Quote:
I'll give you this one so you can shut the fuck up and stop repeating it. At the moment, there is no RTS worth a shit and I have absolutely no doubt SC2 will revitalize a dying genre.
Just because you don't enjoy RTS games doesn't make it a dying genre. It's not as active in terms of games being developed as FPS or MMOs are, sure, but it still has a pretty strong community of gamers that keep it going.
Quote:
That being said, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't DESERVE an 85/90/100% rating or review JUST FOR BEING STARCRAFT.
Arguable, even if it WAS just StarCraft. It isn't - a slew of different units, build orders, enormously different(and arguably better) balance, non-isometric collision/maps, superior UI, superior graphics, superior sound, and superior multiplayer with a better ranking system. Perhaps more importantly, it has absolutely massive changes(even a bit beyond what WC3 did) to the map editor which allow people to build custom maps that can make anything from FPS games, to space shooters, to RPGs, and anything in between. This is without even mentioning the lengthy single-player campaign that most of us don't know enough about yet.
As I was saying, even if it WAS StarCraft re-vamped, it would still deserve a high score. Why? For the exact same reason reviewers give "Game of the Year" editions good scores. A game being a "copy" of something has ZERO relevance on whether a game has good *content*. Read that word again, since you apparently like repeating things more than I do: Content. Are these types of re-releases usually money-grubbing attempts? Sure, absolutely. Does it have ANYTHING to do with the content? No. Could many companies do more, most of the time when they do a crappy re-release. Sure. Does that have ANYTHING to do with the content? No.
It's still an incredible game, and it would remain an incredible game as a re-release. People still play the original damned game after all these years, moreso than countless other classics out there. It had incredible staying power because it was good. But if we were just comparing re-releases, SC2 clearly went above and beyond the call based on the things that I mentioned compared to at least 90 percent of supposed game rehashes.
Quote:
Lets say The Old Republic gets released WITHOUT A REVIEW COPY BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GAMING MEDIA, just like SC2. The beta will have been out for over 10 months, so by your very logic it doesn't need to be reviewed because it can stand on its own merit. Bioware has just a good of a release record and reputation for making outstanding games as Blizzard does. Every game has been a success both critically and from a player perspective. But I can guarantee 100% that if it were released without any reviews, a good number of you would be calling for EA/Bioware/Lucasarts's heads on platters. How is that any different then what I've said? It isn't. It doesn't matter that TOR is an MMO and SC2 is an RTS...no game should be immune to the gaming press JUST BECAUSE it's guaranteed to sell nor does being a solid game absolve it.
Not at all, I'd be cheering them on for not giving into them. I will say that I think the press should be able to report on what they have seen so long as there is not a EULA that they agreed to that says otherwise. The beta should be judged on the merit that is in fact a beta, and while you usually don't see groundbreaking changes between late open betas and release, things can still happen. MMORPGs also hinge on the fact that there's a mad hype rush in the first opening weeks, and everything's a little more interesting with thousands of players going through the same thing you are... so in the multiplayer sense, it's similar to SC2's release in a way.
Quote:
I'll repeat this since Venen seems to think everything needs repeating...No one said the game won't sell, no one said the game won't be popular, no one said it wouldn't revitalize a dying genre (although the assumption that it'll do anything for eSports is just the ludicrous daydreams of a white-knighting fanboy). What was said was "What makes SC2 so special it should be absolved of being criticized or reviewed from a professional perspective?"
So what is it boys? What makes SC2 so next to Godliness that it is immune to being reviewed or criticized (and you can't go asking for a better game as that part of the argument has already been reached and is beyond contention at this point) AND if we're allowed to classify games as immune to reviews or criticism, will you hypocrites come crying back with your torches and pitchforks when a game YOU DO NOT LIKE gets released without a professional review?
Never said that it shouldn't be reviewed or criticized, merely that no one intelligent is going to give it a bad review. You can give it a 50 if you want, but I would highly doubt that that 50 would be based on an *informed*, *thoughtful*, and *unbiased* opinion of the game.
I think asking for a better game is still an important point - mainly in the sense that we should ask: "What can an RTS game do better to become a better RTS game and improve the genre?". I believe SC2 has hit some of the points, and while I mentioned a few possible ideas earlier in the thread that could make it better, I'd still suggest that we've hit a relative high point for RTS gaming as it stands right now. I believe that doing almost everything a genre demands for the epitome of that genre at least deserves credit when it comes to scoring it - after all, what are we basing that score on? I tend to think we base it at least in part on what we've seen games do, and the promise of what the genre can and could do in the future. To that end I think SC2 has met the benchmark.
