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.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.
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 timeHexenwolf said: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).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
I won't be. I don't play online games anymore.Sartan0 said:Is there anyone who will not be getting Starcraft?
It's a fairly old game though, 1998 and all.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
Considering the latter doesn't really drastically change the gameplay, the same applies to Starcraft 2 as it does to Starcraft 1.Zeithri said:I never said Starcraft 1, I said Starcraft 2.TerranReaper said: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.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.
And also, what's wrong with the balance in Starcraft?
Care to name any examples in SC2 then?Zeithri said:No it doens't.TerranReaper said:Considering the latter doesn't really drastically change the gameplay, the same applies to Starcraft 2 as it does to Starcraft 1.Zeithri said:I never said Starcraft 1, I said Starcraft 2.TerranReaper said: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.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.
And also, what's wrong with the balance in Starcraft?
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.
The guardsman's lament: "The primer said that the emperor adorned us in his finest armor. I say bullshit."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!