Review: StarCraft II

[abija]

What's your point about The Little One? I;d have said that shows Supreme Commander in a good light, no? Having just played it earlier today, it is significantly harder in every aspect then SC2 - scale, unit composition, micro and macro.

So why did he stop playing SupCom since SC2 beta if it's so much better? Yes, curiosity makes you take a look. Curiosity doesn't make you switch game to a product in development if SupCom is that much better.
Btw, here's what he has to say about SC2:
"Oh, there are so many things about StarCraft II I can't really pick one thing. It is so good! It has this perfect balance between macro, micro, multitasking and decision making. Hence many different styles can emerge. There is not one correct way to play it but tons of different paths that lead to victory."

you may really enjoy it as it is just better than SC2 as it forces a balance in the gameplay that results in strategy that isn't purely based on unit composition.

Btw, this statement of yours has been proven wrong time and time again, yet you still spout it across as a well known and accepted fact. Yes, regardless of what you think, an army that according to excel should lose, can very easy win in SC2 if it's handled better.
Btw, I could easily trash DoW2. I was annoyed by many little things in it and most of them are what you call evolution of the genre. But it's a matter of preference and unlike you I'm not so full of myself to try and prove everyone else has bad taste...

 

[abija]

Maybe he stopped playing SupCom because it's a three year old game, and if you haven't mastered a game in about a year, you suck at gaming.
You guys seem to be able to play the same game day in day out for years. Where on earth is the challenge in that? Wash, rinse, repeat gets old fast, and for you guys to be banging on about SC2 which is essentially SC1 repackaged, you clearly must enjoy repetition.
Guess what - that description doesn't mention SupCom so what is your point? I never said SC2 is bad, I said it's average because it's nothing at all new, and just an old game reboxed. If you are into simple dated RTS' good for you. If not, well it's not going to be the RTS you are looking for.
All you guys are trying to claim it's so good but all of you are not fans of the genre? If you've never played a racing game other than Forza, would you try to argue it's the best racer? I hope not because you must realise you don't have any ground to stand on with which to base an opinion or more essentially a relative comparison.

So, SupCom is a 3 yeard old game guy gets bored then he goes to a repackaged version of an older game? Hmm, conflicting logic much?
And again with the "not fans of the genre" argument same as with the "all strategy in SC is about unit counters" one. People contradict you with examples, you ignore them and keep trolling your way.

You guys seem to be able to play the same game day in day out for years. Where on earth is the challenge in that?

You blame people for not speaking from experience yet many of your arguments like this one seem to come from a single player oriented perspective. The challenge is in your opponent. And the more a game and its community lasts, the better is that challenge.

 

[abija]

He also played BW. And no he doesn't need to be 30 to have been competitive at Brood War since the game's competitive scene didn't die in 1 year...

Yes the opponent is a challenge, but if you haven't mastered MP, or doing pretty well at it in a year, you suck. I mastered DoW in less time than that and other RTS', so how can people be playing the same RTS day in, day out for years? Somehow I can't imagine them being the brightest kids in the class.

So a chess champion is the retard of his class, otherwise he wouldn't play the same thing for a so many years, right?
Funny enough you're the not bright one. Otherwise you would realize that when you get good, you might find pleasure in playing other people that are also good.

People don't contradict me - they say retarded ideas which I prove to be just retarded.

You didn't prove anything since you started trolling in this thread. Absolutely ZERO. All you did was refuse arguments which is a whole different story.

Like claiming it's how you use a unit, not composition that matters is nonsense. A zealot rush is not going to win against marauders with concussive shell. Simple as that.

See, again, you refuse arguments. Marauders are in no way a counter to zealots. It's actually quite the other way around. So you just proved that if you micro a unit in combat abusing one of it's abilities you can win fights that go the other way around according to excel.

 

[abija]

Meh, edit fail.

 

[metalhead467]

Maybe he stopped playing SupCom because it's a three year old game, and if you haven't mastered a game in about a year, you suck at gaming.
You guys seem to be able to play the same game day in day out for years. Where on earth is the challenge in that? Wash, rinse, repeat gets old fast, and for you guys to be banging on about SC2 which is essentially SC1 repackaged, you clearly must enjoy repetition.
Guess what - that description doesn't mention SupCom so what is your point? I never said SC2 is bad, I said it's average because it's nothing at all new, and just an old game reboxed. If you are into simple dated RTS' good for you. If not, well it's not going to be the RTS you are looking for.
All you guys are trying to claim it's so good but all of you are not fans of the genre? If you've never played a racing game other than Forza, would you try to argue it's the best racer? I hope not because you must realise you don't have any ground to stand on with which to base an opinion or more essentially a relative comparison.

So, SupCom is a 3 yeard old game guy gets bored then he goes to a repackaged version of an older game? Hmm, conflicting logic much?
And again with the "not fans of the genre" argument same as with the "all strategy in SC is about unit counters" one. People contradict you with examples, you ignore them and keep trolling your way.

You guys seem to be able to play the same game day in day out for years. Where on earth is the challenge in that?

You blame people for not speaking from experience yet many of your arguments like this one seem to come from a single player oriented perspective. The challenge is in your opponent. And the more a game and its community lasts, the better is that challenge.

Well unless he's 30, he probably never played SC1 to a decent level and some variation is better than none. Even I would choose SC2 over playing the same game for more than 3 years.
People don't contradict me - they say retarded ideas which I prove to be just retarded. Like claiming it's how you use a unit, not composition that matters is nonsense. A zealot rush is not going to win against marauders with concussive shell. Simple as that.
Plus no one here has actually said why SC2 is better than the competition, mainly due to the fact they haven't played the competition and are speaking from a point of sheer ignorance.
Yes the opponent is a challenge, but if you haven't mastered MP, or doing pretty well at it in a year, you suck. I mastered DoW in less time than that and other RTS', so how can people be playing the same RTS day in, day out for years? Somehow I can't imagine them being the brightest kids in the class.

I have a question. What's wrong with just accepting that people have different tastes than you? Most people just see a good review for a game they don't like, say "Meh, not the game for me," and go play a game that they do like. Instead you come in here and start acting like This game's existance is a direct insult to you and calling pretty much everyone who enjoys Starcraft 2 a retard who's terrible at video games. Do you see us mocking you for enjoying DoW?

[sub]oh god I'm feeding the troll[/sub]

 

[abija]

Yes look how it all started. With you being pissed that Blizzard ignored everything Relic did without even playing the game.
Fact is which ever game you like more is down to personal preference.
And on top of it you refuse any arguments. For example If I say I prefer Blizzard's artstyle, I hate cover systems (mostly because they ruined shooters but the hate transfered to any type of game for me), I don't like squad based mechanics and the streamlined resource systems... you're gonna start to ramble how Blizzard doesn't have an art style and graphics are shit cause it's only DX9, how cover and squad mechanics add tactical depth while the only element of SC2 is unit composition and how every RTS fan hates the old school resource gathering/base building.

 

[metalhead467]

Most of the "completely inane" reasons aren't much more inane than yours. Most of your arguments seem to be boiling down to that you don't like the graphics, you don't like the design choices, and you just prefer other things. And saying that all of us have been raving about Starcraft 2 without having played any other RTS's is blatantly false. Have you even been reading anyone else's posts?

 

[Shale_Dirk]

So if you are arguing that Call of Duty or Halo build on their previous iterations...meh. They progressed less than Half-life did. Call of Duty and Halo both look fairly comparable to their predecessors, whereas Half-life 2 was a big graphical jump. Sure the stories were hashed out a little further, but again, that's where the income from making largely successful IP's go.

Your 'inane' romance between Raynor and Kerrigan was well-documented in SC and SC:BW. Just because you are ignoring the storyline, wearing earplugs, and yelling inanely to drown out the voices doesn't mean it wasn't there. Secondly, I've yet to find many romantic comedies that play on the "my girlfriend was turned into an alien hive queen" cliché.

Can you play SC2 on full-ultra settings? You need a video card with a dedicated Gb of memory and GPU over 750 GHz. Yes, it's not graphically demanding if you're playing the game on medium, but at full-ultra settings, it is incredibly demanding from a graphical standpoint.

By basic definition, some units shouldn't fight others, but that doesn't preclude you from finding tactics that allow you to make them work. Marauders can be highly effective against zealots if you can set them in a rear-facing line, have a medivac for backup, or gain high-ground advantage. Zealots can be highly effective against marauders if you can surround the marauders so they spread out their attack. Tactics sir. Tactics.

Perfect Dark isn't necessarily a bad example, but your persistence with it is annoying.

Oh, and this is Dethklok:

snip

Do some research as to why the reference was relevant.

No I was saying that it's not unheard of for sequels to be completely over-hyped, whereas innovate games tend to be praised, but fans always ignore these innovative games.
Holy sh*t, they progressed less than Half-Life? Yeah because melee attacks, quick use grenades, regen health and a two weapon system aren't still seen in FPS' today...
Half Life 2 wasn't a large graphical jump - Doom 3 was a graphical jump, Half Life 2 was not.
No, there was no "Twooo luv" bullsh*t in SC and Brood War between Kerrigan and Raynor. Play the games as your memory is clearly rusty.
Try the cliché of the criminal turning on the good guy at the end, or that so obvious you missed it?
A full dedicated GB of memory! Oh my, it's not as if most gaming GPUs do that with ease - what about DX? What type of memory? DDR3 or 5? The fact that in the final mission on char, when the pulse goes off the engine struggles to deal with it as on ultra the FPS was still at around 40 but the graphics engine struggles with it. If you knew much about PC gaming, it's not uncommon for the higher settings in a game to be really poorly optimised, and that is exactly what we see in effect in SC2. Plus saying it's "incredibly demanding" is nothing shy of hilarious. Go find some games which actually are, like Metro 2033, as clearly you don't know anything about the PC gaming market.
No - you cannot make Marauders work against Void Rays. And you cannot make a lot of combinations work because units were designed to be good against features like armour. No zealots would only work against a marauder if the Terran player is autistic and unable to do basic upgrades like concussive shells. Of course I'm talking about playing a competent player. - you are not.
I keep on mentioned Perfect Dark XBL because it blows all your arguments out the f**king water. It's an old game, that is based on a solid engine, and does the job - exactly what people say about the core of SC2. However for some bizarre reason some people decide to think that FPS' date, but RTS' don't. I'll tell you why this is; because most people tend not to play RTS' and so when they get their hands on SC2 they don't realise how dated it is because they have nothing to compare it to.
And no, I'm not going to do some research into some random cartoon because I have better things to do. Frankly, anything is better than looking up some weird obscure reference mentioned by someone on a forum.

Holy derp. Sequels use the same basic gameplay structure as their predecessors?!? I'm so surprised! Of course Half-life 2 used the same "melee attack, quick use grenades, regen health and a two weapon system" that the original did (btw, it didn't. Thanks for again showing your ignorance). I think if you weren't so ignorant, you would realize that argument was so wrong it slapped every fps game developer from companies that don't start with "Activision" in the face.

Obviously you miss out on the whole "subtlety" aspect of storytelling. To anyone above the age of 12, Raynor and Kerrigan's relationship was quite obvious, just like how most people figured out from the first 3 hours of SCII that

Spoiler

Tychus was probably not there under his own power and was likely going to do something stupid by the end, especially with Tosh's constant hints towards it. [Edit - Upon reflection, this is what you were referring to in your original comment. However, the cliché is useful in showing that even one of his oldest compatriots is not nearly as imporant as redeeming himself for the guilt he feels over Kerrigan]

Throwing around acronyms and numbers does not intelligence make. To answer your questions, however, 9, and GDDR3. Using DX9 was a choice made by Blizzard to ensure that most people could play the game, but Ultra is still too demanding for most systems. This comes down to your understanding of what "graphically demanding" means. Oh my yes, Crysis and Metro 2033 look quite graphically demanding, with their high texture and polygon count. Modern RTS's are graphically demanding as they can have upwards of 400 units on the screen pulling from a stack of maybe 10 different animations. (ie, running/moving/flying, attacking, being attacked, dying, being blown up, etc.) With basic mathematics, we can show that with these numbers, and a ballpark estimate of 10 unit types on two teams of 200 in total, (200total/10unit types = 20 units per type x 10 animations = 200 separate animations per type x 10 types = ) you can have up to 2000 separate animations being used in HD at any given time per team. As a note, this number obviously dwindles with less units being able to fit into the screen, but it is theoretically possible to encounter a situation such as this. This is why the last Protoss side-mission caps out most systems. Advanced modern fps's are graphically demanding for different reasons - but mainly because the visual quality is higher, and objects are being affected by a very deep main visual script that controls effects like fire damage and physics. This game is graphically demanding, and your ignorance is not a defense against that point.

You never mentioned void rays in your first comment against me, and being a strawman about "1337 micro" is only proving the weakness of your argument.

Firstly, I'm not arguing anything about SCII being dated or not dated. SC is an antiquated, yet classic game. Modernizing it while not changing the basic core structure is everything the fans asked for, and Blizzard delivered. There is no further argument that can and should be made about it. Fans asked for something, and Blizzard gave it to them. Secondly, Perfect Dark XBL was not a sequel being pushed to modern technological standards. It was a remake using essentially the same textures and polygons, just processed by modern video output. Here's the main deal: some fps's date, and some rts's date. People still play CounterStrike, for example, and it is fairly dated, just like how people still play Starcraft despite it being dated. Your elitism is not representative of the majority, and your condescensions add nothing to the debate except contempt.

And I think your unwillingness to become less ignorant, even with something as simple as a cartoon reference is the ultimate proof of how far your opinions can be thrown.

 

[ecoho]

ATTENTION ALL STARCRAFT 2 SUPORTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP FEEEDING THE TROLL IGNORE HIM AND HE WILL GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this has been a public servce messige from ecoho

ok now that thats out of the way anyone know when heart of the swarm is comeing out?

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

Using bad games which were innovative doesn't mean no innovation is a good idea.

Right, but it does mean that innovation for the sake of innovation is an inherently good thing. Innovating can create good games (DoW) and not innovating can create good games (SCII).

How are you not bored of playing the same damn set up from 12 years ago?

How do I play Chess, Risk, Axis and Allies, Settlers of Catan or any given card game that NEVER changes for years and years? Competition against equally skilled opponents. With competition, it's always new- you can predict player tendencies and yet players will do unpredictable things.

Fact is with your RTS repertoire you clearly are not an RTS fan and so cannot comment about the successful innovation in the genre.

Dude, are you for real? I give you a list of RTS's I've played: CnC, Age of Empires II and III, Warcraft II, SCBW, SCII, Empire At War, Battle for Middle Earth II and I could add more: I went back and played WC: Orcs and Humans, Age of Empires I, CnC Tiberian Sun, Age of Mythology, Galactic Battlegrounds, but because I haven't played the ONE game you happen to like, I'm not a fan of the RTS genre?

How can you argue about the value of innovation when you haven't played the games which do it well? You can't look at the sh*t games and claim that's not a hideously flawed argument as innovation is something that sticks with genres e.g. Regen health from Halo: CE is now the main stream health system in almost all FPS'. If something is done well, it usually sticks around until it evolves into something better and so forth. Bad innovation can be written of as it's just that - bad. Good innovation however should stick around until it is improved?

How can I argue about innovation? Because I'm assuming that DoW did make a good game because of it's innovation. I don't know if you caught that in your trolling. I agree that innovation CAN make a good game. It made DoW. However, I can argue about innovation, because I have seen it other games and see it fail. Therefore, innovation works, but not all the time. That's my position and considering you think those other games suck, it ought to be your position too.
My extension to that argument that there are other games that are good, but don't innovate (and games that don't innovate and suck as well.) I happen to think

As I said how are you not bored of a 12 year old game mechanic? Clearly you haven't played many RTS' if that's the case, which it is, and it just turns into the Amazonian and his B&W TV claiming it's the best TV evar because he's never seen a different one.
How the hell are you not bored of playing essentially the same game for over 3 years!?!?!?!? Good god, I'd mastered DoW within one year and the following expansions within a month or two...

Honestly, if I took your method of arguing, I could argue that you are simply a flash-in-the-pan RTS'er who never has the patience to find any strategical depth. Especially because you don't seem to appreciate the how SCBW has been pushed to the limits in Korea- including muta micro that was only discovered a few years ago.

It just sounds like SC2 fans are really, really bad at gaming in general if they play the same game day in day out for such a long time.
I think SC2 is okay, but it is completely over hyped and it seems most of the people who are claiming "Bezt gaem evar" have no actual RTS experience at all.

Tell that to the top SCII players or top Korean SCBW players. I'm sure you could easily beat them at their own game, they are SUCH bad gamers.
Note, the only person that has ever written SCII is the "Bezt gaem evar" is you. Don't put words into our mouths. We said it was a good game, but you deny even that.

Plus sounds like you're not really a gamer, which I suspect with many SC2 fans. If your PC can't handle SC2 all that well, then damn, stop being cheap and get a new PC, otherwise stop talking about PC games as if you have experience with them.

Right. I get it. You are a better RTSer than me and at FPS, and any PC or console game because you are teh_pwnerer 'life must suck to be a noob.' I'm cheap. I'm a Mennonite and a poor uni student. I buy movies in the bargain bin and play a lot of old-school computer games. I don't mind not playing the newest, flashiest game with the latest gimmick as long as it has solid gameplay, good competition, and replay value. Maybe I'm not a gamer, yet I game.

 

[FlameUnquenchable]

Throwing around acronyms and numbers does not intelligence make. To answer your questions, however, 9, and GDDR3. Using DX9 was a choice made by Blizzard to ensure that most people could play the game, but Ultra is still too demanding for most systems. This comes down to your understanding of what "graphically demanding" means. Oh my yes, Crysis and Metro 2033 look quite graphically demanding, with their high texture and polygon count. Modern RTS's are graphically demanding as they can have upwards of 400 units on the screen pulling from a stack of maybe 10 different animations. (ie, running/moving/flying, attacking, being attacked, dying, being blown up, etc.) With basic mathematics, we can show that with these numbers, and a ballpark estimate of 10 unit types on two teams of 200 in total, (200total/10unit types = 20 units per type x 10 animations = 200 separate animations per type x 10 types = ) you can have up to 2000 separate animations being used in HD at any given time per team. As a note, this number obviously dwindles with less units being able to fit into the screen, but it is theoretically possible to encounter a situation such as this. This is why the last Protoss side-mission caps out most systems. Advanced modern fps's are graphically demanding for different reasons - but mainly because the visual quality is higher, and objects are being affected by a very deep main visual script that controls effects like fire damage and physics. This game is graphically demanding, and your ignorance is not a defense against that point.

To add to this, after using the map editor to look at some of the settings in the later maps in that campaign the unit limits for the computers are different than that of the player, so you can increase that by almost 2x, plus there are some very fancy triggers running at all times from what I've seen. Having the computer deal with that many units, ambient animation loops, real time animations, spawns, rallies, AI scripts, etc. that all demand ultra high graphical quality can be very demanding in a volume sense.

 

[MrHero17]

snip

Go play a decent RTS then get back to me. Until then your review is just ignorance built upon fan nonsense.

So your saying that the original Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Starcraft and Age of Empires are not important RTS's?

 

[bloodyguard]

TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE IS A CHEAT!!!!!!!!