Starcraft 2 isn't appealing?

[TerranReaper]

snip

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.

2) I'm not sure what you're quite getting with the supply depot thing, of course, it doesn't make sense why you would put supplies on the frontlines, but that's mainly because certain players found a good way to use them to prevent early rushes and create chokepoints. Of course, multiplayer doesn't usually have any relevance with the story.

3) Agreed. This one goes to you.

4) I don't know how they determine if a custom map is popular or not, maybe off of how many players are playing the map at that moment. In any case, while I do agree that the list could be a lot better, I don't think it's completely hopeless for newer custom maps to become popular. I didn't play any custom games during phase 2, but during phase 1, I remember Top Down Fighters being the most popular, while Nexus Wars was still at around at the bottom, and over the course of a week or so, Nexus Wars became fairly popular while Top Down Fighters dropped from the first page to the second. In a sense, it works kinda like natural selection, if people like it, it will be played and it will survive, if people don't like it, it will die off and no one will play it.

 

[Natdaprat]

I agree with the OP. But of course, it's just his opinion, and SC fans have their opinion. I'm quite happy with Total War and other RTS games.

 

[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.

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.

I see your point, and I mentioned that I don't expect Men of War: Starcraft edition. I just wish that more games good be as fresh as Men of War. I understand why a blast from the past is good too, but if you ask me we have enough of those already.

 

[Nifarious]

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.

Have you even gotten to play the beta? The general criticism that the same game gets released over and over with slightly better graphics ala the Madden franchise really doesn't apply to SC2. The same simplicity of the first one that you're picking up on, however, is the very reason why the game has as strong of a following as it does today. It's like chess: simple to learn, a lifetime to master. The sort of innovation that you describe in MoW is basically adding the micromanagement of a character as seen in other genres to the RTS. Part of what drives SC is that units can die really quickly. They're pieces on the board, some of which have special microable abilities, but that's it. It's not the units that win you the game, it's your control. MoW may be fine and fun, but it in no way works as a standard to compare SC against.

But saying SC is stuck in '98 is being oblivious to the evolution that the game's undergone throughout the past dozen years. Just look up some of the first pros playing in 2000 and compare it to today to see what I mean. The game's simplicity is what allows for its evolution and gives people a reason to keep playing it committedly for over ten years, which is pretty much unheard of for a video game. It'd be crazy if they utterly revamped the gameplay like you're asking. The innovation of the campaign does look promising, though, as someone posted earlier. But if you pay attention to the development of the beta, it's pretty clear how much they've been improving the mechanics, albeit not to perfection, at least not let at pre-launch.

Anyway, it's fine if you don't get why this simple formula is so special, but clearly the persistent fan base that its accrued is enough to show that it is.

 

[UnusualStranger]

2) I'm not sure what you're quite getting with the supply depot thing, of course, it doesn't make sense why you would put supplies on the frontlines, but that's mainly because certain players found a good way to use them to prevent early rushes and create chokepoints. Of course, multiplayer doesn't usually have any relevance with the story.

4) I don't know how they determine if a custom map is popular or not, maybe off of how many players are playing the map at that moment. In any case, while I do agree that the list could be a lot better, I don't think it's completely hopeless for newer custom maps to become popular. I didn't play any custom games during phase 2, but during phase 1, I remember Top Down Fighters being the most popular, while Nexus Wars was still at around at the bottom, and over the course of a week or so, Nexus Wars became fairly popular while Top Down Fighters dropped from the first page to the second. In a sense, it works kinda like natural selection, if people like it, it will be played and it will survive, if people don't like it, it will die off and no one will play it.

2) Well, its just the design choice. Such a thing would make no sense in the universe. What I'm trying to say is they changed things in the game that make no sense from a Lore standpoint (I think that is what it is referred to as anyway). The only reason that is even there is because people in multiplayer did that competitively. What my main point is going for is that the game is largely made with competitive play in mind, which confuses me because the game was about fun before it was about competitive play.

4) However, this is the reason for my concern. The Beta was a pretty small selection of individuals. And there were already quite a few custom maps showing through, despite the caps really holding the thing back. So, why would people want to play the newer maps once the floodgates are opened? This is going to be a mess, and Map names as of right now (Additional Point, apologies) are a reserved thing. Meaning that if you don't grab it quickly, it will disappear. And with the current cap on amounts you can have, this is very worrisome.

On another note, I really worry about what I hear random rumors about Blizzard making and selling their own maps.....Which is a huge concern, seeing as how they could, theoretically, take anyones maps from the old game and implement them as their own.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Have you even gotten to play the beta? The general criticism that the same game gets released over and over with slightly better graphics ala the Madden franchise really doesn't apply to SC2. The same simplicity of the first one that you're picking up on, however, is the very reason why the game has as strong of a following as it does today. It's like chess: simple to learn, a lifetime to master. The sort of innovation that you describe in MoW is basically adding the micromanagement of a character as seen in other genres to the RTS. Part of what drives SC is that units can die really quickly. They're pieces on the board, some of which have special microable abilities, but that's it. It's not the units that win you the game, it's your control. MoW may be fine and fun, but it in no way works as a standard to compare SC against.

But saying SC is stuck in '98 is being oblivious to the evolution that the game's undergone throughout the past dozen years. Just look up some of the first pros playing in 2000 and compare it to today to see what I mean. The game's simplicity is what allows for its evolution and gives people a reason to keep playing it committedly for over ten years, which is pretty much unheard of for a video game. It'd be crazy if they utterly revamped the gameplay like you're asking. The innovation of the campaign does look promising, though, as someone posted earlier. But if you pay attention to the development of the beta, it's pretty clear how much they've been improving the mechanics, albeit not to perfection, at least not let at pre-launch.

Anyway, it's fine if you don't get why this simple formula is so special, but clearly the persistent fan base that its accrued is enough to show that it is.

Most RTSs are easy to learn, hard to master. Some, like Men of War, are also hard to learn
Have you ever played MoW? Because, um, SC units don't die fast enough. In MoW, you need exeptional control over your units and the battlefield (because it's dynamic and stuff) to succeed. I daresay it does set a new standard of fun, I'm not convinced that you've tried it (or even seen it), due to that SC units die fast bit.

The campaign definetly does look interesting. No longer (from what I understand) is it a bunch of scenarios tied together, but rather it's tied together with a meta, and I like that. I would call Starcraft's formula successful, but special implies that there aren't many games using it. Whenever I think 'generic RTS', I think of Starcraft's formula. Other games don't get it down as well of course, but they're all trying to do the same thing. I understand why it's successful: it's simple, it's clean, and mildly fun. My problem is that it isn't involved enough. It would have been nive if, instead of fundamentally altering gameplay, Blizzard had simply delved another level of detail into Starcraft.

 

[Gudrests]

depending on who you play with. it is a slow paced game. i know me and all my friends when we play together with just ourselves and no "outsides" its normally a good, 45 minutes before we attack with massive armies to just decimate each other. besides the occaional small rush thats what we do. And no gonna lie. It is extremly fun to hear someone yelling because they just lost a whole army in 3 secs to a nuke. MAN that was terrible

 

[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 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?

Yes, only I said Starcraft - I think through the test of time it's proven itself. I can't imagine that in 12 years people will really look upon MW2 so kindly; look at GTA IV upon release, compared to what people think of it now for example.

 

[Xiorell]

I've lost alot of interest in SC2 since I started feeling as if it was gonna be "Here's a bunch of multiplayer stuff... oh and we tacked on some single player stuff the weekend before release"

I hope it's not the case, but I won't be getting it tomorrow, not till I've seen reviews and whatnot showing me single player goodness.

Fucking sick of multiplayer everything.

 

[UnusualStranger]

Yes, only I said Starcraft - I think through the test of time it's proven itself. I can't imagine that in 12 years people will really look upon MW2 so kindly; look at GTA IV upon release, compared to what people think of it now for example.

However, it has only gotten itself there because
A) The fans carried it that far. Custom maps helped make it more than it was ever supposed to be, as well as the people playing them.

B) Because its a sport over there in Korea. Other games don't really have that advantage of being an E-Sport. If it wasn't turned into one, do you think it really would be as big as it is? I don't think it would be.

And I think you don't understand the circumstances. MW2 is damned popular, and would consistently be played.....until the next one comes out. The only difference between the two is time. Starcraft only has a 12 year record because they didn't release Starcraft 2 earlier. MW1 doesn't have a huge record because MW2 came out so quickly.

 

[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.

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...

Ya, they did that without arbitrarily wasting your time. There are delayed results, like expanding, or teching. Things that take 5-10 mins to come into effect, not HOURS. And you still have to have a general strategy on top of it.

Those decisions also have immediate effects, like if you expand your going to be vulnerable for a small window, but if you survive your economic boost will make your production overwhelm your opponent. It forces your opponent to attack or to catch up. But you you don't need to take a majority of someones day just to do something as simple as 'should I build up or attack?' or 'should i go for the kill and end the game here or minimize my risk and cement my lead further before the next battle?'.

Also if your unable to see a result from your decision making until HOURS into the game, wouldn't it be easier to just guess at that point?

 

[Nifarious]

[/quote]
Most RTSs are easy to learn, hard to master. Some, like Men of War, are also hard to learn
Have you ever played MoW? Because, um, SC units don't die fast enough. In MoW, you need exeptional control over your units and the battlefield (because it's dynamic and stuff) to succeed. I daresay it does set a new standard of fun, I'm not convinced that you've tried it (or even seen it), due to that SC units die fast bit.

The campaign definetly does look interesting. No longer (from what I understand) is it a bunch of scenarios tied together, but rather it's tied together with a meta, and I like that. I would call Starcraft's formula successful, but special implies that there aren't many games using it. Whenever I think 'generic RTS', I think of Starcraft's formula. Other games don't get it down as well of course, but they're all trying to do the same thing. I understand why it's successful: it's simple, it's clean, and mildly fun. My problem is that it isn't involved enough. It would have been nive if, instead of fundamentally altering gameplay, Blizzard had simply delved another level of detail into Starcraft.[/quote]

Heh, no, afraid I don't know MoW, though I promise to check it out once I need a break from SC2, which admittedly won't be happening anytime soon, but in sooth, I will look into it. Really, I haven't even tried a lot of other RTSs, but I do know SC quite well.

'Special' is partially subjective, sure. You have to have already embraced something to call it that. But innovation's a funny thing. Again, using chess, if you added a piece that, say, leaps over 1 piece to take the piece next in line (as in Chinese Chess), that one change innovates the game play immensely. That's the sort of innovation that SC2 has on top of its fantastic mechanics (eg. getting rid of dark swarm and lurkers which lead to boring lulls in the action). The type of innovation that you'd like to see, I think, does have its place, but not in SC. SC2 maintains the spirit of the original. Again, its the simplicity that makes it great. But I'm surprised that you don't find the game to be involved enough when the play is all about doing as much as is humanly possible all at once. I feel no desire for that sort of variation just as I wouldn't in chess or whatnot. Of course, I'm still very much looking forward to how the release is different from Beta and what new units will be in the expansions, ect.
As for the game being fun, well, I won't bother trying to explain its fun...because doing that's not!

 

[swolf]

Where are these Starcraft 2 ads? All I see the Escapist advertising are their own shows!

Simple: business. Selling ad space brings in $. On the topic of the SC2 ads, why are they so close up and action-packed when the game is an RTS? Now, I didn't play much of the first one (just a short while at a friend's house) but the game doesn't seem...well, what I'm trying to say is that the ads seem to be more suitable to an FPS. That's not an insult towards SC2, I'm really intrigued but the ads don't seem to suit the gameplay.

 

[Calatar]

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!

Well, you can pretty much understand how you would be upset if you built a top-tier unit, and had it get eliminated by a handful of dirt-cheap tier one units.
Or how you might expect a floating spaceship with twin frikking laser cannons might be able to take out a handful of dudes with rifles.

Lets see some math here to see how likely this is:
BC: 3 armor, 10 damage vs ground, .225 cooldown on weapon, range 6, hp: 550
Cost: 400 Min, 300 Gas
Marine: 0 armor, 6 damage, .8608 cooldown, range 5, hp: 45
Cost: 50 Min.
So it's pretty clear that the BC should be able to take down ordinary marines with ease. At its rate of fire, the BC would be dealing 44 dps, or ~1 marine/second dead. All 6 marines would die within 7 seconds. Whereas the marines, with their 6 damage, reduced to 3 by armor, would be doing 3.5 dps/marine. It would thus take 6 un-upgraded marines 26 seconds to kill a BC, if uninterrupted by the BC killing them first.
Now suppose those marines have upgrades; stimpack, combat shields, 3/3 attack/armor upgrades, and the BC has nothing. Marines using stimpack now shoot 1.5 times faster, and with damage upgrade deal 6 damage per shot. Marines now deal 10.5 dps each to the BC. 6 uninterrupted stimming marines would kill a BC in 9 seconds. Now the BC deals 31 dps to the armored marines, or one marine per 1.5 seconds. 6 fully upgraded marines dead in 9 seconds. So they would be about equal, except the marine dps is falling because they're dying as the BC is shooting them. So the un-upgraded BC still wins against 6 fully upgraded marines in a one-on-six fight.

In other words, BC>handful of marines, unless your hp on the BC is already low, or you misclick it and send it flying over a group of marines for a few seconds.

But still, that does drive the point that the game is fast-paced. If you misclick your BC and ignore it for a couple seconds, a handful of marines could kill it pretty easily.