Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT
 

There was a huge part of me that wanted to see this game taken down in flames...guess that's the part of me that is jealous of the people who have and enjoy this game xD

Another part of me is hopeful that Yahtzee will blast this game...I dislike being jaded sometimes

John Funk:
The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.

Considering Blizz just tossed ye olde battle.net out the window and made it brand spanking new(I could even sense the new car smell), there are going to be bugs and hiccups. But Blizzard doesn't dillydally on dealing with issues. Heck I just got my copy today and there was already a smattering a fixes. Wasn't a mention on the framerate issue in the patch notes if that was addressed but I didn't have any problems there. I take good care of my baby. Keep in mind that Battle.net is going to be holding your Blizzard games as Steam does with all the games you can play through that service. Treat your Battle.net account like it was your first born child. Change password regularly and beware of scams. Otherwise you may end up losing your account and Blizzard may not be able to save it. In which case you will have to buy new games to put on a new account. An expensive proposition if you are deep into WoW. And there are no Xel'Naga artifacts to be found in this sector of the galaxy to sell.
As far as so-called DRM(which Blizzard never really used the term specifically or referred to but not claimed was their tactic) and online play: Welcome to the 21st Century. Those who are bemoaning the death of LAN and wondering why they have to do things online to get them done, you are now officially old farts. Soup and milk will be served in the cafeteria at 1:30 and the polkafest will be afterward.
Yes, having to go online for matches can tend to cause lag issues, but take into consideration that a game of this scope wouldn't even be playable online ten years ago. Wireless and communication lines are constantly improving, so what is laggy today will be smooth tomorrow. Unless you are on an outdated system in which case you have only yourself to blame. If you can't get a new PC, upgrade what you can. I steadily have with my PC and have kept it nice and shiny, with a decent internet access that doesn't break even my bank.
Either case, you are still able to play with the friends you know, or can just take a random shot online. Whether the matchmaking system Blizzard is using does its job remains to be seen. I aim to find out myself in time. As soon as I give Mengsk a swift kick in the arse.
I highly doubt there are any plans for turning Starcraft into an MMO. For one I don't see how the Zerg would be playable(since they are a hive race and there are no true individuals short of the cerebrates and Queen of Blades), which would leave only two factions...both leaving a lot to be desired as far as real individual opportunity as characters. Whatever happens through this storyline, and I am quite sure we are in for some sweet surprises, things will be folded up neatly or a foundation will be built for the third Starcraft or added chapters beyond the initial three. Which I look forward to playing, with thoughts as to what we may be seeing. I say may.

Shoggoth2588:
There was a huge part of me that wanted to see this game taken down in flames...guess that's the part of me that is jealous of the people who have and enjoy this game xD

Another part of me is hopeful that Yahtzee will blast this game...I dislike being jaded sometimes

Yahtzee doesn't review RTS's. The only exception being Halo Wars was done so to make the point on why he doesn't like to(considering his attitude on Halo it seems to represent a double contradiction on his part. Interesting). Read his latest Extra Punctuation.
Either case, no one game is for everyone. Nobody here is expecting you to play it and there are plenty others out there to enjoy.

i hope yahtzee reviews this game and destroys it. im getting sick of every time i try to watch something here, i get their ad first. im starting to hear it in my head

"make no mistake... war is coming... [blah blah blah intense music blah blah blah buy our shit]"

and now this review that touts it as the golden calf.

i hope yahtzee goes old testament on their bum. smash it with stone tablets, ben croshaw!

The game was solid but the story felt incomplete(and yes I know it's a trilogy but the terran part feels horrible unfinished).

jack_hectic:
i hope yahtzee reviews this game and destroys it. im getting sick of every time i try to watch something here, i get their ad first. im starting to hear it in my head

"make no mistake... war is coming... [blah blah blah intense music blah blah blah buy our shit]"

and now this review that touts it as the golden calf.

i hope yahtzee goes old testament on their bum. smash it with stone tablets, ben croshaw!

This one of of those title that reviews will just give perfect score to no matter what sadly. The game is by no stretch of the imagination bad, it's just not nearly as good as to warrant a 100%

It's $120 here in New Zealand D:

I agree Electric Gel, Kerrigan is way more sexed up. Seriously have you seen her? Not that it's a bad thing...
Seems to have more sexual content, especially that Dancer in the Cantina for the Campaign.

Starcraft 2 is real fucking awesome. One of the best PC games out there.

Firehopper:
It's $120 here in New Zealand D:

And I bought it! Fuck Yeah! Even though we arguably have it the worst.

One last thing, Starcraft being B-Movie Material is what makes it awesome. Anything that is a fusion of Warhammer 40,000, Starship Troopers and Aliens has got to be (forgive me but) legendary.

Shjade:

Electric Gel:
Is it just me or have the character designs really lost a lot of their originality in the transition to such high end graphics? Kerrigan especially, she looks like typical ultra sexed up woman number four now.

Kerrigan has some changes, but she still has it around the eyes. I get the feeling she got some Nova blended into her look over the years.

I think Raynor had much bigger changes. When I saw the trailer for this I couldn't even tell who I was looking at until he opened his mouth and the old voice came out. He looks like he's Mengsk's freaking brother now. It's unsettling.

Other than Raynor's new look I think the characters are fine. The voices - the ones that changed from the original game - are a bit more disappointing, but they do alright. ...except maybe Tassadar. And Kerrigan sounds sorta...wrong. I dunno, it's hard to judge them on their own merits when I'm always comparing them to the old version.

Except Tassadar.

I do agree, there adequate, but that's all they are. The voices still seem top notch, and I'm glad they've used Rayners old voice actor (whose cracking). I agree with how he looks like Mengsk now, and Mengsk doesn't look anything like Mengsk. I really do miss the old Rayner, as sad as that sounds.

Novas the lass from the Starcraft ghost game isn't she? If so then yer, I'd have to agree, she looks very much like her.She looks completely different from the old Kerrigan. I can easily live with that, I'm just a little disappointed. I was really hoping that they'd be trying to push the creativity with this game, and it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.

Nouw, I've not seen that shot before, and I like women's bottoms as much as the next man, but does that future lycra have to be so heavily stuffed up her crack? It really saddens me that games still can't get past this ultra sexy woman look. It really de-values the hobby.

... my god, that's shapely.

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?

If you're mostly interested in the story, then watch playthroughs on youtube.
They've already got full game playthroughs there.

I saw the full story and am certain that if I liked RTS games I would have gone out and bought the game for myself. However, I don't like them, I just like the story. I saw the story play out, I'm satisfied.

Emergent System:

LWS666:
...the fact that i have to be connected to the internet at all times is fine, because if i don't have internet i drop everything and fix it so i wouldn't have time to play starcraft 2.

I realize you're not the one making this claim, but I'm just gonna correct you anyway - you don't have to be connected to the internet. You can still play just fine offline, though you won't be able to do achievements.

i haven't wanted to disconnect my internet to test it, i just heard that if you're offline you can only play as a guest on skirmish matches and can't save your progress.

srsly don't care though, i have BFBC2 set up to only work with an internet connection too.

no-one mentions that, BFBC2 gives the option for that or X installs.

Firehopper:
It's $120 here in New Zealand D:

$98 in Dick Smith. (Through only order with free delivery)

And I bought it.

The matchmaking is one of the FINEST I have seen! It's awesome! Perhaps it's because it's just the first few days and the community's are bustling, but it finds an absolute perfect match in under 3 seconds.

I will not only buy the game, I will also buy a knew computer specifically to run this and most new games at max settings.

Mazty:
That's not really answering the question. Saying it's a different beast isn't true - games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes bettered the genre by introducing more strategy, something which is vital in RTS'.

Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.

All of this is fine, but it just means it's a different type of game. Your argument is like saying Classical music sucks because Rock'n Roll is so much better.

Mazty:
Claiming that Starcraft need not change is nonsense unless you want to claim it's the best RTS ever, which we both know would be a nonsensical claim.

Starcraft needed not (a lot of) change simply because it fills a niche all but forgotten by recent RTS. For all your arguments you seem to forget that DoW 2 got a lot of backlash because it had no base building, and one could say that C&C 4 failed pretty much because it wasn't an old school game.

Let Starcraft/old School players have their fix. This is especially true since reviews pretty much all point out that the game is "dated". The reason it doesn't matter is because despite that it's still fun.
Everything else in the game (plot, campaign, multiplayer, presentation) is at least on par with the all the other top RTS out there, so it's hardly a surprise it's getting such good reviews

Mazty:
Just because a majority of people enjoy a game it doesn't mean it's the best in the genre. Starcraft wasn't even the grandmaster! This idea that it received flawless praise is nonsense as it didn't, plus Total Annihilation received more praise and frankly was a better RTS due to it's scale and balancing. But have you heard of it before? Sadly one of the only reason Starcraft is known is because of the large Korean following.

There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games.

All of that misses the point that they all play differently and some people prefer one over the other. Starcraft ended being the most popular of them all, and despite all your complaints, it was still a good game.

Personally I never really liked the C&C games (though I had fun playing them), and while I didn't play TA, I did play Supreme Commander which I found average, shallow, and ultimately more old-school than Starcraft.

Mazty:
Saying it wouldn't be Starcraft isn't an adequate reply. I want to know why the removal of the last decade of innovation in the game is a good thing and how it makes the game better than the competition. Frankly from what I can tell it'd just make the game less tactical, which I'm sure we'd agree is a daft move.

The game isn't get glowing reviews because it's old school, it's getting glowing reviews because despite being old-school it's still really fun, and it's presented extraordinarily well.

You can complain all you want, but the single player campaign has more variety (and for the most part it's longer) than all the "modern" RTS you're championing, and while you can complain about the plot, it doesn't change the fact that it's at least as good as the competition and presented better than any of them.

You don't have to like it, but that doesn't say the game isn't good.

But ultimately, and in a way, I find all this argument funny since nowadays a game can't be released without people complaining about "dumbing down" and the "consolification of the PC" and when a game comes out that doesn't, we argue that it should have.

Innovation's not the be-all and end-all. Trashing a perfectly great game just 'cause it's not new enough is idiotic. We shouldn't just kill and bury perfectly good game styles just as soon as they stop being in vogue. Hell, I'm playing Hydorah at the moment. Space-shooters are dead as a doornail, but it's still a fantastic game.

CKalvin:
"One might argue that the single player campaign is a mere preamble to the multiplayer battles of StarCraft II, where your mettle is tested against the multitudes. I disagree. Despite the pressures of recreating the success of the multiplayer masterpiece of the first StarCraft, Blizzard obviously didn't put all of their eggs into perfecting just that portion of the game. The essence of StarCraft II is the saga of Raynor against the Zerg-infested Kerrigan and the struggle of freedom versus oppression."

Are you kidding me? Honestly. How many people still played the BW campaign on a weekly/daily basis after Sc1 and BW had been released for 3-4 years? Comparing that to the ridiculous amount of competitive multiplayer matches, it's easy to see where the true nature of Starcraft lies.

In its multiplayer. Anyone who says so is either a) probably a D player or worse or b) prefers a good story to a GG. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but claiming Starcraft is a singleplayercentric game is like calling Half Life 2 a physics simulator.

TB_Infidel:

Madmanonfire:

TB_Infidel:

Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?

*snip*

So from what you are saying, StarCraft is dated ( some what obvious as it is 10 years old), and the sequel should remain dated to appease those few who only played the original rather then modernising and improving the game style?
From your comment on melee mechanics I would presume you have not played any modern RTS from the last 5 years.
The original is 10 years old, of course the graphics will have improved, but only very slightly, again, please tell me what modern RTS you are comparing StarCraft 2 with?

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.

Dated? You say that like its a curse upon the gaming world. The sequel is dated? Why, because it plays similar to Starcraft 1? "Modernising and improving the game style"? How exactly do you propose to do that exactly. If there is a problem with Starcraft 2, its that it's become too easy. The skill ceiling has been capped, with the computer handling a lot of micro that previously in BW needed a human touch.

The Blizzard team tried "modernising" Sc2 with a cover system which according to you would somehow make the game so much better. But it didn't work. The pacing became stuffed up, T would be OP'ed because all they need is to play a mech ball and leapfrog all the way across the map for an easy GG. Typical cover systems work because other RTS have classes with relatively similar playing styles, whereas a Z player will play in a completely different way to a T player.

And what RTS' do YOU play? I'm not even a proper RTS player, I'm actually a hardcore FPS ( 1.6, source, quake, UT ) that just occasionally dabbles in RTS like RA3 and of course BW which I used to play pretty religiously.

Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.
Again, how can you say a cover system would make T OP when you have not played an RTS with a cover system? Dawn of War 2 has races that fit into the zerg and Terran box and both use cover perfectly, showing that if the studio is competent, then it can be done well.

So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

NB. What are the spec's of your PC as I presume they are poor? Is this a reason why you only play games that are very old?

Xocrates:

Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.

Base building was an essential part of DoW. If you messed up your build order then it could lose you the battle.
With mechanics such as moral and melee, it still maintained a heavy amount of macroing as you could change the outcome of a battle if you properly managed your troops. You say there was a smaller amount of units when actually DoW had more units then StarCraft, merely they were put into squads for more reasonable management. With the weapon choices you could give to your troops, this too factly changed the build of an army, along with elite unit types and commanders. CoH had no base building, but was focused on a more tactical side of combat, again with flanking, cover, destructible scenery, armour location, and moral. How click spam is more tactical then this is beyond me.

TB_Infidel:
Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

TB_Infidel:
These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.

Arguable and up to personal preference.

TB_Infidel:
So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.

I think we all know that, in order to have an opinion on Starcraft 2, you must have played every RTS created in the last hundred years and spend your entire budget each year on honing your PC into a finely-developed leviathan beast.

Stop using stupid ad hominem "You aren't a cultured enough gamer to truely APPRECIATE how much starcraft 2 sucks" attacks, TB_infidel. The game is the way it is. You should critique it for that, not attack it because it's unlike a different type of game. What you're doing is like reviewing the latest Mario game poorly because it didn't take advantage of the innovations used in Braid.

Xocrates:

TB_Infidel:
Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

TB_Infidel:
These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.

Arguable and up to personal preference.

TB_Infidel:
So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.

Congratulations in merely reaffirming that StarCraft has the strongest fanbase who have no reason to say the game is good bar Blizzard made it and it's a game from their childhood.

At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why' ergo, you like it because of nostalgia, not because the game is actually any good.
Just tell me why:
-Harvesting minerals is fun
-Slow build speeds is fun
-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good
-Fixed game speeds are useful
-No cover, moral, melee mechanic, and small mirror image maps make the game more tactical?

Xocrates:

Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.

....You haven't played Dawn of War have you?...Saying Dow removes the macro side of RTS is a flat out lie as you had to customise each squads weapons, let alone make a base etc. No base building in DoW?! Litte variation?! Please don't talk about games you've never played - it doesn't help anyone.

All of this is fine, but it just means it's a different type of game. Your argument is like saying Classical music sucks because Rock'n Roll is so much better.

No that's down to artistic preference. Plus from the sounds of what you like SC for, you would enjoy DoW. Simply put SC is an RTS with little emphasis on the S - does that seem like a good idea?

Starcraft needed not (a lot of) change simply because it fills a niche all but forgotten by recent RTS. For all your arguments you seem to forget that DoW 2 got a lot of backlash because it had no base building, and one could say that C&C 4 failed pretty much because it wasn't an old school game.

Let Starcraft/old School players have their fix. This is especially true since reviews pretty much all point out that the game is "dated". The reason it doesn't matter is because despite that it's still fun.
Everything else in the game (plot, campaign, multiplayer, presentation) is at least on par with the all the other top RTS out there, so it's hardly a surprise it's getting such good reviews

The niche it fills is dated and flawed! Yes DoW2 did get a lot of flak for no base building, but go have a look at Supreme Commander and DoW1. "Old school players" is just a charitable term for fanboys and those into nostalgia - it's not a very good RTS to be blunt. All most all reviews, bar this one, just say "OMGOSH AMAZIN" and don't say why, or how it is better than the competition, and that's what it boils down to - how is SC2 better than the competition? Saying it's still fun may be true, but as most of these people have ignored the RTS genre for the last decade, they may find more modern RTS' just as fun. It's like someone claiming goldeneye still rocks just because they never played on anything past the N64.

There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games.

All of that misses the point that they all play differently and some people prefer one over the other. Starcraft ended being the most popular of them all, and despite all your complaints, it was still a good game.

Personally I never really liked the C&C games (though I had fun playing them), and while I didn't play TA, I did play Supreme Commander which I found average, shallow, and ultimately more old-school than Starcraft.

You have zero idea what TA is if you really think SC2 is anything like it. Sorry, but the two games are very different, with TA being far more tactical.
Starcraft didn't end up being the most popular - it ended up being played by the Koreans and anyone who had a bad PC. I think proof of this is most of the avid fans of Starcraft haven't played many of the modern RTS', and those who have almost always say SC is just pretty crappy.

Supreme Commander shallow...? No offence but that just means you were really, really crappy at it as it is one of the largest scale, micro-intense and well balanced RTS' out there.

The game isn't get glowing reviews because it's old school, it's getting glowing reviews because despite being old-school it's still really fun, and it's presented extraordinarily well.

You can complain all you want, but the single player campaign has more variety (and for the most part it's longer) than all the "modern" RTS you're championing, and while you can complain about the plot, it doesn't change the fact that it's at least as good as the competition and presented better than any of them.

You don't have to like it, but that doesn't say the game isn't good.

But ultimately, and in a way, I find all this argument funny since nowadays a game can't be released without people complaining about "dumbing down" and the "consolification of the PC" and when a game comes out that doesn't, we argue that it should have.

As I've said before, the people saying it's fun have probably not played most of the last decades RTS'. How is it presented well? What does that even mean? :S The graphics are sh*t.
It's ironic that you claim so much about what SC2 does better than the competition, but you haven't even played them so it just ends up utterly unsubstantiated claims....
While I haven't played the single player, I was able to get my hands on the beta, and if the core mechanics are the same, then my complaints of it ignoring all innovation for nothing but fan service hold true.
Plus I never complained about the plot.....=S
I don't think ANYONE would argue that a game should be dumbed down, or that no dedicated servers or lean is a good idea, if you are referring to games such as MW2....

TB_Infidel:
At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why'

You know why? Because few if any of your points has anything to do with objective quality and all to do with subjective preferences. What if I like building an economy that can support my army? You don't, I get it.

There's no point arguing because nothing I can say will change your mind. You decided Starcraft 2 is crap, fine. That doesn't mean me or for that matter most reviewers agree with you.

Starcraft 2 does what it wanted to do, and it does it very well. If that means being an old-school and, yes, nostalgic game, I don't have a problem with that, and apparently neither do the reviewers. If you do, just don't play it.

There's no point arguing.

TB_Infidel:

-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good

Anything you said or will say is invalidated by this statement. There is nothing wrong with the graphics of StarCraft 2 especially when compared to the other games that you mentioned.

Also, you "harvest minerals" in Sins of a Solar Empire. Does that make it less fun?

Xocrates:

Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

I'm calling bullsh*t - How can you make giant f**king errors like saying DoW1 has no base building or micro tactics and yet you claim to have played the original and expansions?
Sorry but until you cough up the truth, here on out what you have to say is going to be just seen as fan nonsense as you seem to be warping reality for some bizarre-o reason.

Greg Tito:

TB_Infidel:

-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good

Anything you said or will say is invalidated by this statement. There is nothing wrong with the graphics of StarCraft 2 especially when compared to the other games that you mentioned.

Also, you "harvest minerals" in Sins of a Solar Empire. Does that make it less fun?

StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?

As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.

Mazty:
....You haven't played Dawn of War have you?...Saying Dow removes the macro side of RTS is a flat out lie as you had to customise each squads weapons, let alone make a base etc. No base building in DoW?! Litte variation?! Please don't talk about games you've never played - it doesn't help anyone.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I HAVE played DoW, both of them with all expansions. I probably even played it more than the original Starcraft. To be fair, I was talking mostly about DoW 2, since that's the most recent and therefore the "most evolved".

Either way, the macro side of of Dow is significantly reduced compared to starcraft, the MICRO however (pertaining to individual units and their abilities) is bigger.

Mazty:
No that's down to artistic preference. Plus from the sounds of what you like SC for, you would enjoy DoW. Simply put SC is an RTS with little emphasis on the S - does that seem like a good idea?

Did you even play Starcraft?

Mazty:
The niche it fills is dated and flawed!

So what? It's still a Niche containing millions of people.

Mazty:
Yes DoW2 did get a lot of flak for no base building, but go have a look at Supreme Commander and DoW1.

I did play those games. What's your point?

Mazty:
You have zero idea what TA is if you really think SC2 is anything like it.

Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)

Mazty:
Starcraft didn't end up being the most popular - it ended up being played by the Koreans and anyone who had a bad PC.

It's by far the best selling RTS of all time. How's that different from the most popular?

Mazty:
I think proof of this is most of the avid fans of Starcraft haven't played many of the modern RTS', and those who have almost always say SC is just pretty crappy.

That's bullshit and you know it. Name a modern RTS. Odds are that I either played it or tried the Demo (if available).

Mazty:
Supreme Commander shallow...? No offence but that just means you were really, really crappy at it as it is one of the largest scale, micro-intense and well balanced RTS' out there.

It still has 3 nearly identical races with each tech tier nearly identical to the previous but with bigger units. I admit not playing it much, but that was because I recognize it as a type of RTS I wasn't terribly fond of.

Mazty:
As I've said before, the people saying it's fun have probably not played most of the last decades RTS'. How is it presented well? What does that even mean? :S The graphics are sh*t.

A lot of people don't mind, or even like, the graphics. And by presentation I wasn't talking about the graphics but the way the story is presented. Namely the briefings, cutscenes and missions themselves.

Mazty:
It's ironic that you claim so much about what SC2 does better than the competition, but you haven't even played them so it just ends up utterly unsubstantiated claims....

Read my posts: I played them, I played most of them. I probably played RTSs you never even heard about.

DoW? DoW2? CoH? Supreme Commander? World in Conflict? Defcon? Multiwinia? Sins of a Solar Empire?
Yep, all of them. And those are just from the past few years.

Mazty:
While I haven't played the single player, I was able to get my hands on the beta, and if the core mechanics are the same, then my complaints of it ignoring all innovation for nothing but fan service hold true.

Single player is a nearly completely different game.

AC10:
SC2 presents itself as DEAD. FUCKING. SERIOUS.

What, where? You mean where it goes


Can't say I agree with you.

Xocrates:

TB_Infidel:
At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why'

You know why? Because few if any of your points has anything to do with objective quality and all to do with subjective preferences. What if I like building an economy that can support my army? You don't, I get it.

There's no point arguing because nothing I can say will change your mind. You decided Starcraft 2 is crap, fine. That doesn't mean me or for that matter most reviewers agree with you.

Starcraft 2 does what it wanted to do, and it does it very well. If that means being an old-school and, yes, nostalgic game, I don't have a problem with that, and apparently neither do the reviewers. If you do, just don't play it.

There's no point arguing.

You are doing it again.
Please explain WHY those mechanics which had been universally agreed upon up to a few days ago to be bad, now make a game good?
You can not change my mind with an argument as strong as ' It is good 'cause', and StarCraft 2 is bad because of the slow, simple, dated elements to it.

If a game is popular merely because of nostalgia then people should be honest, rather then saying it is a good game.

TB_Infidel:
Please explain WHY those mechanics which had been universally agreed upon up to a few days ago to be bad, now make a game good?

I don't recall those mechanics ever been agreed to be bad (unless you mean agreed by you). They're agreed to be old, they've also been agreed that their whole (as opposed to separating them into specific mechanics like you've been doing) to still be rather fun.

Xocrates:

As I mentioned in a previous post, I HAVE played DoW, both of them with all expansions. I probably even played it more than the original Starcraft. To be fair, I was talking mostly about DoW 2, since that's the most recent and therefore the "most evolved".

Either way, the macro side of of Dow is significantly reduced compared to starcraft, the MICRO however (pertaining to individual units and their abilities) is bigger.

Did you even play Starcraft?

Like crap you've played DoW or Supreme Commander, and if you have you blatantly haven't played enough of it to make any comment on them - to say there is no base building is just a flat out lie as there is a hell of a lot of base building. Don't confuse DoW and DoW 2 as they are very different beasts.
How is the macro side reduced?? You mean with the huge armies and bases etc?
And yes I played SC last night and realised how utterly dated it is with squad limits, over powered units etc.

So what? It's still a Niche containing millions of people. It's by far the best selling RTS of all time. How's that different from the most popular?

Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)

"There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games."
Only an autistic monkey would think SC2 is like TA. Those millions of people are mainly Koreans or people whose PC doesn't have the hardware to play a modern RTS - claiming popular vote doesn't make something the best.

That's bullshit and you know it. Name a modern RTS. Odds are that I either played it or tried the Demo (if available).
[Supreme Commander]still has 3 nearly identical races with each tech tier nearly identical to the previous but with bigger units. I admit not playing it much, but that was because I recognize it as a type of RTS I wasn't terribly fond of.

Then please explain your giant cock-ups saying that there was no base building in DoW1 and that the macro is reduced.
Plus don't talk about games you clearly haven't played enough to comment on. Saying that the races and tech trees in SC are nearly identical shows you played a whole 5, maybe 15 mins of it?

A lot of people don't mind, or even like, the graphics. And by presentation I wasn't talking about the graphics but the way the story is presented. Namely the briefings, cutscenes and missions themselves.

At $60, I expect graphics which are good, not barely passable. The only other RTS' with the same lack of detail are SC and Sins, which have a phenomenal scale. We both know the reason the specs are dumbed down is to cater for the people who haven't bothered getting a vaguely decent machine in the last decade. The cut scenes (from what I've seen) look outstanding, but they are just pre-renders...I thought with the end of the PS1 FF's we'd left expecting outstanding cinematic while settling for crappy in-game graphics behind us.
Killed the next quote as it falls under the "How'd you make such large cock ups if you've played them all?" point.

Single player is a nearly completely different game.

But are the core mechanics the same? Plus good lord there's no need to micro a post up like that O.o

Xocrates:

TB_Infidel:
Please explain WHY those mechanics which had been universally agreed upon up to a few days ago to be bad, now make a game good?

I don't recall those mechanics ever been agreed to be bad (unless you mean agreed by you). They're agreed to be old, they've also been agreed that their whole (as opposed to separating them into specific mechanics like you've been doing) to still be rather fun.

Stop making straw-men.
How are those mechanics fun? How are games without those mechanics the same or worse?
The mechanics make the game clunky, slow, and look bad. If you disagree, then for once, please say WHY they are fun, WHY they give the game a good pace, and WHY they should have kept those mechanics.

Mazty:
Like crap you've played DoW or Supreme Commander, and if you have you blatantly haven't played enough of it to make any comment on them - to say there is no base building is just a flat out lie as there is a hell of a lot of base building. Don't confuse DoW and DoW 2 as they are very different beasts.
How is the macro side reduced?? You mean with the huge armies and bases etc?
And yes I played SC last night and realised how utterly dated it is with squad limits, over powered units etc.

I said Macro was reduced (from DoW), not removed. Just the fact that you have no reason to create expansions in DoW is a testament to that. Macro in Supreme Commandander however, Is Huge.

Mazty:

Sorry, where did I say SC2 was like TA? If anything I said they were completely different games (a point I've been trying to make for a long time now)

"There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games."
Only an autistic monkey would think SC2 is like TA. Those millions of people are mainly Koreans or people whose PC doesn't have the hardware to play a modern RTS - claiming popular vote doesn't make something the best.

That post wasn't comparing the games, it was saying different people find different games to be the best. TA and Starcraft are very different.

Mazty:
Then please explain your giant cock-ups saying that there was no base building in DoW1 and that the macro is reduced.
Plus don't talk about games you clearly haven't played enough to comment on. Saying that the races and tech trees in SC are nearly identical shows you played a whole 5, maybe 15 mins of it?

Like I explained, that argument was referring to the DoW "series" that did remove base building as it advanced.

Compare the tech trees in Supreme Commander to Starcraft. By comparison the ones in SupCom are nearly identical. (the key word being "nearly") I'm sure that there are nuances necessary to play each individual race well.

Mazty:
We both know the reason the specs are dumbed down is to cater for the people who haven't bothered getting a vaguely decent machine in the last decade.

Yes, how dare Blizzard cater to folk who can't afford to upgrade their PCs every year.

Mazty:
The cut scenes (from what I've seen) look outstanding, but they are just pre-renders...

They're not. (EDIT: More specifically, most aren't. Of the ~45 minutes of cutscenes, about 10 are pre-rendered)

TB_Infidel:
StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?

It looks great on my machine. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are pulling out the old "Blizzard's art style is dumbed down" argument. I think they made choices as to how the game would look and feel and made those choices animate wonderfully. Is it photo-realistic? No. Do I want all of my games' graphics to be photo-realistic? No.

TB_Infidel:

As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.

So your point is that you dislike building harvester/builder units. That is personal preference, and it doesn't mean that the game is not good for people who do not hate "harvesters" as you do.

Also, I'm an RTS fan. I don't have a problem with StarCraft. Stop trying to make your platform bigger than it is.

TB_Infidel:
SHow are those mechanics fun? How are games without those mechanics the same or worse?
The mechanics make the game clunky, slow, and look bad. If you disagree, then for once, please say WHY they are fun, WHY they give the game a good pace, and WHY they should have kept those mechanics.

They're fun because I have fun playing with them. They should have kept those mechanics because a lot of people like (and even miss) those mechanics.

How exactly do you expect me to explain subjective concepts?

Greg Tito:

TB_Infidel:
StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?

It looks great on my machine. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are pulling out the old "Blizzard's art style is dumbed down" argument. I think they made choices as to how the game would look and feel and made those choices animate wonderfully. Is it photo-realistic? No. Do I want all of my games' graphics to be photo-realistic? No.

TB_Infidel:

As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.

So your point is that you dislike building harvester/builder units. That is personal preference, and it doesn't mean that the game is not good for people who do not hate "harvesters" as you do.

Also, I'm an RTS fan. I don't have a problem with StarCraft. Stop trying to make your platform bigger than it is.

The graphics are poor, hence why the requirements for it are so low.
The art style is childish and takes away the gritty feel the original had. C&C was criticised for going down the 'Micro-machine style' of graphics, yet again, everyone believes StarCraft 2 looks good because of this.
The level of detail on each unit is very low along with the animation. Even DoW (2004) had better animation per unit as each unit had casings from guns, sustained fire rates etc. compared to lift gun, twitch fire, lower gun, repeat.

Whilst I am on the topic of graphics, why is the camera limited? Seriously, what is Blizzards excuse for this?

image

Here is a comparison.
Please tell me how the top left picture looks great in comparison to these games or justifies how it looks.

Harvesters slow down the game and reduce army sizes.
Again, please tell me how this mechanic is better then what is in place in every other modern RTS. As you have given the game such a glowing review, how do you feel this mechanic is beneficial or at least, why it does not slow gameplay and why?

>in Reference to the above posts<

Graphics are poor? Tell that to all the people whome had thier graphics card melt.

Starcraft 2 even puts more pressure on my system then every single game you have mentioned as being better, only exception is a mod for TW.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)