Poll: Starcraft 2: whats all the hype about?

[gagalloogie]

Right so starcraft 2 is coming out, now personally i only played the original a couple of time and way after it came out, but i really can't see why so many people are excited about. The main problem i have with Starcraft 2 is that it looks like a classic RTS, (the first type of game i played = Age of empires etc.)and after playing many different genres i realised RTS had very little strategy element, essensially build troops, collect reasorces: archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc. for me RTS is a dying genre that cannot live up to others in todays gaming world, being neither particularly exciting or strategic.

Anyway my point is this, i don't think that even with the shiny new graphics Starcraft 2 will build on the RTS genre, it won't suddenly make it good, and i can't see why so many people are desperate for it, especially with other better releases due to come out later in the year (for me Fallout New Vegas)

What are your opinions on Starcraft 2 and RTS games in general?

EDIT: let me elaborate over "very little strategy", what i mean is that RTS games try to fit the very complex procedure of a "real" strategy (that is the complex aquisition of specific resources, researching technologies over long periods of time, wars lasting years etc.) into a small time space, which just feels cheap, i mean ffs some RTS games have 1 resource which is used to produce everything. The worst part is that at the end of the game (1 hours +) you have acheived nothing, except the ability to start again....and its not as though you can say RTS have any story resemblence really...sure somepeople will argue there is a story, but cmon RTS games can never have as much emersion as other genres, especially in the storyline department

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

No. I despise RTS games.

The thing I don't like about them is the lack of persistence. You play a long multiplayer match, you win or lose...and the next match, you're back to square one.

Give me something for my time.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I would get it but only because my own RTS collection is very out of date. I enjoy RTS games, it makes me feel like I'm actually commanding an army during a war. If you want a good RTS title, try Blitzkrieg 2. You can't spam troops in it do to limited operational reserves and you have to be very careful not to overextend yourself.

 

[reg42]

A lot of people like the classic Starcraft gameplay, and this is building upon it and giving it a shiny new look, so I can understand the excitement.

I've never been able to get much into RTS games. The latest one I've been actually into is Stronghold 2, which is more of a kingdom sim anyway.

 

[Cherry Cola]

i realised RTS had very little strategy element

....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That might just be the most uneducated claim about a gaming genre I've seen in quite some time.

Try having that attitude while going against some of the pros.

Starcraft 2 isn't just an RTS, it's (By the looks of it anyway) an RTS tweaked to perfection.

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

 

[Sev72]

I still play the original Starcraft and am an avid fan of RTS in general (my favorite being the Total War series) I may be a tad biased. I would argue there is strategy in Starcraft and RTS in general. Maybe not in the campaigns or anything but if you have twice the number of units I do and you just throw them at me I will win if I use strategy. Some units counter other units, but using different strategies you can negate that in part.

The simplified version is, a person using strategy will win against someone who isn't using strategy every time. So I would disagree.

 

[Aptspire]

The hype is about getting a long awaited game whose first iteration had a whole lot of customization available ^-^ (granted, the units still looked the same, but at least zombie games felt like zombies imo)

 

[gagalloogie]

i realised RTS had very little strategy element

....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That might just be the most uneducated claim about a gaming genre I've seen in quite some time.

Try having that attitude while going against some of the pros.

Starcraft 2 isn't just an RTS, it's (By the looks of it anyway) an RTS tweaked to perfection.

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

yeah whatever man, as i said when it comes right down to it, all it's just a matter of knowing which unit kills which other unit.

 

[Horticulture]

Yup, no strategy here:

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

No. I despise RTS games.

The thing I don't like about them is the lack of persistence. You play a long multiplayer match, you win or lose...and the next match, you're back to square one.

Give me something for my time.

God, are you also one of those people who hates MMOs and games like counter strike for the same reason?

Aww hell naw.

But all the build up in RTS...for nothing but a victory or loss.

MMOs give you levels and loot.

CS...never actually played it. Don't really want to.

 

[Cherry Cola]

i realised RTS had very little strategy element

....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That might just be the most uneducated claim about a gaming genre I've seen in quite some time.

Try having that attitude while going against some of the pros.

Starcraft 2 isn't just an RTS, it's (By the looks of it anyway) an RTS tweaked to perfection.

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

yeah whatever man, as i said when it comes right down to it, all it's just a matter of knowing which unit kills which other unit.

No. No it really isn't. Only someone with virtually no experience in the RTS genre would say that.

 

[Avaholic03]

You're clearly missing the point. Starcraft 2 isn't supposed to revolutionize RTS games or draw in new fans. The SC franchise already has a very large and loyal following. SC2 is just to give the fans what they want: a game that's very similar to the one they love, but looks like it was made in this century. Also, to throw in a few new missions for those who actually follow the SC storyline. Mission accomplished.

 

[Snowalker]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

 

[SturmDolch]

I never played Starcraft, except once about 10 years ago or whenever it was still cool. I did play Warcraft II and liked it. Warcraft III sucked though. One of the worst games I have ever had the misfortune of playing. I'm not sure if I'm getting SC2. My friend is freaking out about it... I'm just worried it'll be mediocre, and that I'd wish I'd spent money on a Paradox Interactive game instead.

I love the Age of Empires games, though. I played Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds (an Age of Empires Star Wars clone) for years and have logged a few thousand hours on it I'm sure.

My favourite RTS is Europa Universalis III... Paradox Interactive makes amazing RTS games. And with those games, I'd have to disagree with:

The thing I don't like about them is the lack of persistence. You play a long multiplayer match, you win or lose...and the next match, you're back to square one.

Give me something for my time.

You can play the first game from Paradox, then move your savegame to the next timeline and continue playing. I believe you can get a few centuries of gameplay out of that.

And to:

yeah whatever man, as i said when it comes right down to it, all it's just a matter of knowing which unit kills which other unit.

That's strategy, though, isn't it? Also, coordinating your units in the correct formation, flanking your opponent, balancing defence and offence...

Now, Warcraft III didn't give me a sense of strategy, unless "build up giant army before other guy and zerg rush" is considered strategy. If it is, it's weak.

 

[reg42]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

Well it's an RPG built around FPS mechanics.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

I know, it's sort of the point with my allegory. Judging a game based on what it looks like rather than what it actually is. True, liking the misconception that Bethesda's RPG's are FPS games to the misunderstanding of the RTS' genre may be a bit harsh, but I feel like it gets the point through.

Or because of this, maybe not...