Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Mad Stalin:
60 euros :| no thanks. thats like 6 days worth of dinners

I thought it was 40 USD? Or translated. 35 Euro. 400 Danes. Whatever you wanna call it.

Mazty:
I've got a revelation to break to you - Starcraft is not the best RTS ever, and SC2 certainly isn't. I've just defeated Very Hard Zerg and Terran 1 vs 1 on my Guest Pass without having ever played SC2 and I haven't played the first in over a decade unless you want to count 1 hour a few nights ago...
That really isn't very good is it?

I very much doubt that.
You could just post your match history to prove it, but I somehow doubt that'll happen.
Then again, you could just lie about your experience.
And even if you're not, skirmish vs AI is essentially just practice for actual MP.
The AI is just an AI.
It'll conform to very bread and butter tactics and are generally extremely predictable.
It won't know when you're vulnerable.
It doesn't understand to exploit defence weaknesses.
It'll just build forces and attack.
Boasting you beat an AI is very unimpressive.

That aside, why is that 'not very good' to begin with?

Dated problems include building units getting trapped between buildings,

Then don't trap them there.
Yes, SCVs and probes getting stuck after building things is kinda annoying, but that's incredibly insignificant on the whole.

800x600 ranges

I don't even know what this means.

and units fumbling around in a awful attempt to track to the target. The fumbling isn't a good idea because it means ranged units instantly have a massive advantage as they just hold their ground and hand-to-hand cannot be focused on the smaller units.

That's why melee units are generally more powerful, purely stat-wise.
Stat wise, the marines are vastly inferior.
Being able to attack from afar is an advantage.
Go figure.

If you really are trying to say the average PC game is $60 on release, you are trolling. It is simple as that.

No, I'm just saying that doesn't really matter to me, because the game is clearly worth it.

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.

Chances are that your opponent have a brain cell and realizes that you might have figured out that he uses banshees and makes some vikings to defend them in case you send anti-air against them.
Oh wait.
You only play against the AI.

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

Are you kidding me?
You should be teching as much as you can.
You're supposed to keep your OPPONENT from teching too far by pressing him and hampering his economy.

If up against a player who uses lots of ground units, a few colossi are a great defence.
Kinda like a siege tank, but not quite.
And with a mothership around, a few colossi in your army can be devastating.

The editor was actually on a mix of graphics, nothing was on ultra, but nothing on low, and textures were actually on high so next time you may want to check instead of trying to be smart and just, well, failing....Just looking at it set to Ultra - there is very little difference so I can't see why people are acting as if there is a huge difference between in-game and what I showed...The zerg look ace but as I've said I don't really have a problem with them.



Yep, you're right.
Can't see a difference.

I actually love this game. I wish people wouldn't complain so much about it though.

"BAWW THEY REMOVE LAN AND SELL IN 3 PACKAGES, IT SUCKS AND EVERYONE WHO BUYS IT SUCKS BAWWW".

Geez, get over it already. Or at least stop saying we're all assholes for wanting a game. -_-

abija:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1919/terrain001.jpg vs http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg
Clearly very little difference... Even if textures were on high in your settings, having everything else on low means no mapping/light effects were used. And keep in mind the game on ultra adds another 1 or 2 steps of processing.
Also, default is on low, regardless of the fact that it has checked to use game settings.

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOXWgi_5tGw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-WW98JS3

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEsxvHWbvbU

Are all you guys unable to use the camera controls? How about you get the same angle or that too obvious?
And which part of "Nothing was on low" didn't you understand? It was checked on use the game settings, that's all I know.

One of your links is broke, the first doesn't show anything.....And the last one was impressive certainly, but ech, do you really want me to explain why he went for collosi or can you figure that out yourself? It's a Protoss armour popping tactic which the guy did as he obviously saw the roach warrens, but as you didn't give me the first part of the video I'm going to presume it was only one fight. How is it not rock, paper, scissors when most games come down to only one battle and if you lose that it's game over?

I stick by my words that the majority of SC fans have not played many RTS' at all and so it's like giving an caveman a black & white TV. It's great to him, but to everyone else who has colour and HDTV's, it does the job, but that's it.

Denamic:

Mazty:
I've got a revelation to break to you - Starcraft is not the best RTS ever, and SC2 certainly isn't. I've just defeated Very Hard Zerg and Terran 1 vs 1 on my Guest Pass without having ever played SC2 and I haven't played the first in over a decade unless you want to count 1 hour a few nights ago...
That really isn't very good is it?

I very much doubt that.
You could just post your match history to prove it, but I somehow doubt that'll happen.
Then again, you could just lie about your experience.
And even if you're not, skirmish vs AI is essentially just practice for actual MP.
The AI is just an AI.
It'll conform to very bread and butter tactics and are generally extremely predictable.
It won't know when you're vulnerable.
It doesn't understand to exploit defence weaknesses.
It'll just build forces and attack.
Boasting you beat an AI is very unimpressive.

The fact it's true and you can't get your story straight between "I doubt that" and "That's unimpressive" makes the victories even better. Plus from what I've seen of MP, the AI is far more of a challenge than a lot of players.

Mazty:
do you really want me to explain why he went for collosi or can you figure that out yourself? It's a Protoss armour popping tactic which the guy did as he obviously saw the roach warrens,

Except, of course, Collossus aren't the roach counter, Immortals are. The collussus were there because of the the Hydralisks.

Nunny:
I enjoyed the game but it did feel like the story is rushed through, not much time spent on each part of the story.

I just finished the game and feel a bit disappointed, too. As it seems there is quite a lot of people who appreciate what´s been done here but I felt the story to be lacking direction until the last 5-6 missions. In retrospect I had preferred a linear mission design for a streamlined story.

And why does my mission resumée state that I completed 25 of 26 missions? I played every mission including the three alternate ones. Help anyone?

Xerosch:
And why does my mission resumée state that I completed 25 of 26 missions? I played every mission including the three alternate ones. Help anyone?

There's a secret mission.

I must admit that it makes an Amazing game, but along with some other fellow Starcraft fans I realize that Blizzard did make a lot of game changing mechanics that were bad for the balancing, which I am quite disappointed about. As most games the Sequel pales in comparison to the original.

Mazty:

I stick by my words that the majority of SC fans have not played many RTS' at all and so it's like giving an caveman a black & white TV. It's great to him, but to everyone else who has colour and HDTV's, it does the job, but that's it.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that every single RTS to come out after Starcraft are objectively better games. I've played Dawn of War, Command and Conquer: Generals, Supreme Commander, Battle for Middle Earth II, and Rise of Nations in recent memory. I loved every single one of them, especially given that each one had differing gameplay mechanics that made each one special.

What I like about Starcraft II is that it doesn't try to be anything other than what it is; it's a polished, no-holds barred nostalgic throwback to the earlier RTS and I'm grateful for it. I didn't want Starcraft to feel like a Dawn of War clone, I wanted it to feel like its own entity and that's exactly what it does. I don't care that the mechanics are dated, I don't care that the graphics aren't top of the line, and I definitely don't care that it didn't take advantage of the innovations over the last decade.

For me, SC2 is to the RTS genre what Dragon Age is to the RPG genre: an epic, beautifully executed and compelling title utilizing the tried-and-true gameplay mechanics of old.

Starcraft 2 does not need to be anything other than what it was promised to be: a polished sequel to the first that continues the story, re-invigorates the multiplayer, and reliant on the old formula that worked so well.

If that doesn't appeal to you then that's perfectly fine, but it's impossibly arrogant to assume that the players who enjoy Starcraft 2 for what it is are clearly uneducated savages who haven't had the sublime honor of playing an RTS over the last 6 years or so.

Mazty:
The fact it's true and you can't get your story straight between "I doubt that" and "That's unimpressive" makes the victories even better. Plus from what I've seen of MP, the AI is far more of a challenge than a lot of players.

You should probably stop trying to publicly stroke your own ego.
I meant that the AI is sufficiently potent enough to crush anyone who doesn't know what he's doing, because he's wasting time reading tooltips to figure out what to do.
That's while the AI is fairly proficient at quickly gather resources and building forces.
But any player with some experience can beat the hardest AI.

And no, you're wrong.
If you do really well, you'll be paired up with better players.
And there's ALWAYS someone better than you.
The thing is that the matchmaking function needs a few games to gauge your abilities.
And you'll often get harder fights when teaming up with a friend because premade teams are usually much more proficient.

JeanLuc761:

Mazty:

I stick by my words that the majority of SC fans have not played many RTS' at all and so it's like giving an caveman a black & white TV. It's great to him, but to everyone else who has colour and HDTV's, it does the job, but that's it.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that every single RTS to come out after Starcraft are objectively better games. I've played Dawn of War, Command and Conquer: Generals, Supreme Commander, Battle for Middle Earth II, and Rise of Nations in recent memory. I loved every single one of them, especially given that each one had differing gameplay mechanics that made each one special.

What I like about Starcraft II is that it doesn't try to be anything other than what it is; it's a polished, no-holds barred nostalgic throwback to the earlier RTS and I'm grateful for it. I didn't want Starcraft to feel like a Dawn of War clone, I wanted it to feel like its own entity and that's exactly what it does. I don't care that the mechanics are dated, I don't care that the graphics aren't top of the line, and I definitely don't care that it didn't take advantage of the innovations over the last decade.

For me, SC2 is to the RTS genre what Dragon Age is to the RPG genre: an epic, beautifully executed and compelling title utilizing the tried-and-true gameplay mechanics of old.

Starcraft 2 does not need to be anything other than what it was promised to be: a polished sequel to the first that continues the story, re-invigorates the multiplayer, and reliant on the old formula that worked so well.

If that doesn't appeal to you then that's perfectly fine, but it's impossibly arrogant to assume that the players who enjoy Starcraft 2 for what it is are clearly uneducated savages who haven't had the sublime honor of playing an RTS over the last 6 years or so.

Thing is nostalgia isn't a good thing as the words "good" and "nostalgia" aren't linked in anyway. For me SC2 is far too simplistic and too old a style to have any place in the RTS market as it is less tactical than most of the popular RTS'.
Personally I couldn't stand Dragon Age. It looked like a cheap RPG (Archlord comes to mind) and was the same boring gameplay as WoW, but I digress.
It's not tried-and-true gameplay though - it's just dated. Name me another genre which could get away with releasing the same game as a decade ago with a few improvements. The only one I can think of is SMBW & for that, I'd just point you to Zero Punctuation as I seem to have the same idea of nostalgia.
As for SC2 and the story.....where's the UED?
I think the people who enjoy it enjoy it for nostalgia and/or haven't played many RTS' at all. As it stands, I think that's a fair presumption.

Xocrates:

Mazty:
do you really want me to explain why he went for collosi or can you figure that out yourself? It's a Protoss armour popping tactic which the guy did as he obviously saw the roach warrens,

Except, of course, Collossus aren't the roach counter, Immortals are. The collussus were there because of the the Hydralisks.

It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

Xocrates:

Xerosch:
And why does my mission resumée state that I completed 25 of 26 missions? I played every mission including the three alternate ones. Help anyone?

There's a secret mission.

Ghaaa... Let me guess... After I finished the game I have to replay the entire campaign to get to the mission?

Xerosch:
Ghaaa... Let me guess... After I finished the game I have to replay the entire campaign to get to the mission?

Yup! Which sucks :/

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Didn't you just say:

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

And no, games longer than 30 minutes isn't uncommon.
Most people aren't SC gods and you can't expect to be able to crush everyone in 15 minutes.
Many battles will drag on because you're up against someone that's almost exactly as good as yourself.

What's up with this switch to flexing your ego?
Some kind of superiority complex?

Adding my 2 cents in it: sc2 is a great game, but not the 2nd coming of christ and deserving of the 10/10s in comparison to other rts which are just better games im my humble opinion.
Coh and homeworld are games that come to mind as just being plain "better", and if those games didn't get universal appraise like this one had, i fail to see why sc2 should.

Funny part is, if this game wasn't so hyped up and had apparently every reviewer on the planet fawning over it, i wouldn't be saying all this.
Campaign is awesome and has lots of replay value (again in my humble opinion, some might get bored of it faster especially if you see multi as the real game, but i'm on my 3rd playthrough and loving it despite the story which i find meh).
The game follows well from sc1 and though i'm not a pro player so my opinion here isnt worth much, but i like the new additions for each race.

Really main complaints i have comes from the incomplete story (too many plot threads unresolved which means you are kinda forced to buy the next games even for terran related matters), the overhaul of old fav characters (kerrigan wasn't a hot sexeh girl in sc, she was a mature operative, raynor was a somewhat ugly guy with a big heart and is now the stereotypical grizzled badass with muscles as big as his head, i swear only zeratzul is like i remember him).
And i don't care what anyone says, kerrigan and raynor were NEVER that close in sc1.
So between those complaints and battlenet, my main critiques lie with elements outside the core mechanics of the game itself.

Yet with so much positives and dismissable negatives, i still maintain sc2 isn't a 10/10?
I do. I far prefer Coh still, especially with some mods out there making it the definitive ww2 rts (normandy mod people, try it :O!!!!!), and homeworld is just a masterpiece (again all in my sincere opinion, i'm very biased towards coh).
Yet those games didn't get hyped to hell and receive the rapture sc2 did, and let's be honest, a lot of this warm reception is due to the hype and buildup around the game.

I guess my real complaint is that this overwhelming positive reception will be used to cement sc2 as the "best rts eva" in future geek arguments to come, when, compared to the personal examples i gave, it isn't.
It's the best at what it does, no doubt about that, but there are more deserving rts games out there who propose radically different experiences, and haven't been rewarded for it, and that stirs my gaming sense of justice.
Just as a fair amount of people here will recoil at my insistence of crowning coh or homeworld as "best rts eva", so i recoil from sc2 fans attempts to impose their own views as a universal truth.
Problem is, there is a lot more of you, then there are peeps like me, and although more peeps doesn't prove you right, i would genuinely be saddened if sc2 dominates the rts scene like sc1 did for so long until some innovative companies dared to be different (relic <3).

Frankster:
Coh and homeworld are games that come to mind as just being plain "better", and if those games didn't get universal appraise like this one had, i fail to see why SC2 should.

Hum... just FYI, both those games have the same metascore that SC2 currently has. And SC2 actually has reviews lower than both those games. Those games didn't have as much hype behind them, true, but the overall critical reception wasn't worse.

If you consider that through all it's flaws, both the campaign and multiplayer framework (matchmaking and leagues in particular) are better than CoH's I think we can agree that CoH's gameplay is actually considered superior.

Granted, Starcraft has a much larger user base so CoH never really had a chance, though I should note that, as a personal opinion, I find SC2 has a lower level of entry than CoH.

Mazty:

JeanLuc761:

Mazty:

I stick by my words that the majority of SC fans have not played many RTS' at all and so it's like giving an caveman a black & white TV. It's great to him, but to everyone else who has colour and HDTV's, it does the job, but that's it.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that every single RTS to come out after Starcraft are objectively better games. I've played Dawn of War, Command and Conquer: Generals, Supreme Commander, Battle for Middle Earth II, and Rise of Nations in recent memory. I loved every single one of them, especially given that each one had differing gameplay mechanics that made each one special.

What I like about Starcraft II is that it doesn't try to be anything other than what it is; it's a polished, no-holds barred nostalgic throwback to the earlier RTS and I'm grateful for it. I didn't want Starcraft to feel like a Dawn of War clone, I wanted it to feel like its own entity and that's exactly what it does. I don't care that the mechanics are dated, I don't care that the graphics aren't top of the line, and I definitely don't care that it didn't take advantage of the innovations over the last decade.

For me, SC2 is to the RTS genre what Dragon Age is to the RPG genre: an epic, beautifully executed and compelling title utilizing the tried-and-true gameplay mechanics of old.

Starcraft 2 does not need to be anything other than what it was promised to be: a polished sequel to the first that continues the story, re-invigorates the multiplayer, and reliant on the old formula that worked so well.

If that doesn't appeal to you then that's perfectly fine, but it's impossibly arrogant to assume that the players who enjoy Starcraft 2 for what it is are clearly uneducated savages who haven't had the sublime honor of playing an RTS over the last 6 years or so.

Thing is nostalgia isn't a good thing as the words "good" and "nostalgia" aren't linked in anyway. For me SC2 is far too simplistic and too old a style to have any place in the RTS market as it is less tactical than most of the popular RTS'.
Personally I couldn't stand Dragon Age. It looked like a cheap RPG (Archlord comes to mind) and was the same boring gameplay as WoW, but I digress.
It's not tried-and-true gameplay though - it's just dated. Name me another genre which could get away with releasing the same game as a decade ago with a few improvements. The only one I can think of is SMBW & for that, I'd just point you to Zero Punctuation as I seem to have the same idea of nostalgia.
As for SC2 and the story.....where's the UED?
I think the people who enjoy it enjoy it for nostalgia and/or haven't played many RTS' at all. As it stands, I think that's a fair presumption.

As to yer point of a game that was released ages ago that people would like remade... FF 7?

Mazty:

Thing is nostalgia isn't a good thing as the words "good" and "nostalgia" aren't linked in anyway. For me SC2 is far too simplistic and too old a style to have any place in the RTS market as it is less tactical than most of the popular RTS'.
Personally I couldn't stand Dragon Age. It looked like a cheap RPG (Archlord comes to mind) and was the same boring gameplay as WoW, but I digress.
It's not tried-and-true gameplay though - it's just dated. Name me another genre which could get away with releasing the same game as a decade ago with a few improvements. The only one I can think of is SMBW & for that, I'd just point you to Zero Punctuation as I seem to have the same idea of nostalgia.
As for SC2 and the story.....where's the UED?
I think the people who enjoy it enjoy it for nostalgia and/or haven't played many RTS' at all. As it stands, I think that's a fair presumption.

Hur dur Ima go poke fun at SC2's story WITHOUT ACTUALLY GRASPING WHAT HAPPENED IN BROODWAR.

You must not have finished the game because you'd discover that after being beaten back on all fronts and having their pet overmind destroyed, their second in command back stabbed by their third in command and the head committed suicide the UED fleet was soon after beaten to a pulp by the zerg swarm.

If you're going to try to be objective you need to make the case clear that you've at least played the game through.

In fact, I think I'd probably be more qualified to make an argument one way or another than you- I've basically played everything under the sun- WC2, WC3, SC, Homeworld, Homeworld 2, Homeworld Cataclysm, Rise of Nations, Europa Universalise, Rome Total War, Empire Total War, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Dawn of War 2, Company of Heroes, Majesty 1 + 2 (though its less strategy and more simulator) Cossacks, literally every single game to come out under the command and conquer franchise, and Empire Earth to name a few.

Your problem is that you're demanding something different when the game more or less isn't broken- the fact that SC is unofficially the sport of South Korea is somewhat of a testament to that. The game doesn't need to change that much beyond the meta-game because what's already presented is already good. It is really the difference between DoW and CoH without the paint job change from warhammer 40k to WW2. The game ain't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

Just cos people keep saying it im going to kinda explain what i thinck they mean whene very one spams NO FUCKING LAN!!
basicly if you want to play this with your brother
see if he likes it what ever
you have to buy 2 copys of the game
rather then just swapping disks around or something like that
i thinck thats what everyones so pissed about.
and tbh i kinda agree id quite like to play this with family without having to have 2 disks for one house-hold.

Denamic:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Didn't you just say:

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

And no, games longer than 30 minutes isn't uncommon.
Most people aren't SC gods and you can't expect to be able to crush everyone in 15 minutes.
Many battles will drag on because you're up against someone that's almost exactly as good as yourself.

What's up with this switch to flexing your ego?
Some kind of superiority complex?

Okay Collosi was a very bad example as if you are lucky and don't get rush attacked, you can tech to them to use in the laser 'fest' tactic.
I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day? If people are such avid fans of the original I'd expect decent gameplay. If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.
Flex my ego? Explain, not sure what you mean there.

acosn:

Hur dur Ima go poke fun at SC2's story WITHOUT ACTUALLY GRASPING WHAT HAPPENED IN BROODWAR.

You must not have finished the game because you'd discover that after being beaten back on all fronts and having their pet overmind destroyed, their second in command back stabbed by their third in command and the head committed suicide the UED fleet was soon after beaten to a pulp by the zerg swarm.

If you're going to try to be objective you need to make the case clear that you've at least played the game through.

In fact, I think I'd probably be more qualified to make an argument one way or another than you- I've basically played everything under the sun- WC2, WC3, SC, Homeworld, Homeworld 2, Homeworld Cataclysm, Rise of Nations, Europa Universalise, Rome Total War, Empire Total War, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Dawn of War 2, Company of Heroes, Majesty 1 + 2 (though its less strategy and more simulator) Cossacks, literally every single game to come out under the command and conquer franchise, and Empire Earth to name a few.

Your problem is that you're demanding something different when the game more or less isn't broken- the fact that SC is unofficially the sport of South Korea is somewhat of a testament to that. The game doesn't need to change that much beyond the meta-game because what's already presented is already good. It is really the difference between DoW and CoH without the paint job change from warhammer 40k to WW2. The game ain't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

It's the fact that SC2 doesn't mention the UED anywhere including in the background history. Congratulations, you've played a lot of RTS. Now do you care to say why SC2 is so good in comparison to them? You can't just say "it's good" and not elaborate.
Korea is the home of grinding MMO's. Does that make them good? Does a lot of people liking something make it good? Of course it doesn't. The game may not be broken, but being functional doesn't make something good by default.
No idea what you are on about comparing SC2 to DoW and CoH...Any chance you could clarify the point you were making?

Xocrates:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Mazty:
I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

That's, frankly, fairly impressive. Most players wouldn't figure that out half as quickly and even less would be able to pull it off (I doubt I could).

However, and ultimately, you essentially figured the AI pattern. Against a decently skilled human opponent it's unlikely that would work half as well (the hidden pylon certainly wouldn't).

Also, weren't you complaining the game was slow not long ago? ;)

However let's just leave it at this:

You don't like how the game plays, or looks, that's fine. No one is asking you to.

You may not agree with the review scores, that's also fine, but it just means that you and the reviewers value different parameters.

Ultimately what this all means is that we can bitch and moan all we want. All that's going to happen is that SC2 will continue to be a critically acclaimed best selling RTS, and we're going to keep playing the games we like.

I know SC2 wasn't innovative, or has exceptionally detailed graphics, but I didn't buy it because it was, none of us did, I bought it because I like it and it's the last one of a dying breed.
Why is that such a big deal? Is it seriously that hard to accept that different people like different things?

What, honestly, does any of us need to prove?

Mazty:

Xocrates:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Mazty:

Denamic:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Didn't you just say:

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

And no, games longer than 30 minutes isn't uncommon.
Most people aren't SC gods and you can't expect to be able to crush everyone in 15 minutes.
Many battles will drag on because you're up against someone that's almost exactly as good as yourself.

What's up with this switch to flexing your ego?
Some kind of superiority complex?

Okay Collosi was a very bad example as if you are lucky and don't get rush attacked, you can tech to them to use in the laser 'fest' tactic.
I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day? If people are such avid fans of the original I'd expect decent gameplay. If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.
Flex my ego? Explain, not sure what you mean there.

acosn:

Hur dur Ima go poke fun at SC2's story WITHOUT ACTUALLY GRASPING WHAT HAPPENED IN BROODWAR.

You must not have finished the game because you'd discover that after being beaten back on all fronts and having their pet overmind destroyed, their second in command back stabbed by their third in command and the head committed suicide the UED fleet was soon after beaten to a pulp by the zerg swarm.

If you're going to try to be objective you need to make the case clear that you've at least played the game through.

In fact, I think I'd probably be more qualified to make an argument one way or another than you- I've basically played everything under the sun- WC2, WC3, SC, Homeworld, Homeworld 2, Homeworld Cataclysm, Rise of Nations, Europa Universalise, Rome Total War, Empire Total War, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Dawn of War 2, Company of Heroes, Majesty 1 + 2 (though its less strategy and more simulator) Cossacks, literally every single game to come out under the command and conquer franchise, and Empire Earth to name a few.

Your problem is that you're demanding something different when the game more or less isn't broken- the fact that SC is unofficially the sport of South Korea is somewhat of a testament to that. The game doesn't need to change that much beyond the meta-game because what's already presented is already good. It is really the difference between DoW and CoH without the paint job change from warhammer 40k to WW2. The game ain't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

It's the fact that SC2 doesn't mention the UED anywhere including in the background history. Congratulations, you've played a lot of RTS. Now do you care to say why SC2 is so good in comparison to them? You can't just say "it's good" and not elaborate.
Korea is the home of grinding MMO's. Does that make them good? Does a lot of people liking something make it good? Of course it doesn't. The game may not be broken, but being functional doesn't make something good by default.
No idea what you are on about comparing SC2 to DoW and CoH...Any chance you could clarify the point you were making?

They mention the Brood War in the first mission prelude. One of the mercenary groups is said to be made of ex-UED troops. However, there's really no reason to mention them. Their fleet never made it home. The Zerg swarm stomped all over them, leaving nothing left. That plot line is tied up, and has nothing to do with events in SC2. Why would people talk about something that happened 4 years ago and it not relevant to events at hand?

Really, why do we need to constantly reiterate why we like the game? We like it because it's more fucking StarCraft. It's a more streamlined, improved version of something we all loved. For the same reasons the first was good, the improved sequel is good. It doesn't need innovation because the core gameplay is good enough. Like it or not, this game was made with fans of the first in mind. It did what a sequel does, which is take the core mechanics and refine them. Some things don't need to be changed. I know quite a few people, myself included, who despised the changes made in Dawn of War 2. When you change the core mechanics of a series, you alienate the fans, the ones who's support you need to count on.

What points are you trying to make here? You've said your peace, that you don't like the game. You've also shown that you don't have enough experience in the game to call if out for lacking tactics. What, with saying scouting is hard (workers at the beginning, Overseers/Overlords, Observers, Comsat Sweeps, most things that fly can do in a pinch), saying that Battlecruisers are overpowered, that flanking is useless (it's what Zerg are all about, really), and that if a game goes on long enough to tech up you're bad. You don't like the game, you don't GET the game, and you won't prove anything in here. So, why are you here?

Oh, and I just wanted to let you know I've never played another strategy game in my life. Well, I guess a few. Just Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Dawn of War, Dawn of War Winter Assault, Dawn of War Dark Crusade, Dawn of War 2, Mech Platoon, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, the entire Advance Wars series, Halo Wars, Command and Conquer, Command and Conquer 3, Red Alert 2, and Red Alert 3. So yeah, I'm uneducated as to how the strategy genre is supposed to work.

Xocrates:

Mazty:
I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

That's, frankly, fairly impressive. Most players wouldn't figure that out half as quickly and even less would be able to pull it off (I doubt I could).

However, and ultimately, you essentially figured the AI pattern. Against a decently skilled human opponent it's unlikely that would work half as well (the hidden pylon certainly wouldn't).

Also, weren't you complaining the game was slow not long ago? ;)

However let's just leave it at this:

You don't like how the game plays, or looks, that's fine. No one is asking you to.

You may not agree with the review scores, that's also fine, but it just means that you and the reviewers value different parameters.

Ultimately what this all means is that we can bitch and moan all we want. All that's going to happen is that SC2 will continue to be a critically acclaimed best selling RTS, and we're going to keep playing the games we like.

I know SC2 wasn't innovative, or has exceptionally detailed graphics, I know it isn't an innovative game, but I didn't buy it because it was, none of us did, I bought it because I like it and it's the last one of a dying breed.
Why is that such a big deal? Is it seriously that hard to accept that different people like different things?

What, honestly, does any of us need to prove?

Yeah sadly I would like to try the tactics out online as I think the hidden pylon would work because of where I place the sod, but guest pass is up so will have to wait for another day I guess. As for it being slow, I'd say because of the resources it's slower than the original DoW. Plus I'd love to see a Quick Start option.
True this is ultimately a "my opinion is worth more than yours" bicker-fest, but what I dislike is the media bias that is becoming more & more common with large titles. It's been seen with MW2, Halo 3 and several Wii titles. Yes, it's a damn good idea not to piss off traffic by telling them the game they've had on pre-order for months or even years is anything other than the "bezt gaem evar", but I can't help feel that this catering to the fans is only going to aid in stagnating video-game innovation, which has been in short supply this generation.

Mazty:
Okay Collosi was a very bad example as if you are lucky and don't get rush attacked, you can tech to them to use in the laser 'fest' tactic.
I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day? If people are such avid fans of the original I'd expect decent gameplay. If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.

Would you stop talking out of your ass?
Seriously, you're not even playing multiplayer to begin with.
And you continuously spout things that are just plain wrong.
Scouting doesn't work? Teching advanced units is 'doing it wrong'?
You just have to build units that counter your enemy to win?
To anyone that has actually played SC2 for more than an hour, it's obvious you have no idea what you're on about.

Flex my ego? Explain, not sure what you mean there.

This:

I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day?

And this:

If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.

Maybe your opponent's good?
UNPOSSABLE!

You have some serious attitude issues.

It's the fact that SC2 doesn't mention the UED anywhere including in the background history.

Why does this even matter?
The story isn't even finished yet.
They game doesn't really tell you what Kerrigan or Zerathul has been up to either, except for the prophecy missions.
It's very possible the UED will be mentioned or even play a part in the upcoming Zerg campaign.
Something that is not mentioned != plothole.

Congratulations, you've played a lot of RTS. Now do you care to say why SC2 is so good in comparison to them? You can't just say "it's good" and not elaborate.

Why is SC1 good?
That's basically the answer, only SC2 is improved and polished in pretty much every way possible.
Because it's StarCraft 2. Go figure.

Korea is the home of grinding MMO's. Does that make them good? Does a lot of people liking something make it good? Of course it doesn't. The game may not be broken, but being functional doesn't make something good by default.

You're not even making sense here.
How does Korean MMOs factor here?
Why would grinding mean it's good or bad? Some people like that.
I think most people with half a brain realizes ad populum fallacies are shit.
And what about this whole good by default crap?
Please make some sense.

Arisato-kun:

Mazty:

Xocrates:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Great =/= nostalgia so the argument of "It's great cuz it's more of the same" doesn't fly because no one has said why it's good, or pointed out how a game relying so heavily on unit composition is a good idea and not just a game that can be solved using Excel.
Try the tactic. As the Zerg one is pretty straight forward I'm guessing you're doubting the Terran one. It's worked for me several times, so it should work for you. I was Protoss against Terran set to Very Hard, Fast, on Blood Sands (that the common one?).
Sadly I've yet to master Insane for the main reason the enemy gets 50% more resources so I just am going to call BS on that one and leave it well alone.

Xocrates:
FYI, both those games have the same metascore that SC2 currently has. And SC2 actually has reviews lower than both those games. Those games didn't have as much hype behind them, true, but the overall critical reception wasn't worse.

If you consider that through all it's flaws, both the campaign and multiplayer framework (matchmaking and leagues in particular) are better than CoH's I think we can agree that CoH's gameplay is actually considered superior.

They have the same metascore? o0 Color me very surprised, i got the impression both those games averaged the 8/10 mark. That genuinely gladdens me, though i knew they weren't quite as overlooked as some other gems, i didn't get the impression they were more then cult hits.

Can't argue with either campaign or multi framework favoring sc2. Coh's campaign can be described as functional at best. Dow series had better campaigns overall, with chaos rising showing relic is improving in that respect.
Multi framework is one of relic's key weaknesses overall, i could write a tl dr about it ><
Even with a less then brilliant battlenet,blizzard made some good choices such as 1 account per game, eliminating a lot of problems plaguing relic games.
The gameplay itself is a matter of taste, but aye, fair few of us will think Coh has the edge gameplay wise :)

I'm cool with sc2 being a massive success, game deserves it, so long as it doesn't overshadow other just as awesome rts games out there ^^

Denamic:

Mazty:
Okay Collosi was a very bad example as if you are lucky and don't get rush attacked, you can tech to them to use in the laser 'fest' tactic.
I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day? If people are such avid fans of the original I'd expect decent gameplay. If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.

Would you stop talking out of your ass?
Seriously, you're not even playing multiplayer to begin with.
And you continuously spout things that are just plain wrong.
Scouting doesn't work? Teching advanced units is 'doing it wrong'?
You just have to build units that counter your enemy to win?
To anyone that has actually played SC2 for more than an hour, it's obvious you have no idea what you're on about.

Flex my ego? Explain, not sure what you mean there.

This:

I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day?

And this:

If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.

Maybe your opponent's good?
UNPOSSABLE!

You have some serious attitude issues.

It's the fact that SC2 doesn't mention the UED anywhere including in the background history.

Why does this even matter?
The story isn't even finished yet.
They game doesn't really tell you what Kerrigan or Zerathul has been up to either, except for the prophecy missions.
It's very possible the UED will be mentioned or even play a part in the upcoming Zerg campaign.
Something that is not mentioned != plothole.

Congratulations, you've played a lot of RTS. Now do you care to say why SC2 is so good in comparison to them? You can't just say "it's good" and not elaborate.

Why is SC1 good?
That's basically the answer, only SC2 is improved and polished in pretty much every way possible.
Because it's StarCraft 2. Go figure.

Korea is the home of grinding MMO's. Does that make them good? Does a lot of people liking something make it good? Of course it doesn't. The game may not be broken, but being functional doesn't make something good by default.

You're not even making sense here.
How does Korean MMOs factor here?
Why would grinding mean it's good or bad? Some people like that.
I think most people with half a brain realizes ad populum fallacies are shit.
And what about this whole good by default crap?
Please make some sense.

So to sum it up you think you know better than the pros'
Cool story bro'.
Omgosh it's Stacraft 2, which is like SC1, therefore it's instantly good. See the logical jump you made there? Why is SC1 still seen as good? It certainly wasn't seen as the best ever RTS when it was released. In fact TA was seen as a worthy competitor and was out a year earlier...
Surely an ad populum argument is saying that because Koreans play it, it is good. I said just because it's popular that doesn't make it good...Think you need to calm down and rethink what you are saying.

Zhukov:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?

That's exactly how I felt before I bought it, and I was blown away. Everything you kinda-sorta enjoyed in the original is back with a vengeance, and all the boring "kill them all" mission types are gone. I believe that the singleplayer in SC2 was the main focus of Blizzard, and I wasn't dissappointed in the least.

Some people complained that they didn't innovate at all with it, but all the innovation is there to be had with the campaign: varied mission structures, from large scale assaults (with unique objectives and structure) to Diablo esque squad missions where a handful of soldiers use their abilities to take down enemies on a smaller scale, interactive storytelling through the main mission hub, rpg elements that dynamically change the experience of building up your base and unleashing holy hell on the enemy, and absolutely kickass cinematics, animations, and new units.

I probably won't play any multiplayer, but I love this game to death.

Mazty:

Arisato-kun:

Mazty:

Xocrates:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Great =/= nostalgia so the argument of "It's great cuz it's more of the same" doesn't fly because no one has said why it's good, or pointed out how a game relying so heavily on unit composition is a good idea and not just a game that can be solved using Excel.
Try the tactic. As the Zerg one is pretty straight forward I'm guessing you're doubting the Terran one. It's worked for me several times, so it should work for you. I was Protoss against Terran set to Very Hard, Fast, on Blood Sands (that the common one?).
Sadly I've yet to master Insane for the main reason the enemy gets 50% more resources so I just am going to call BS on that one and leave it well alone.

And innovation =/= better. Just look at Brutal Legend for example. It tried to be a both a hack n'slash and an RTS and failed at it. Starcraft 2 is good because it took a basic formula that worked incredibly well and improved upon it. That's all. It didn't need all those new bells and whistles because that's not what makes Starcraft Starcraft. Starcraft 1 was good because it's easy for just about anyone to pick up and yet remains a challenge if you're willing to put the time and effort into mastering it. The second installment is good for the exact same reason. It's fun. Isn't that all we care about? Blizzard didn't try to fix what wasn't broken and I applaud them for it. It's as simple as that.

Mazty:

Arisato-kun:

Mazty:

Xocrates:

Mazty:
It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Great =/= nostalgia so the argument of "It's great cuz it's more of the same" doesn't fly because no one has said why it's good, or pointed out how a game relying so heavily on unit composition is a good idea and not just a game that can be solved using Excel.
Try the tactic. As the Zerg one is pretty straight forward I'm guessing you're doubting the Terran one. It's worked for me several times, so it should work for you. I was Protoss against Terran set to Very Hard, Fast, on Blood Sands (that the common one?).
Sadly I've yet to master Insane for the main reason the enemy gets 50% more resources so I just am going to call BS on that one and leave it well alone.

Seriously, just STOP using games against the AI as examples. The AI is not nearly as flexible or innovative as a human can be. Yes, people can be a mixed bag of skill. Yes, people can make mistakes. They will also micro, change strategies on the fly, and use groups of units in ways that the AI won't or rarely will do. Ever watched someone destroy a force with proper Marauder kiting? Or a double pronged Zergling/Baneling assault? How about 2-port Shees? Phoenix flying behind your lines picking off your tanks, workers, or whatever they please? The AI just doesn't give a proper taste of what you will see after your placement rounds. It's possible to beat a superior force with proper micro if the enemy just attack moves. I've seen it happen both in amateur games and pro games. Again, you simply don't understand the nuances enough to critique the game on strategy.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here