Star Craft II- Is there anyone who will not be getting this game?

Recommended Videos

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
I wasn't very excited for SC2. Got a free beta tryout (with about 2 weeks left in the beta) and gave it a try. Holy crap it's fun! Very balanced, and just 1v1 or 2v2 matches are super fun and fairly quick too. Can't wait for the release and being able to get back into it... and play with my friends :)
 

TerranReaper

New member
Mar 28, 2009
953
0
0
Zeithri said:
Honestly, No. No No No.
Not at the cost of gaming.
Yes, SC2 does have gaming but it's pretty much as I feared it would be - Overly balanced and far far from excellent.
Use Units against units which you use units against and counter with unit.
I'm wonder if you've actually played Starcraft and on what level of gameplay. It's a common misconception that RTS is all about getting "x" unit to counter "y" units. It's still existent, but in SC1, it was all more along the lines of "soft counter" as opposed to hard counter. This means that even air units can destroy anti-units even if their numbers were even. It is all based on your control of your units that decided on who would the victor of a small skirmish between units. If your control was good enough, even the anti-infantry unit (The Lurker) can be downed by simple marines.

And also, what's wrong with the balance in Starcraft?
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Hexenwolf said:
gmaverick019 said:
no im not calling it slow at all, im saying its extremely balanced with counter after counter after counter

at least thats what happened with alot of the games i played in, and the games that i have seen my friends play in, they tried to end it quick but it ended up being massive amount of counter attacks/defense
Ah I see. I confused "time-consuming" with "slow". Yeah, it is a very complex game. Especially when you start seeing the really good players. (100+ mouseclicks a second is just out of this world).
exactly, and like i said at some point earlier on in this thread im not going to put that much time into a game unless its an rpg i really love or if its one of my favorite shooters of all time

a strategy game i juts can't soak up too much time in, i respect the fuck out of people who can and do really well at it, while im not bad, i just can't put that much time into it, i usually play a match or two a month and thats it, i can't sit there for 5 hours like some of my friends and play it for long periods of time.
 

TerranReaper

New member
Mar 28, 2009
953
0
0
nomad240 said:
I'm not getting it
I first played it in grade 11 so I kinda looked at the graphics as a dissapointment.
I couldn't pull myself to care about the story even a little bit. I found all of the characters that actualyl had names were unintresting and 2 dimensional, the mission breifing room just made me sit back and shake my head.
and for me I find the gameplay to be simple to a barbaric degree. I grew up on the total war series which I still love so I'm use to the larger scale, and some semblance to variety.

all in all IN MY OPINION! I think the starcraft series is the worst thing blizzard has created..


that being said I can't wait for diablo 3
It's a fairly old game though, 1998 and all.

Gotta disagree with you on the gameplay, from a multiplayer point-of-view, it is FAR from being simple.
 

lightbound

New member
Apr 30, 2009
16
0
0
I have mine pre-ordered and played through a significant portion of the phase one beta, I think i managed to play around 500 games or so. Battle.net 2.0 has its issues, but with the recent news that they are re-adding identifiers, are planning on implementing a chat system, and adding cross realm play shortly after release means that my hopes are still high.

From a gameplay perspective it's great. Despite being pre-release the game is incredibly balanced and plays at a very enjoyable pace, one that I think is slightly faster than BW (though this may be because of the current metagame. Like BW, starcraft2 has a steep learning curve and many players new to the series will probably have a hard time playing past the lower leagues, but at least your paired with similarly skilled players. However, in my opinion (and one shared by a large portion of the community) its the competitiveness of starcraft that makes it so great.

SC2 will have a pretty large following, though you won't see it represented well on the escapist forums where the majority of members are console gamers. Hopefully SC2 breathes some new life into the RTS brand, I personally grew up playing series like SC, CnC, AoE, etc etc and its disheartening to see how the slightly younger generation of gamers have little to no experience with any RTS games at all. Of course, I'm not saying its their fault or that their inferior because of it, I just think that the RTS genre is a lot of fun and it would be nice to see some of the younger gamers give it a try.
 

TerranReaper

New member
Mar 28, 2009
953
0
0
Zeithri said:
TerranReaper said:
Zeithri said:
Honestly, No. No No No.
Not at the cost of gaming.
Yes, SC2 does have gaming but it's pretty much as I feared it would be - Overly balanced and far far from excellent.
Use Units against units which you use units against and counter with unit.
I'm wonder if you've actually played Starcraft and on what level of gameplay. It's a common misconception that RTS is all about getting "x" unit to counter "y" units. It's still existent, but in SC1, it was all more along the lines of "soft counter" as opposed to hard counter. This means that even air units can destroy anti-units even if their numbers were even. It is all based on your control of your units that decided on who would the victor of a small skirmish between units. If your control was good enough, even the anti-infantry unit (The Lurker) can be downed by simple marines.

And also, what's wrong with the balance in Starcraft?
I never said Starcraft 1, I said Starcraft 2.
Considering the latter doesn't really drastically change the gameplay, the same applies to Starcraft 2 as it does to Starcraft 1.
 

TerranReaper

New member
Mar 28, 2009
953
0
0
Zeithri said:
TerranReaper said:
Zeithri said:
TerranReaper said:
Zeithri said:
Honestly, No. No No No.
Not at the cost of gaming.
Yes, SC2 does have gaming but it's pretty much as I feared it would be - Overly balanced and far far from excellent.
Use Units against units which you use units against and counter with unit.
I'm wonder if you've actually played Starcraft and on what level of gameplay. It's a common misconception that RTS is all about getting "x" unit to counter "y" units. It's still existent, but in SC1, it was all more along the lines of "soft counter" as opposed to hard counter. This means that even air units can destroy anti-units even if their numbers were even. It is all based on your control of your units that decided on who would the victor of a small skirmish between units. If your control was good enough, even the anti-infantry unit (The Lurker) can be downed by simple marines.

And also, what's wrong with the balance in Starcraft?
I never said Starcraft 1, I said Starcraft 2.
Considering the latter doesn't really drastically change the gameplay, the same applies to Starcraft 2 as it does to Starcraft 1.
No it doens't.
In SC1, every unit has it's useage and can fight against virtually anything.
In SC2, they have so-called balanced this by making unit X weak against unit Y who is strong against unit Z but weak against unit O. The worst type of these balancing issues I've seen was in Advance Wars where unit X took out unit Y with extream prejudice. They went very close to that line in SC2.
Care to name any examples in SC2 then?
 

Rainboq

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2009
16,620
0
41
Irridium said:
I won't be.

Not much of a Starcraft fan. Warcraft was fun though.

Anyway, I'm more of a Warhammer guy.

FOR THE GOD EMPEROR!
The guardsman's lament: "The primer said that the emperor adorned us in his finest armor. I say bullshit."
 

-Seraph-

New member
May 19, 2008
3,753
0
0
Didn't really like the first game, don't really enjoy RTS games so no. Starcraft epitomizes all the things I dislike about the RTS genre for me so no chance in hell of me bothering with the sequel.