Should I buy Starcraft 2?

[Joccaren]

If you want actual strategy go for Frozen Synapse.

Common mistake from a quick look at the game. Starcraft has plenty of Strategy, if you are willing to learn it. Why do you think Grandmaster league players devastate gold league players? It is because they have mastered the finesse of Starcraft 2 strategy, whilst the gold league players are still only learning it.
It does not have any cover based system, other than terrain height, but that isn't what gives it strategy. You need to know what units to build, and when. You need to know how to specialise those units, and once again when. You need to know whether to build economy, rush or balanced, dependent on the first minute of gameplay.
There is plenty of strategy to be had, it is just more subtle than that of other RTSs

yes, if you are insane and have nothing better to do
and mutiplayer sucks, especially in this game where people believe their rank defines their worth as a person. not a fun thing to get into.
also as far as RTS goes, it is no where near as good as the original, and i'd still put any Command and Conquer game ,generals and before, over this.
honestly, i'm not a fan boy, but a fan boys opinion is hardly subjective.
if you want this, do what i do, wait for the battle chest with all three chapters, saves money

You can get your opinion across without using insults. I play this and my worth as a person is in no way related to my league rank. Also, 'a fan boys opinion is hardly subjective' is an oxymoron. A fanboy is a fanboy as they have a very subjective view of whatever they are a fan of, and thus can't see past their bias most of the time. Fanboys are the epitome of subjective thinkers, objectivity is not to be found with a fan-boy.
The only really helpful advice I have found in this post is the 'buy it when the battle chest comes out', hower, that will take years (HoTS is not due out until next year) and thus, I would not entirely recommend it

 

[DoctorPhil]

I'd say no.
The campaign is very fun to play, the best designed campaign in any RTS yet, but the story is absolute trite, especialy compared to the prequel's one. It doesn't look like you care about that though.
When it comes to online multiplayer, it's nothing special. I've played it for about 4 months, it was fun, but no more fun than any other RTS like Red Alert 3. In fact, I found RA3's multiplayer more fun than this one's (RA3 is a good game, but nowhere near e-sport material). My problem with it is that the game is built around hard counters, whereas Starcraft 1 was all about soft counters. You make the units that counter the other guy's units, you put them in a ball, and you atack move into the enemy. Especially as protoss, even in the start when there was no master league yet, I got rank 1 diamond just by waiting till I have a few colossi (boring a-move units that barely require micro), then taking them and my warpgate units, all selecting them in one or two control groups and for the most part a-moving into the enemy (and force fielding a bit, wich is really easy, requiring no skill).
Starcraft 2's units just require so little input, it makes the games boring to watch. I sucked at Starcraft 1, I didn't know how to play at all (and it was still really fun to play), yet the pro games were so much fun to watch, there's so much going on, and even though I played Starcraft 2 myself, and watched the pro games to get better, they were so boring to watch, because there's just so little going on.
My problem with Starcraft 2 is, it requires so little skill, for the most part it only requires for you to know the best build orders, and you get into masters easy when you do.

Don't take my word though, go to teamliquid.net, wich is the biggest starcraft fansite, and search around in the starcaft 2 section, you'll find very detailed threads written by starcraft 2 players that analise why Starcraft 2 is so lackluster both to watch and to play, especially compared to the prequel. I can give you links if you want.

I kid you not, if this game wasn't the sequel to Starcraft, it wouldn't nearly get the attention it's getting now, it would be written off as just another good-but-not-great RTS.

TL;DR: it's a good game, I had fun with it, but it's not nearly as fantasticly fun to watch and play as you're led to believe. It's not the second coming of e-sports, many SC2 pros agree.

I'd sooner recommend RA3, wich is not amazing by any means, but is slightly more fun and requires more input than Starcraft 2. That or Starcraft, wich I found very fun even though I sucked at it and only played 2v2s-4v4s.

 

[Zeema]

I enjoy Starcraft 2 for all its custom maps

but there still isn't a 'Naruto War's' sigh

but yeah get it i really enjoyed

i Challenge you to beat it on 'Brutal difficulty thou 1st play through

 

[onikaze26]

no, but I'm just saying that because I don't like blizzard, I did have fun with the game before they stopped letting me play because I had the gall to split the cost with my brother and let him register the game.
That and there's no reason to split one game into three and charge people three times over for it, not to mention how long their making you wait for the privilege.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

Don't buy it if you want a life.
Once you get into it - you can't get out.
Personally, I prefer Dawn of War and Company of Heroes in terms of gameplay and aesthetics - but the core mechanics of Starcraft 2 are just so tight that one can get lost in the sheer mind-breaking depth of it.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

Actually - who am I kidding?
Buy Starcraft 2 for the glorious, glorious slightly homoerotic force that is Tastosis - the casting archon.

 

[Joccaren]

Spoiler: I'd say no.

The campaign is very fun to play, the best designed campaign in any RTS yet, but the story is absolute trite, especialy compared to the prequel's one. It doesn't look like you care about that though.
When it comes to online multiplayer, it's nothing special. The multiplayer aspect of the game is only riding on Starcraft 1's succes. It's really nothing special at all. I've played ot for about 4 months, it was fun, but no more fun than any other RTS like Red Alert 3. In fact, I found RE3's multiplayer more fun than this one's, wich is a good game, but nowhere near an e-sport. My problem with it is that the game is built around hard counters, whereas Starcraft 1 was all about soft counters. You make the units that counter the other guy's units, you put them in a ball, and you atack move into the enemy. Especially as protoss, even in the start when there was no master league yet, I got rank 1 diamond just by waiting till I have a few colossi (boring a-move units that barely require micro), then taking them and my warpgate units, all selecting them in one or two control groups and for the most part a-moving into the enemy (and force fielding a bit, wich is really easy, requiring no skill).
Starcraft 2's units just require so little input, it makes the games boring to watch. I sucked at Starcraft 1, I didn't know how to play at all (and it was still really fun to play), yet the pro games were so much fun to watch, there's so much going on, and even though I played Starcraft 2 myself, and watched the pro games to get better, they were so boring to watch, because there's just so little going on.
My problem with Starcraft 2 is, it requires so little skill, for the most part it only requires for you to know the best build orders, and you get into masters easy.

Don't take my word though, go to teamliquid.net, wich is the biggest starcraft fansite, and search around in the starcaft 2 section, you'll find very detailed threads written by starcraft 2 players that analise why Starcraft 2 is so lackluster both to watch and to play, especially compared to the prequel. I can give you links if you want.

I kid you not, if this game wasn't the sequel to Starcraft, it wouldn't nearly get the attention it's getting now, it would be written off as just another good-but-not-great RTS.

TL;DR: it's a good game, I had fun with it, but it's not nearly as fantasticly fun to watch and play as they say.

Hmm, I find it very hard to believe you got to rank 1 diamond just by massing collosi. Even I can see that coming and easily counter it. Were all your opponents incapable of scouting? Didn't they know about air units? Where you never rushed?

I find the hard counter system works quite well. In soft counter systems, your prone to having a mass of one unit that can defeat everything. Having a unit per race that counters heavy units, one that counters light, one that is just basic infantry ect. works well, and that is what SC2 does. The list of units that a unit counters (at least the ones displayed online and in game) are really just lists of which unit from the other race that particular unit worked best against.
For example, Void Rays are said to be weak to marines, whilst if massed (60 or more voids) the voids used to defeat absolutely anything. This brings up another great thing about Starcraft: The constant patches.
Most of the time, people would consider this annoying, with SC2, it balances the game, is only ever a couple of mb, and is quick to occur. These patches fix problems like the overpowered mass voids, the archon toilet, and many others. Blizzard cares about its community, and thus continually fix anything that goes wrong.

The game does come largely down to personal taste, however. I found very little enjoyment in C&C or 40K games, yet I love Starcraft. Even if you don't like the game itself, the endless supply of custom maps (even though most are horrible, but improving) and the communities dedicated to making good custom maps (there are entire websites and forums dedicated to those working on large projects with custom maps for SC2) leave a game somewhere for just about everyone.

At the very least, DL a demo and give it a go. It is definitely worth a try.

 

[DoctorPhil]

snip

Of course it's a slight hyperbole what I said, I'd adapt to my opponent, if they did a build countering colossi, I didn't make them. But if they didn't, I'd always make them, because they're just so damn powerful thanks to the tendency of SC2 units to get in a ball, so the splash hits a lot of units. In most games, colossi + warpgate ball was all I needed to win. Of course I experimented with other builds, but none were as succesful. And I honestly really was rank 1 diamond for as long as I played (that is excluding breaks).
Anyway, my point is, you don't need a lot of micro/macro in SC2 compared to SC (wich is still the only true e-sport). This game is much more about who has the best build order, than who has more knowledge of the game and who is quicker, wich makes the game less interesting.

Blizzard is also balancing the game around both team games, low level games and pro games all at the same time, wich is just impossible. They do this money, attracting the most amount of buyers, for wich you obviously can't blame them, but that still hurts the game. As long as the game isn't properly balanced around pro level games, it'll never become an e-sport and will not require much skill.

Yeah, give the demo a try. I can definitely recommend the campaign if you don't care for story (The campaign alone is not worth 60 bucks though).

 

[marfin_]

No! save yur money for diablo 3 : )

 

[RedDeadFred]

It's probably the most balanced RTS besides the original but in my honest opinion, there is only so many times you can build a base and try to kill your opponent before it starts to get boring.
And everyone who raved about the amazing story....I guess it was alright but nothing really special.
For a large chunk of the game the reason you were going to missions was to get money...
There are some pretty good custom games though.
If you like RTS games you should probably get it. Just prepare to be a bit disappointed in the amount of races. It's half that of BFME2.

 

[zeplon]

Ignore whoever says they hit rank 1 in diamond with collasi. I couldn't get to rank 1 in bronze doing that if I tried (ok, maybe if I had an effeective macro game).

It is an amazing, fast paced and highly competitive game. Thanks to match making you can find a willing opponent at any point in time in the day.

I will be doing a stream of the game on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/by-the-time-you-read-this-i-ll-still-be-in-bronze if you would like to see what early game content looks like. I am in bronze league, so it should look like the games you will be playing the day you open the box.

Also, the new version is not an expansion, it will be a stand alone game. The multiplayer will be the same between both games however.

 

[DoctorPhil]

It's probably the most balanced RTS besides the original but in my honest opinion, there is only so many times you can build a base and try to kill your opponent before it starts to get boring.
And everyone who raved about the amazing story....I guess it was alright but nothing really special.
For a large chunk of the game the reason you were going to missions was to get money...
There are some pretty good custom games though.
If you like RTS games you should probably get it. Just prepare to be a bit disappointed in the amount of races. It's half that of BFME2.

All 3 points he makes are true.
I really don't get how people can call this story great, it completely shits all over the established story of the last, wich had a very cool story and characters. The story feels a lot like a lame hollywood blockbuster, wich is probably intentional, to attract the mainstream crowd. A story like the original was probably way too nerdy.

Custom games are a blast, though I prefer Warcraft 3's custom games, simply because it's been around for much longer. In a few years there'll be some amazing custom maps on SC2 no doubt.

 

[Joccaren]

snip

Of course it's a slight hyperbole what I said, I'd adapt to my opponent, if they did a build countering colossi, I didn't make them. But if they didn't, I'd always make them, because they're just so damn powerful thanks to the tendency of SC2 units to get in a ball, so the splash hits a lot of units. In most games, colossi + warpgate ball was all I needed to win. Of course I experimented with other builds, but none were as succesful. And I honestly really was rank 1 diamond for as long as I played (that is excluding breaks).
Anyway, my point is, you don't need a lot of micro/macro in SC2 compared to SC (wich is still the only true e-sport). This game is much more about who has the best build order, rather than who is the best and quickest, wich makes the game less interesting.

Blizzard is also balancing the game around both team games, low level games and pro games all at the same time, wich is just impossible. They do this money, attracting the most amount of buyers, for wich you obviously can't blame them, but that still hurts the game. As long as the game isn't properly balanced around pro level games, it'll never become an e-sport and will not require much skill.

Yeah, give the demo a try. I can definitely recommend the campaign if you don't care for story (The campaign alone is not worth 60 bucks though).

Hmm, fair enough. I have seen how little people spread out their units in a fight myself (1 Thor take 50 Mutas anyone?) and it really does become pathetic. SC1 had a fair bit more micro and macro, but was also far less balanced.

I'll also agree about the build orders: The game is largely about builds, although someone who micros a bad build can still beat someone who doesn't micro a good one. However, this is where I see the balancing patches as coming into affect. Most of these easy win builds are being eliminated, and making them situational instead (massed voids [they were honestly unstoppable. In a 4v4, I managed to take down all four other players armies of Hydras, marines, Vikings and Stalkers with my 60 void rays, all my allies did for that round was defend me until they were all built] and the Archon toilet [if you don't know what it is, youtube it. Doesn't work any more, Archons now have a fraction of a second attack animation that stops it, but it is absolutely hilarious]). I see all these uber-builds eventually just becoming what they were meant to be: hard counters to other builds.

I'd disagree about Blizzard balancing for pro and novice gamers though, it seems to be the pro players who are getting catered for. Nerfs come to races that novice players really can't play, and loose far to often as, but expert players win easily as. Though I haven't seen a large change to the zerg in a while, maybe they think they've finally balanced them (fat chance).

 

[elvor0]

It's probably the most balanced RTS besides the original but in my honest opinion, there is only so many times you can build a base and try to kill your opponent before it starts to get boring.
And everyone who raved about the amazing story....I guess it was alright but nothing really special.
For a large chunk of the game the reason you were going to missions was to get money...
There are some pretty good custom games though.
If you like RTS games you should probably get it. Just prepare to be a bit disappointed in the amount of races. It's half that of BFME2.

You could say that about any game though, every multiplayer game has you going through the same motions in a different way over and over again, whether it be WoW, Call of Duty or Starcraft 2.

And the small amount of races is a good thing, it makes the game easier to balance. BFME 2 has some serious balance issues, with the Elves being massively over powered, EA just are not very good at making RTS balance it seems, C&C3 had the Scrin which where godly, and the elves were really powerful in the original BFME as well. In fact the elven custom heroes ran faster than everyone else, could attack at range and had the least amount of xp needed to level up, along with some of the most powerful skills. EA even admitted the Scrin and Elves were overpowerd but had no intention of fixing it.

 

[sunburst]

If you're really into RTS games, you need to play StarCraft II. But you should note that you will need to buy both expansions as they're released. Each one is going to have its own ladder so the prior ones probably won't remain active for long once the next game drops.

 

[Hawgh]

Campaign is pretty great. Decent story, good progression, stunning cinematics.

Multiplayer is pretty darn good, and heavily populated. My experience is that 1v1 is a little more stressful than I like. But of course, I am a lily-livered weakling.

 

[DoctorPhil]

SC1 had a fair bit more micro and macro, but was also far less balanced.

Huh? This is the only centence that I can't agree with. It's general consencus that SC is the best balanced RTS ever, that's also the reason it single-handedly created e-sports and is so popular around the world. In SC2, Terran is still super hard for protoss to beat, and Zerg also need to be a million times better to beat a protoss. At least that's the general consencus again, wich I get from the teamliquid forums.

Ignore whoever says they hit rank 1 in diamond with collasi. I couldn't get to rank 1 in bronze doing that if I tried (ok, maybe if I had an effeective macro game).

It is an amazing, fast paced and highly competitive game. Thanks to match making you can find a willing opponent at any point in time in the day.

I will be doing a stream of the game on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/by-the-time-you-read-this-i-ll-still-be-in-bronze if you would like to see what early game content looks like. I am in bronze league, so it should look like the games you will be playing the day you open the box.

Also, the new version is not an expansion, it will be a stand alone game. The multiplayer will be the same between both games however.

Can't argue with what he says, it sounds about right.
But, it's not a full game if only the campaign is different and the multiplayer only gets a few extra units, that's what The Frozen Throne and Brood War did, those are expansion packs.
If Blizzard tries to sell them as standalone games, that basically means you pay full price for half a game, wich you HAVE to buy in order to keep playing the multiplayer, since as someone above said, new ladders will be made. So if you want to keep playing SC2 online, you have to buy it three times. I've even heard that Blizzard said they wouldn't be adding any multiplayer units, as that would upset the balance.

Need I remind you that Bobby Kotick is the big cheese behind SC2? He will do anything to make as much money as possible while screwing over the consumer.

 

[Mandalore_15]

So basically, I'm okay at RTS games. I bought Battle for Middle Earth 2, but after I completed the campaigns, it became apparent that the multiplayer was dead, down to a few people only looking to play with specific people.

Starcraft is essentially a nerd sport at this point, I always hear praise of it being such a fantastic RTS, and then there are the tournaments. All in all, it looks fairly attractive, but I've had my experiences with disappointing RTS games. So I'd like a few more opinions.

If you want a mind-numbingly generic RTS with a mildly interesting between-mission point and click element, then sure, pick it up...

 

[The Funslinger]

If you want actual strategy go for Frozen Synapse.

Common mistake from a quick look at the game. Starcraft has plenty of Strategy, if you are willing to learn it. Why do you think Grandmaster league players devastate gold league players? It is because they have mastered the finesse of Starcraft 2 strategy, whilst the gold league players are still only learning it.
It does not have any cover based system, other than terrain height, but that isn't what gives it strategy. You need to know what units to build, and when. You need to know how to specialise those units, and once again when. You need to know whether to build economy, rush or balanced, dependent on the first minute of gameplay.
There is plenty of strategy to be had, it is just more subtle than that of other RTSs

yes, if you are insane and have nothing better to do
and mutiplayer sucks, especially in this game where people believe their rank defines their worth as a person. not a fun thing to get into.
also as far as RTS goes, it is no where near as good as the original, and i'd still put any Command and Conquer game ,generals and before, over this.
honestly, i'm not a fan boy, but a fan boys opinion is hardly subjective.
if you want this, do what i do, wait for the battle chest with all three chapters, saves money

You can get your opinion across without using insults. I play this and my worth as a person is in no way related to my league rank. Also, 'a fan boys opinion is hardly subjective' is an oxymoron. A fanboy is a fanboy as they have a very subjective view of whatever they are a fan of, and thus can't see past their bias most of the time. Fanboys are the epitome of subjective thinkers, objectivity is not to be found with a fan-boy.
The only really helpful advice I have found in this post is the 'buy it when the battle chest comes out', hower, that will take years (HoTS is not due out until next year) and thus, I would not entirely recommend it

It does sound a little like his main mutiplayer gripe is getting his ass handed to him?

If it's an absorbing game, I don't mind having to work my ass off to get good. I've got a ten week holiday coming up! Training for the Royal Marines can't take up all my time, so I guess a good strategy game should fill the gap between training and fucking around with friends quite nicely.