Starcraft 2 isn't appealing?

[Ayjona]

Personally, I haven't had the slightest interest in Starcraft 2 ever since I realized that it would feature no new mechanics or ground-breaking changes to the RTS formula (which is what I normally require to take an interest in an RTS), and basically just be a graphical upgrade, with units balancing, online play improvements, and limited amounts of new content...

...until I read about the three single player campaigns. The actual matches themselves might not feature anything even the slightest bit revolutionary (or even inventive), but one free-roaming mercenary campaign with in-between mission upgrades and purchases, one RPG-inspired Kerrigan-focused campaign, and one with diplomacy and large-scale strategic choices, with 26-30 missions per campaign, has actually captured my interest for the first time since the game was announced.

 

[Kurt Horsting]

Because decision making needs weight. Waiting for your grand scheme to come into effect 2 hours in doesn't add anything for me. Its why i like fighters. Every decision means something, and the consequences are immediate.
Starcraft has both Big decisions (build order, econ, and unit composition.) and small (micro). You have to have to skills of reading your opponent, have a good strategy, and have good execution in fighting and building your army. You also have to keep scouting, deny scouting, establish map control, create units, and react to any battle, fight or create harassment, and make sure you don't fall behind in econ with your opponent. Hell 30 minutes of being at 150+ apm is fucking exhausting. Basically, Starcraft is like being the General, Sergeant, and Private at the same time. And your the consequences of your actions come within minutes or seconds. With the rts that you mention, it feels like its as engaging as setting up dominoes and watching them fall into place.

But, w/e. I'm hyped. Everyone i know is hyped. And i fucking loved the first one and the beta. So at least I'm going to have some company when it comes out.

 

[geldonyetich]

I'm sort of bored of RTS in general. So it's like, hey, there's a new RTS coming out. It's the sequel of Starcraft. It's been polished so hard that if it catches sunlight it blinds half the planet. I'd be excited, but, well, it's still an RTS.

I'll probably still get it if I can afford it. The game is an epic blip on the PC gaming radar. I just don't anticipate I'll play much of it.

 

[Carnagath]

Snip

I did play Men of War actually. It is so vastly different to Starcraft that I'm not even sure it belongs in the same genre. I don't want to bash it, I understand why people like it, but it's not my cup of tea. It's too tactical and too slow for my tastes. My main strong point as an RTS gamer is multitasking, and tactical RTS's don't really have any of that. Again, I can imagine why people like it, but bashing the extreme refinement and polish of SC2's gameplay and claiming that it's "stuck in 1998" is like bashing Doom 4 because it's not like Rainbow Six. Different philosophies, different games.

 

[UnusualStranger]

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 Tea Alligator seems to be having trouble, so let me explain.

MW2 is considered to be an amazing shooter. A huge awesome, best shooter out there. To a lot of people. To a majority of people. However, just because a lot of people believe it is doesn't make it true. It just makes it popular.

The same can be said of Starcraft 2. People are claiming it is a amazing game, awesome in every way shape and form, and one of the best RTSs out there. However, it only is getting that kind of praise because it is so popular, not because it has proven itself to actually be so.

That clear it up any?

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Snip

I did play Men of War actually. It is so vastly different to Starcraft that I'm not even sure it belongs in the same genre. I don't want to bash it, I understand why people like it, but it's not my cup of tea. It's too tactical and too slow for my tastes. My main strong point as an RTS gamer is multitasking, and tactical RTS's don't really have any of that. Again, I can imagine why people like it, but bashing the extreme refinement and polish of SC2's gameplay and claiming that it's "stuck in 1998" is like bashing Doom 4 because it's not like Rainbow Six. Different philosophies, different games.

Men of War takes both an absurd amount of multitasking and (if you aren't playing with a bunch of turtlers) as absurdly (perhaps worringly) fast-paced. I say that Starcraft II is stuck in 1998. I don't mean that it should be Men of War in space (that'd be nice though, especially with Blizzard's budget), but it would be nice for a few bits of gameplay to change. It irks me that companies can remake the same game but with new wallpaper, yet other more creative companies get left behind in the dust.

I haven't played DOOM 4 so I can't respond on that level. It seems that Starcraft II is the only sequel in the past while is the only one that really hasn't changed. I'd more call it an expansion pack than a sequel, were it not for the campaign (which I admit sounds interesting, but the gameplay stops me from buying it).

On a last note, I'm not bashing polish, I'm bashing those who seem to think that polish is more important than the game.

That being said, if Men of War isn't your cup of tea, so be it.

 

[TerranReaper]

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 Tea Alligator seems to be having trouble, so let me explain.

MW2 is considered to be an amazing shooter. A huge awesome, best shooter out there. To a lot of people. To a majority of people. However, just because a lot of people believe it is doesn't make it true. It just makes it popular.

The same can be said of Starcraft 2. People are claiming it is a amazing game, awesome in every way shape and form, and one of the best RTSs out there. However, it only is getting that kind of praise because it is so popular, not because it has proven itself to actually be so.

That clear it up any?

I think you could've just said "It's popular, therefore I think it's not as good as some would say", would lessen the confusion. Now, onto the debate/argument....

 

[ThePirateMan]

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.

Funny thing is that I didn't like Company of Heroes and didn't enjoy the Men of War demo, but I guess they're just not my type of games since they get so much praise from everyone else and I may not have given Men of War the full chance that it deserved.

DoW 1 and espicialy 2 are quite different from Starcraft in unit set ups, resource systems and.. pretty much everything from what I've seen and played. Age of Empires? I don't remember much about those games to be honest. But SC 2 is what a lot of gamers, including me, have been waiting for. A game that uses the old Starcraft, Warcraft kind of gameplay and resource management. It isn't realistic, it doesn't take itself too seriously, the units say silly lines, there are 2 main kinds of resources + a unit cap, resources are usualy found in clusters scattered across the map, every single unit has a counter and a use, you get to build a huge base, resource management and scouting are absolutely vital, the editor and custom maps are absolutely fantastic, the factions are unique to eachother and have their strengths and weaknesses and the list just goes on.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I think you could've just said "It's popular, therefore I think it's not as good as some would say", would lessen the confusion. Now, onto the debate/argument....

No, what I meant was that just because it's popular, doesn't mean that it's good. I cited an example. Thank you UnusualStranger.

Funny thing is that I didn't like Company of Heroes and didn't enjoy the Men of War demo, but I guess they're just not my type of games since they get so much praise from everyone else and I may not have given Men of War the full chance that it deserved.

DoW 1 and espicialy 2 are quite different from Starcraft in unit set ups, resource systems and.. pretty much everything from what I've seen and played. Age of Empires? I don't remember much about those games to be honest. But SC 2 is what a lot of gamers, including me, have been waiting for. A game that uses the old Starcraft, Warcraft kind of gameplay and resource management. It isn't realistic, it doesn't take itself too seriously, the units say silly lines, there are 2 main kinds of resources + a unit cap, resources are usualy found in clusters scattered across the map, every single unit has a counter and a use, you get to build a huge base, resource management and scouting are absolutely vital, the editor and custom maps are absolutely fantastic, the factions are unique to eachother and have their strengths and weaknesses and the list just goes on.

Well, I don't quite know what to say to that. I guess, go with what you like then.

 

[UnusualStranger]

I think you could've just said "It's popular, therefore I think it's not as good as some would say", would lessen the confusion. Now, onto the debate/argument....

But mine was so much more complex!

However, I think I know what the OP is getting at. What has Starcraft 2 done to earn its spot right now? We've seen the multiplayer....(Well, I have anyway >

But very little on the single player. In fact, all we really have on it right now is that its going to be long, and its going to be different. And I really don't like competitive multiplayer, and right now Starcraft 2 doesn't treat "Use Map Settings" nicely. Especially with the matchmaking and all.....

But I'm retreading old ground now.

I think you could've just said "It's popular, therefore I think it's not as good as some would say", would lessen the confusion. Now, onto the debate/argument....

No, what I meant was that just because it's popular, doesn't mean that it's good. I cited an example. Thank you UnusualStranger.

You are welcome. I sometimes know what I'm talking about!

 

[Nifarious]

Well, there's always messing around on 4v4 maps or BGH where you just mass up whatever army you want and go at it...There's also taking the campaign slowly and not pushing out till you're maxed out...
But really, I think you either misunderstand the very necessary balance between short and longer games, both of which make the game exciting and always variable, or you're just intimidated by all the stuff there is to do, which is certainly justified, but need not be seen as a challenge that detracts from the fun of the game. Really, the challenge is what gives the game its savor.
To 'get' Starcraft, I'd recommend checking out some of the videos of the pros (HDstarcraft and Huskystarcraft on youtube are the most popular casters, although they both aren't always all that selective about the quality of the games that they cast). Day9, though, really embodies what makes the game so exciting to both low and high level players in his indepth analysis (he's on ustream, blip tv, and youtube).
Really, the scale of SC2 can get quite large, but it'd be utterly boring if there were nothing more to do than sit and macro up all day long. It sounds like you'd prefer to play as a turtling terran, which would be ideal for the campaign, if you decide to give it a try.

 

[TerranReaper]

I think you could've just said "It's popular, therefore I think it's not as good as some would say", would lessen the confusion. Now, onto the debate/argument....

But mine was so much more complex!

However, I think I know what the OP is getting at. What has Starcraft 2 done to earn its spot right now? We've seen the multiplayer....(Well, I have anyway >

But very little on the single player. In fact, all we really have on it right now is that its going to be long, and its going to be different. And I really don't like competitive multiplayer, and right now Starcraft 2 doesn't treat "Use Map Settings" nicely. Especially with the matchmaking and all.....

But I'm retreading old ground now.

In numeric order from first bolded sentence to last:

1. I'm going to dispute that, if you've looking around, there has been quite a bit of single-player information going out, both from Blizzard and people that've decided to crack the game.

2. That's debatable, I honestly think going into Starcraft 2 means you're either going to be playing the competitive multiplayer or playing the loads of custom maps that's going to be made. Granted, the system for UMS maps is a little questionable, but that's where we go to the next point....

3. The two main issues (And I'm thinking the only legitimate issue with custom game settings right now) is that you can't make an individual custom room and that there is an absurd cap on the file size of a custom map. This is the only legitimate complaint that I find that people have against Starcraft 2/B.net 2.0.

4. I don't know how much of beta you've played, but matchmaking is fine for me. In terms of normal games, it pairs you up fine with people of your skill level (Exception being practice and placement leagues).

But at this point in time, it's either you like or you don't.

 

[Mordwyl]

You just need more vespene gas.

 

[UnusualStranger]

In numeric order from first bolded sentence to last:

1. I'm going to dispute that, if you've looking around, there has been quite a bit of single-player information going out, both from Blizzard and people that've decided to crack the game.

2. That's debatable, I honestly think going into Starcraft 2 means you're either going to be playing the competitive multiplayer or playing the loads of custom maps that's going to be made. Granted, the system for UMS maps is a little questionable, but that's where we go to the next point....

3. The two main issues (And I'm thinking the only legitimate issue with custom game settings right now) is that you can't make an individual custom room and that there is an absurd cap on the file size of a custom map. This is the only legitimate complaint that I find that people have against Starcraft 2/B.net 2.0.

4. I don't know how much of beta you've played, but matchmaking is fine for me. In terms of normal games, it pairs you up fine with people of your skill level (Exception being practice and placement leagues).

Oh man.....I feared this. Here I go again.

1) Well, perhaps I have not been looking as hard as I could then. Fair enough. That point can easily be yours.

2) Debatable? I don't know about you, but at the moment before the beta closed, there was tons of content for competitive multiplayer, and just one slot for UMS. That, and the game has been designed with competitive in mind. I mean, what the hell is the point of supply depots that can make walls? Game wise, that wouldn't make any sense to put supplies in front. Multiplayer wise? It is a big wall off strategy.

3) Yes, there is a very absurd cap which I am aware of. There is also a limit on how many maps you can have at the moment. Also, there is a really really stupid Filter that is in place right now. If your TRIGGERS have any words that get caught by the filter, you can't put the game up. It is restricting as hell.

4) Of course matchmaking is fine. However, UMS can't use that. At all. UMS isn't competitive. It has to be in a list form and with titles in order for you to use it. And the list has to be done right. Otherwise, newer custom games will never be seen over popular ones.

 

[Ayjona]

Because decision making needs weight. Waiting for your grand scheme to come into effect 2 hours in doesn't add anything for me. Its why i like fighters. Every decision means something, and the consequences are immediate.

While I agree with you on the immediate consequences aspect, when did DELAYED results start to equal decisions not having weight, and not meaning something? In some of the more strategic 4X games, you might not see the consequences of your actions for hours, but once they come into play, they can be game-changing.

Immediate consequences are nice, for their direct availability. Delayed consequences are nice, both since they require more careful planning, and since they often have time to grow far more weighted and influential than the direct result of choices. You might not be fond of that kind of gaming, but saying that decisions loose their weight and have no meaning if their repercussions are not immediate is a very peculiar opinion...

 

[John Funk]

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.

Okay, what you seem to not be getting is that Blizzard TRIED a lot of the changes in the genre at points during SC2's development, found that they didn't work for the game they wanted to create, and tossed them out.

There is not one giant continuum of RTS design. Not every game needs every feature, or it'd be a huge mess bloated to the seams. With SC2, Blizzard set out to create a very traditional RTS experience because that was what people loved about StarCraft. It's also a lot of fun, very well balanced, and incredibly exciting to watch even as a spectator sport.

There is room for games like StarCraft II, Men of War, SupCom, Total Annihilation, Company of Heroes in the market. Blizzard was not trying to make Men of War: StarCraft edition, it was trying to make StarCraft II.

Different feature lists for different games.