Poll: Starcraft 2: whats all the hype about?

[Onyx Oblivion]

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.

Can't the same thing be argued for online FPS games? After every match you're back to how you started the last one? As a genre, RPG's would seem to have the strongest examples of persistence, but that's because their central element (no matter how disjointed) is the story and as far as online content goes I have not played an MMORPG with anything more than basic flavor text spread liberally over "Go find these guys, kill them dead, take their stuff".

Yes, but FPS games have started giving you unlocks with ranks now. And matches tend to be 10 minutes, tops.

I know this is going to sound frank, but there is no other way to put it; are you saying that FPS's now allow you to level up and gain access to new abilities and weapons, and that's what gives them variety and persistence? Doesn't that just mean that you have to grind in an FPS in order to play the game with the load-out or abilities that you wanted in the first place, or are you referring to unlocks that don't directly affect gameplay? I will have to admit ignorance here, as the only FPS's I play multiplayer are LFD2, GoW2 and Borderlands, but it sounds like you're suggesting that grinding substantial amounts of time on an FPS (as I assume the more desirable unlocks take more than one match to obtain) is preferable to the 10-20 minutes required to progress up the tiers in an RTS, to say nothing of Quickstart games which can have you fighting with the biggest, most powerful units in minutes.
.

In FPS games, I use what I got. I tend to not notice much of a difference. I'm not going for a specific gun or set. I like to experiment, so unlocks like new guns are nice. As for Quickstart, I'll check that out. Shame my laptop can't run SC2.

 

[Baconmonster723]

I agree with you, the total war series (and as u said, this will probably result in "educated rebbuttles") offer a greater strategy element and feels more epic than most RTS games

Although having said that the Ai in some of the total war games is abysmal, I'm not sure what they did when making Napoleon:TW but sometimes the engine just falls over...

But when playing against real people it is much more of a pure strategy game rather then shitty micro managing, selecting 50 units and just clicking attack or a memory game of which buildings to make after the first 20 seconds of play.

Total War is beginning to lose me. I love the franchise. It's a blast. I have every game through Napoleon. But unless they get their **** together in the next game and make a halfway decent AI, I'm done. They make the AI cheat to stand a chance and it has really turned me off to the series. They essentially make the player come up with mods to help the AI stay on its own feet after being just.....awful. The sad thing is, the game AI isn't better as you increase the difficulty, it just gives it absurd bonuses and penalizes the player. Which means that you don't get much more of a challenge, you just take longer to kill stuff. It's really getting sad.

I'm not getting it because I'm awful at RTS games, but I'm guessing that all the hype is because of oh, I dunno... Starcraft sold more than 11 Million copies worldwide, maybe?

This. It is the highest RTS game of all time, and has maintained a significant following 12 years after it's release. So you know, no other reason other than that though......wait......

 

[Enigmers]

I just don't think that RTS games are interesting enough to hold a persons attention, once you've played a few games of an RTS, you probably won't see anything new in the next 1000 games, when an RTS game finishes, the result has no further impact

When an RTS game finishes, you are, hopefully, a better player than you were before. You know, just like in any competitive game, sport, or activity. I can tell you that out of 1000 games of Starcraft (if I've even played that many) each one was different and full of surprises.

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.

On the contrary, the RTS is the one genre I think needs constant thinking, adapting, and strategizing in order to win. With an FPS, you can usually keep moving and shoot whatever comes your way, in an RPG you can sit there and grind without much real thought, or you can walk around and open treasure chests and kill monsters for equipment, but that's more discovery than strategy.

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

Starcraft II has more than shiny new graphics, I suppose if you had played it you'd know. (Then again, if you had played it maybe you wouldn't have started this thread to begin with.)

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

First Person Shooters must have no strategy at all then, since essentially what they try to do is take a long period of war and compress it into a meaningless five-minute shootout between two squads of whiny 12-year olds with microphones.

There is a lot of story and lore and character behind the Starcraft universe. I find myself thinking about the conflict between the races even when I'm not playing the game, how the Zerg are like a huge, rampaging virus, spreading uncontrollably, how the Protoss are desperately trying to incinerate all the planets with Zerg presence, how the Terran are caught up in the middle of this conflict.

Starcraft II has exactly what you said, the complex acquisition of resources and development of technology, etc. etc. The idea is that A: there are lots of mineral patches and vespene geysers on the map, and you need to control and watch over as many as possible in order to gain the most resources you can get to build more units, constantly. But the issue is that, not only do you have to get to a particular space first, but you need to defend it from continued onslaught. Focusing too much on your economy will leave you open to attack, whereas focusing too much on your defenses will drain you while your opponent slowly gains a huge advantage over you until your defeat is guaranteed.
As for the "technology" there are many different "paths" and combinations of units you can focus on which are all powerful at different points in the game against different units, etc. etc. I could go for an early-game force of Zealots, Stalkers, and Templars, or I may note that my Terran enemy is focusing heavily on Siege Tanks and decide to go for a more air-based approach, focusing more on Void Rays and Phoenixes in case he builds more anti-air later in the game. Your long-term strategy varies greatly depending on what you're comfortable with, what your opponent is using, what resources you have available, and, of course, what you think looks cool. (Personally, I like going for Zealots, Stalkers, and Dark Templar, with Sentries and High Templar for support, because I think those units are cool.)

COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual)

You're comparing a game that has been in development for years, constantly re-developed, re-iterated, and polished, to a game that's being re-skinned and churned out every year.

I, um, wow.

 

[Mr. Socky]

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

I take it you've never played a real strategy game? Like the Starcraft 2 beta? Or Dawn of War 2? Or any decent strategy game that has come out in the last ten years?

If you don't like strategy games, go back to whatever games you do like, and stop making uninformed statements about a genre you clearly don't understand.

 

[sune26]

Well I'm personally buying it since I'm a huge blizzard fanboy and I always liked RTS games especially Warcraft 3 I probably spent the majority of my "childhood" on that game.
Although i never really liked the old starcraft, but that was when i was around 7 years old i first got it, and it was already old by then, so as a 7 year old I only cared about graphics, but luckily that changed.
So now the Starcraft 2 beta is already taking all my time and completely pushed MW2 out of my schedule.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Not really into strategy games, partly because I suck at them. I find it dull playing against bots, but whenever I've tried one online, i've just had my ass handed to me, and unlike other games where I suck, but eventaully get better through practice, when I play RTS's, losing takes about an hour, and is an absolute, so I can never improve.

Still going to give starcraft a try though, because it looks interesting. Maybe it'll change my view on RTS's, and before long i'll be humping my screen with the best of 'em.

 

[Enigmers]

It is a bit that they're releasing one campaign at a time though, or did they give a reason for that which I missed?

The reason is that the Terran campaign on its own is bigger than an elephant that feeds on a diet of steroid-using hippopotamuses Then they realized they could make each campaign this long.

From what I heard, the Terran campaign alone takes longer to beat than all of SC1's campaign. Now imagine, we're getting three of those campaigns, and each one also releases numerous units for use on battle.net (from what I'm assuming, though I could be wrong.)

 

[gagalloogie]

First Person Shooters must have no strategy at all then, since essentially what they try to do is take a long period of war and compress it into a meaningless five-minute shootout between two squads of whiny 12-year olds with microphones.

There is a lot of story and lore and character behind the Starcraft universe. I find myself thinking about the conflict between the races even when I'm ot playing the game, how the Zerg are like a huge, rampaging virus, spreading uncontrollably, how the Protoss are desperately trying to incinerate all the planets with Zerg presence, how the Terran are caught up in the middle of this conflict.

Starcraft II has exactly what you said, the complex acquisition of resources and development of technology, etc. etc. The idea is that A: there are lots of mineral patches and vespene geysers on the map, and you need to control and watch over as many as possible in order to gain the most resources you can get to build more units, constantly. But the issue is that, not only do you have to get to a particular space first, but you need to defend it from continued onslaught. Focusing too much on your ecnomoy will leave you open to attack, whereas focusing too much on your defenses will drain you while your opponent slowly gains a huge advantage over you until your defeat is guaranteed.
As for the "technology" there are many different "paths" and combinations of units you can focus on which are all powerful at diferent points in the game against different units, etc. etc. I could go for an early-game force of Zealots, Stalkers, and Templars, or I may note that my Terran enemy is focusing heavily on Seige Tanks and decide to go for a more air-based approach, focusing more on Void Rays and Phoenixes in case he builds more anti-air later in the game. Your long-term strategy varies greatly depending on what you're comfortable with, what your opponent is using, what resources you have available, and, of course, what you think looks cool. (Personally, I like going for Zealots, Stalkers, and Dark Templar, with Sentries and High Templar for support, because I think those units are cool.)

COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual)

You're comparing a game that has been in development for years, constantly re-developed, re-iterated, and polished, to a game that's being re-skinned and churned out every year.

I, um, wow.

Yeah FPS aren't really about strategy, and as for "I, um, wow." well considering, as you said, its recycled crap; COD is still really fun to play, and thank you at least for providing evidence why Starcraft will be worth buying (which is what i aimed to recieve), i might be prejudiced against it, but i haven't played it yet and i wanted to know why people are so hyped up about it, beleive me i play all kinds of games and am not such an opinionated troll as this thread suggests

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

I was a big fan of StarCraft and was eagerly awating the sequel. But as time has gone on and as One game has become Three games and then when local LAN support was dropped for no good reason, well my interest has waned into non-existence.

I don't plan to get it. And as much fun as StarCraft 1 was to play with friends, I'm not into crazy competetive B.net multiplayer and I don't want to have to buy three games just to get the story for the single player experience, even though SC1's single player was awesome.

So I guess what I'm saying is "En Taro Adun, SC2".

 

[gagalloogie]

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

I take it you've never played a real strategy game? Like the Starcraft 2 beta? Or Dawn of War 2? Or any decent strategy game that has come out in the last ten years?

If you don't like strategy games, go back to whatever games you do like, and stop making uninformed statements about a genre you clearly don't understand.

I like strategy games and some RTS games included, however from what i'd heard, until a few decent posts actually gave evidence, Starcraft 2 sounded pretty RTS classic with little strategy.

BTW- Dawn of war 2 is not good official, (according to critics), i thought it was meh borderline OK, but only played it a few times.

 

[Enigmers]

Yeah FPS aren't really about strategy, and as for "I, um, wow." well considering, as you said, its recycled crap; COD is still really fun to play, and thank you at least for providing evidence why Starcraft will be worth buying (which is what i aimed to recieve), i might be prejudiced against it, but i haven't played it yet and i wanted to know why people are so hyped up about it, beleive me i play all kinds of games and am not such an opinionated troll as this thread suggests

I'll admit I found Call of Duty 4 fun, but Call of Duty: World at War and MW2 both felt like little more than reskins and expansion packs. I suppose you could say the same for Left 4 Dead 2 and I won't really argue against that, so it's just personal preference, really.

You carry on a more respectful debate than I'd imagined, too, so I respect you for that.

 

[technoted]

Although Starcraft 1 is not my favourite RTS I would say it's the closest to being perfect that I've ever played and if its sequel is anywhere near as good I couldn't care less about "very little strategy" (Still have no idea what makes you say that.) as long as the game itself is fun and enjoyable and I get to Zerg some people.

 

[Cody211282]

]i realised RTS had very little strategy element

RTS's have little strategy but a lot of tactics, they honestly just named the genre wrong

Because it's a sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, and in its multiplayer beta format it's already one of the best games of the year?

Just going out on a limb here.

I'm going to respectfully disagree and go with Mass Effect 2 for best game of the year.

 

[gagalloogie]

]i realised RTS had very little strategy element

RTS's have little strategy but a lot of tactics, they honestly just named the genre wrong

Because it's a sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, and in its multiplayer beta format it's already one of the best games of the year?

Just going out on a limb here.

I'm going to respectfully disagree and go with Mass Effect 2 for best game of the year.

if mass effect 2 was released this year AGREE!!
Daym so many games i can't believe i forgot mass effect 2....i feel ashamed

 

[John Funk]

Because it's a sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, and in its multiplayer beta format it's already one of the best games of the year?

Just going out on a limb here.

The original was good for its time yes, but so was age of empires and i probably wouldn't buy a new age of empires either. But one of the best games of the year...? Apparently i'm in the minority here but i wouldn't say that compared favourably to later releases this year: Fallout new vegas, Civilization 5, COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual), OR some already out: Napoleon TW, STALKER Call of Pripyat

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like RTS games. Of course you won't think so.

SC2 is the most fun I've had with any game so far this year, hands down.

Thats the thing though, I DO like some RTS games, what we need is another Company of Heroes!
I just thing that it will be too like Dawn of War 2, which was baaaaaaaaaaaaaad

I'm going to perhaps drop a bomb by suggesting we don't need "another (GAME X)." There's plenty of room in the market for different types of games within the same genre - to quote Dustin Browder, there isn't one big continuum for RTS game design. I like SC2 for its fluidity, familiarity and very fast-paced, twitch-based nature, but I also like games like CoH. They're both GOOD, they're just different types of games.

And personally, I've always liked StarCraft and its universe much, much, MUCH more than Warhammer 40k.

 

[Enigmers]

]i realised RTS had very little strategy element

RTS's have little strategy but a lot of tactics, they honestly just named the genre wrong

Well, from what I understand, tactics is like strategy, but with more detail and on a smaller scale. So within the context of Starcraft 2, a tactic might be a certain maneouver a group of units does to achieve something. (micromanagement.) whereas strategy is your long-term planning (micromanagement.)

Again, tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[reg42]

It is a bit that they're releasing one campaign at a time though, or did they give a reason for that which I missed?

The reason is that the Terran campaign on its own is bigger than an elephant that feeds on a diet of steroid-using hippopotamuses Then they realized they could make each campaign this long.

From what I heard, the Terran campaign alone takes longer to beat than all of SC1's campaign. Now imagine, we're getting three of those campaigns, and each one also releases numerous units for use on battle.net (from what I'm assuming, though I could be wrong.)

Okay yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Mintycabbage]

As a person who actually has the Starcraft 2 beta, I can happily say that without strategy, you will die, die again and then dies some more. I'll give you a run-down of an average match 1v1 match.
I always play Zerg and lets say I am playing Terran. At the start of the match, I constantly spawn workers until I have reached pop cap. I then build a spawning pool ASAP, spawn an overlord ASAP and build a Vespian Geisar ASAP. Having done that, I then get two zerglings and then the strategy starts. Here is a list of a few possible outcomes:

1) I scout his base and notice he is heavily teching and gathering resources. I will try to roach rush him and then micro manage my troops to do as much damage to his resources and research labs as possible. If he still manages to kill my troops, I a) rush more troops, if his army is weak b) build a base right outside his and contain his resource gathering by building turrets c) focus on resource management myself and quickly expand across the map, trying to out resource him.

2) He has built Supply Depots, blocking my zerglings from scouting his base, I mutate my zerglings into banelings, get a few roaches and, using my banelings, destroy his supply depots. He won't be expecting a rush so he will have no military troops (even then there is no guarantee of that) and hopefully I repeat 1).

3) Having scouted the area, I realise his base is not where it is suppose to be. He has built a base near rich mineral deposits, in the hope that he will rush me. I build up an extremely quick zergling rush force and try to kill him.

So in the matter of three minutes, I have adapted and evolved my strategy, in order to defeat my enemy. I have thought harder than I have done in any FPS or RPG I have ever played. Also these were only a few possible outcomes and I haven't even talked about facing Protoss. Anybody who is excited for this game should be. It is amazing. So do you still think there is no strategy involved in RTSs?