instead of focusing on the tedious management aspects of the first.
Yeah, I bet the old hardcore micromacromadness all over the place isn't for everyone. I on the other hand love it. The more chaos and nearly unfair challenge the game has, the more I enjoy learning it.
To be honest, I'm glad that Blizzard isn't a team of innovators. They are probably the only team that isn't trying to create the next gen RTS. The only non-Blizzard game I've heard trying to renew the oldschool RTS tradition was Armies of Exigo and it got trashed in reviews, apparently partitially because it wasn't a next gen RTS game like every other game on the market.
Once again, for some reason no next gen RTS has worked for me. I tried some DoW (mostly SP though), but it felt far less responsive and concrete compared to SC and WC3. C&C 3 felt like a bad joke on singeplayer and the multiplayer seemed to involve 10 minute rounds of single unit mass mostly. I guess I should try DoW 2 and CoH next and put some time to get used to them.
Well, "next-gen RTS" is a relative term. DoW and CoH are in the vein of uber micro. Supreme Commander is the view of uber macro.
StarCraft is.. well.. kinda in the middle. And has workers. WarCraft3 was a shift to the micro due to the zomg so many spellz and upkeep system. I think StarCraft2 is a pretty nice return to the roots/basics with some good add-ons. Like the armor system, bonus damage, more transparent game elements in the UI, and map enhancements.
The "evolution" you mentioned is really just dumbing down an RTS game, in my opinion. World in Conflict and even Dawn of War 1 are some examples of atrociously bad "real time strategy" games. I don't call taking steps backward evolution or innovation, but to each his own.
Either way, what Blizzard has done with Starcraft 2 is pretty awesome. You mention you don't have the skill or the time to get the skill to play competitively. The good news is just about every other player doesn't either. Their ladder ranking system, which places similarly skilled players together in small ladders, is working really well and it's only a beta with 2,500 online at a time. When the playerbase is bigger you're all but guaranteed to be matched with players on a similar skill level once you get past your first 10 matches, which gauge your skill and place you in a league.
It's only a beta and I'm already having more fun in this RTS than any other and a good reason why is because of the matchmaking system. I consistently find people on my skill level and yet it's still competitive as I can watch myself climb and fall within my division on the ladder.
Agreed. "Evolution" in games in general is a really murky subject, especially with RTS. More doesn't necessarily mean better, and some games don't need to be improved on, just refined. This goes for all games in general, not just video. But here we are, in 2010, and it's easy to argue that video games haven't evolved past aesthetics. Why are Nintendo consoles and games so insanely popular? They're accessible both in terms of audience and game play. Blizzard is following this model with Starcraft 2. Theoretically, once the game has hundred of thousands playing it, your grandfather could jump into Starcraft 2 and find a competitive bracket where could explore the game enjoyable. That, to me, is revolutionary, even though it's such a simple concept. RTS games are designed to be played with other people, but they have always been completely unapproachable because of the player skill discrepancies.
Anyway, I'm excited, if you can't tell. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine too, but the new Battle.net will change the way competitive gaming is handled, undoubtedly.