Starcraft 2 isn't appealing?

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Better fast-paced RTSs than Starcraft? I think half of Korea may have a bone to pick with you there.

Better ultra-realistic shooter than Modern Warefare 2? I think most 360 owners may have a bone to pick with you there.

Spoiler

Not a fan of MW2, but my point is that just because many like it, it doesn't mean that it's a good game. And it isn't realistic, but people say it is. I hate it when people make this argument - anyone else?

 

[ThePirateMan]

I agree with the OP.

Fast paced Tactic games can be fun if done right.
Loosing my BC to 5-6 Marines wasn't fun thanks to Blizzards wannabe "Balancing".

Oh yeah, let's send in a lonely BC unit that is supposed to have support against a bunch of anti-airish units, that'll work out just fine!

 

[snow]

All a matter of opinion my friend. The other day my nephew was telling me about an RTS game that he played, I forget which one exactly, but I recall finding the demo of it on Steam. So I downloaded that and played it as he explained it to me.

It was incredibly slow paced. I recall stating out loud that that current mission I was doing would have taken me at least 10 minutes to complete in Starcraft. It was a really small map with a very simple objective, but the game moved at such a slow pace that it was mind numbingly dull.

You can say that "Oh well this guy just likes things fast and flashy," but the way I see it, is I have extraordinary reaction time in both the real world and in games, and I like to use that to my advantage where ever possible. I also solve problems very quickly as well, which is part of what makes an RTS an RTS game.

An opponent creates a certain problem and you must quickly solve it to gain the upper hand. In fact this goes back and forth constantly. Opponent creates a problem, you solve it, and thus cause a problem for your opponent to solve.

When a game doesn't move at the speed of which I am able too, then I feel like I am being held back. Like back in that game I was talking about, it took me a matter of seconds to figure out the solution for that map, but it took the game a very long time to get me to that point. In fact I recall completing the map in a half hour, and that entire half hour was practically me sitting there waiting for my units to get from point A to point B and destroy the things I wanted destroyed so I could move on.

There was no "long-term strategy" involved... I had my strategy in the first moments of starting the level. There was no need to change it. So I ended up just sitting there playing the waiting game.

 

[ThePirateMan]

Better fast-paced RTSs than Starcraft? I think half of Korea may have a bone to pick with you there.

Better ultra-realistic shooter than Modern Warefare 2? I think most 360 owners may have a bone to pick with you there.

Spoiler

Not a fan of MW2, but my point is that just because many like it, it doesn't mean that it's a good game. And it isn't realistic, but people say it is. I hate it when people make this argument - anyone else?

Why would they like it if it wasn't a good game?

If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Why would they like it if it wasn't a good game?

If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.

If a game is liked by a large amount of people, all that proves is that it did marketing right. That's not something I like to judge a game upon, but perhaps I'm unique in this aspect. I hope not.

 

[Woodsey]

Better fast-paced RTSs than Starcraft? I think half of Korea may have a bone to pick with you there.

Better ultra-realistic shooter than Modern Warefare 2? I think most 360 owners may have a bone to pick with you there.

Spoiler

Not a fan of MW2, but my point is that just because many like it, it doesn't mean that it's a good game. And it isn't realistic, but people say it is. I hate it when people make this argument - anyone else?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-K. This conversation is making little sense.

You know I said fast-paced RTS right?

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Better fast-paced RTSs than Starcraft? I think half of Korea may have a bone to pick with you there.

Better ultra-realistic shooter than Modern Warefare 2? I think most 360 owners may have a bone to pick with you there.

Spoiler

Not a fan of MW2, but my point is that just because many like it, it doesn't mean that it's a good game. And it isn't realistic, but people say it is. I hate it when people make this argument - anyone else?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-K. This conversation is making little sense.

You know I said fast-paced RTS right?

Sorry, perhaps metaphors are too abstract. Let me explain:

...nevermind. I thought about how to explain it, but I can't. Anybody a little better-versed in the fine arts of lanuage and logic than I want to help me out?

 

[tgcPheonix]

If you like slower paced RTS games, create a map with your preferences on the Galaxy Editor
or even just play on a bigger map, no ones forcing you to play it in super-hyper-korean-nine-million-clicks-a-second mode

 

[Carnagath]

If you are actually decent at managing Starcraft's pace, there's nothing more exhilarating than a victory against a similarly skilled opponent. It's exhausting but really satisfying. That's why people like it. If you prefer to relax and drink your coffee while playing, then Starcraft is just not the game for you.

 

[ThePirateMan]

Why would they like it if it wasn't a good game?

If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.

If a game is liked by a large amount of people, all that proves is that it did marketing right. That's not something I like to judge a game upon, but perhaps I'm unique in this aspect. I hope not.

Marketing only affects how many people buy it and mostly just the initial sale, it doesn't have any effects on how people like it, just how many have it. More people will buy it as good talk about it spreads and critics give it good reviews or the opposite, fewer people buy it because people talk badly about it and it has low review scores based on the game itself.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Why would they like it if it wasn't a good game?

If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.

If a game is liked by a large amount of people, all that proves is that it did marketing right. That's not something I like to judge a game upon, but perhaps I'm unique in this aspect. I hope not.

Marketing only affects how many people buy it and mostly just the initial sale, it doesn't have any effects on how people like it, just how many have it. More people will buy it as good talk about it spreads and critics give it good reviews or the opposite, fewer people buy it because people talk badly about it and it has low review scores based on the game itself.

Critics. I just want to mention that on, say... IGN 'Halo Wars' got 84, while 'MoW' got an 8. This makes less sense that a moose dunked in maple syrup. Critics seem to judge less the game and more the presentation, thereby making it so that only big name studios can get good ratings. There are certainly exceptions to this rule, but this seems to be generaly true. Also, even if a game is mildly good, as in the case of MW2 or Starcraft, people will talk about it in a good tone, therby encouraging others to buy it.

The problem is that if a game isn't talked about at all, no matter how brilliant, it gets left behind and forgotten. This is sad.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

Not appealing to you perhaps, but it is a matter of taste. I love those kind of games and I am getting it as soon as I receive my paycheck.

 

[ThePirateMan]

Why would they like it if it wasn't a good game?

If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.

If a game is liked by a large amount of people, all that proves is that it did marketing right. That's not something I like to judge a game upon, but perhaps I'm unique in this aspect. I hope not.

Marketing only affects how many people buy it and mostly just the initial sale, it doesn't have any effects on how people like it, just how many have it. More people will buy it as good talk about it spreads and critics give it good reviews or the opposite, fewer people buy it because people talk badly about it and it has low review scores based on the game itself.

Critics. I just want to mention that on, say... IGN 'Halo Wars' got 84, while 'MoW' got an 8. This makes less sense that a moose dunked in maple syrup. Critics seem to judge less the game and more the presentation, thereby making it so that only big name studios can get good ratings. There are certainly exceptions to this rule, but this seems to be generaly true. Also, even if a game is mildly good, as in the case of MW2 or Starcraft, people will talk about it in a good tone, therby encouraging others to buy it.

The problem is that if a game isn't talked about at all, no matter how brilliant, it gets left behind and forgotten. This is sad.

Yeah I kind of forget that most people go to the more popular "revieweres" that give everything popular a gold star. But you seem to be a bit like the OP with the "I don't like it, how come they like it?" about (espicialy popular) games, MW2 and Starcraft in your examples.

And that problem is indeed sad.

(Just as a side note, I have not played MW 2 so I can't really say if it's good or not)

 

[Wolfram23]

The single player game can be as slow as you want. In original SC I remember spending upwards of 3 or 4 hours in any given single player level... just harvesting as much as I can and building as many units as possible. I'd go slow and take my time and then completely and utterly destroy the PC. Now tho, I much prefer a quicker game. Especially playing online, I find it's great fun to be able to play 2 or 3 matches in an hour.

 

[Lemon Of Life]

Different people prefer different things. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

Sorry if I sound rude, but there are so many of these threads questioning other people's tastes, and I find them silly.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Yeah I kind of forget that most people go to the more popular "revieweres" that give everything popular a gold star. But you seem to be a bit like the OP with the "I don't like it, how come they like it?" about (espicialy popular) games, MW2 and Starcraft in your examples.

And that problem is indeed sad.

(Just as a side note, I have not played MW 2 so I can't really say if it's good or not)

Yeah I supose I share a bit with OP, but I think where our differences lie is that he is decouncing the fast-paced RTS genre (if I understand him correctly, and I can certainly understand his position), whereas I appreciate the fast-paced RTS genre. My point is that there are many FAR better fast-paced RTS games than Starcraft II, yet Starcraft 2 will be getting all the reviews because of it's presentation, despite the fact that it's back in 1998.

 

[ThePirateMan]

Yeah I kind of forget that most people go to the more popular "revieweres" that give everything popular a gold star. But you seem to be a bit like the OP with the "I don't like it, how come they like it?" about (espicialy popular) games, MW2 and Starcraft in your examples.

And that problem is indeed sad.

(Just as a side note, I have not played MW 2 so I can't really say if it's good or not)

Yeah I supose I share a bit with OP, but I think where our differences lie is that he is decouncing the fast-paced RTS genre (if I understand him correctly, and I can certainly understand his position), whereas I appreciate the fast-paced RTS genre. My point is that there are many FAR better fast-paced RTS games than Starcraft II, yet Starcraft 2 will be getting all the reviews because of it's presentation, despite the fact that it's back in 1998.

Could you name some of these supposedly better fast-paced RTSes?

And the "1998" formula works and is fun, so I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Carnagath]

My point is that there are many FAR better fast-paced RTS games than Starcraft II, yet Starcraft 2 will be getting all the reviews because of it's presentation, despite the fact that it's back in 1998.

Like which? I've played pretty much every RTS game ever released and the only one that came close to Blizzard's diversity and balance was Dark Crusade.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Could you name some of these supposedly better fast-paced RTSes?

And the "1998" formula works and is fun, so I see nothing wrong with it.

Like which? I've played pretty much every RTS game ever released and the only one that came close to Blizzard's diversity and balance was Dark Crusade.

Get Men of War. It is one the VERY few unique RTS games out there. It is absolutely brilliant, game-changing, and you are not a responsible RTS gamer if you have not at least TRIED IT. There is a demo on steam. Try it. You won't regret it. Chances are, all other games mention (Age of Empires, Starcraft, DOW 1, Starcraft II, Starcraft II, MY GOT WHY WON'T BLIZZARD INNOVATE, Starcraft II) Will all be the same basic gameplay. Men of War doesn't follow that shit. It is unique and brilliant.

It is incredibly realistic in terms of health and all that, and has very challenging and fun missions. The voice acting is hilariously bad. The level of detail in this game is absurd:
- Every unit has an inventory
- You can Isometrically control each and every unit (Diablo style)
- Every unit needs to reload
- You can take an empty flamethrower pack, walk up to a tiger tank, and if you're quiet enough, EMPTY THE TANK"S FUEL INTO THE FLAMETHROWER

That should sound awesome. If it doesn't contact your doctor. If you liked Company of Heroes, you will LOVE this game.

From this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.215194-I-need-a-new-RTS?page=1 thread

Gameplay - Awesome
Presentation - Not the Best

It's sad.