Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Why is "slowing down the game" bad? Why does forcing the player to make strategic decisions on how many harvesters vs. army size make the game automatically bad?

You keep asking for people to to explain "why" something works for them, but it's just as hard for you to justify your feelings. I found the game challenging and fun. I enjoyed making tough decisions in the upgrade systems as well as on the battlefield. The story, while hokey at times, totally sucked me in. I felt like I was building an army and making allies as I gained power and progressed.

You apparently didn't.

The harvester problem isn't a problem for me. You dislike that style of RTS, and that's totally cool. That's why there are different games out there, to cater to different tastes. But you can't just say that a game is complete shit because you didn't like it.

I personally don't like memoirs or non-fiction books. Does that mean that all books that I don't like are bad and shouldn't have been made? No.

Nunny:
>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.

The graphics cards melted due to a coding error on the menu screens, not the actual gameplay itself. Considering this was a story on this very site I fail to see how you could make such an error.

Anyway here's my thought. Fuck hype. Seriously. This is why I dislike Blizzard's fanbase. Nothing but constant hype and fawning praise; it's like you're all a bunch of 4-year olds and Blizzard is your mother. Mommy is perfect and anyone who says otherwise is a horrible and evil person.

Starcraft I is not the undisputed once-and-future RTS king. There were already games in 1998 and 1999 pushing the RTS genre in directions that Starcraft feared to tread. Now I'm not saying that Starcraft II should've been innovative in new directions, because I know it would've shattered the fragile minds of the fanbase who seem to be stuck 12 years in the past. Of course it's ironic that in a time where we rail against sequels for being too samey, we give Starcraft II a free pass because "it wouldn't be Starcraft". You never hear people say "it wouldn't be Contra" or "it wouldn't be Mario". But I digress.

What I am saying is the constant fellatio of Starcraft II when it's becoming very very clear that it's not the power of Jesus in a box is turning off myself and others. Yes I include myself despite my constant railing against Starcraft II. See one of my friends owns the collector's edition, and when he talked about the game he didn't go on and on like it was the best game ever, instead he answered me a simple question: "is it fun?". And he said yes. Based on the concept of it being fun, and based on my preference for RTS games, I had him give me a guest pass. A guest pass which is currently installed on my computer and has 13 days left on it. I have not touched the game for two reasons. One is my job. The other is this thread and others like it. Not that the blathering masses of Starcraft II fans need any more support but simply I feel that it is getting less and less worth taking the time to see what the fuss is about when the only positive assertion about the game simply has to be "It is the greatest game ever", with no middle ground. And that is a childish and unrealistic expectation. It's not perfect, deal with it.

John Funk:

LAN would have been nice, but let's be honest, it's outdated technology and will one day be obsolete (if it isn't already).

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

I stil occasionally have LAN games which I enjoy, I mean theres nothing better than having fun with your mates whilst playing some Starcraft. However I don't see why everyone is complaining about the LAN not being there, you can still get friends round together and connect to the same internet connection and have some games, and from what I've heard there's pretty much no lag when you do this either.

And you say there's problems with B.net like the cross region play, I haven't played any online games yet since I didn't get a chance to play SC2 till late on Monday night and story comes first, are this problems really big or just minor irritants?

Catalyst6:

paketep:

kingcom:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.

Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.

Oh please. Yes, there are *limited* applications for LAN support, but everyone's just being pissy because they can't pirate the game. That's pretty much why Battle.net is getting so much flak as well. It's no different than Steam, and I don't see people up at arms about them...

Last I checked, I could play HL2: DM, CS:S and others on LAN quite easily. And don't start with that bullshit 'piracy' argument, because it's just what it is - bullshit. First off, as far as I know, the single-player has been cracked from day one. It's only a matter of time before pirates make a LAN mod of their own. The first SC had multiple LAN or Bnet replacement applications.

Michael Davos:
wonder if tito had a spoon to go with eating out blizzards ass like this..... game is no where near as flash as hes jerking it off to be

Yes, a titanium spoon! http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/kitchen/ddda/

TB_Infidel:
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?

Well I can't speak for Tito, but I still enjoy the mechanic of harvesters because it widens the breath of strategies available to you. If resources are only coming in from a static source, then most of your focus is on the two armies fighting it out. As soon as one army gains the advantage then that player just has to lean on that until he wins.

When you introduce harvesters, you then allow for strategies like economy raiding. So maybe I made a poor choice with my main army, took bad losses and had to retreat, but I was able to sneak some units into his base and cripple his economy by killing his harvesters or forcing them off the minerals.

John Funk:

JaredXE:
"Playing all of StarCraft II after paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint. It's that good."

But it's not all of Starcraft II....I'm confused. Did Blizzard package all three stories at the last minute?

StarCraft I was The Hobbit. A smaller, self-contained story. This is Fellowship of the Ring. It is a huge campaign experience that happens to be the first third of an even larger story.

I was immensely satisfied with the content present in Starcraft II. There was a complete narrative arc from humble beginnings to a valiant stand against the swarm on Char. The story is obviously far from complete but what was presented was satisfying enough. The greater threats of the universe remain, certainly, but the immediate problems of the moment were resolved to my satisfaction. Beyond that, the game took three fairly lengthy sittings to complete so I could not lodge a complaint about quantity of content. Even if I never stepped into the multiplayer, the single player content alone was satisfying enough that it was worth my 60 bucks.

While I originally resented the idea of having to pay for three separate campaigns, should they meet the same level of quality I can now say that I have no problem with such a request.

TB_Infidel:

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.

I would like to point out (even though you were referring to an entirely different person with this quote) that I enjoy StarCraft 2 immensely and I don't fit into your sweeping generalization. I played StarCraft in passing only - my RTS series of choice at the time was Command and Conquer. There is no nostalgia there for me. More to the point, my preferred style of RTS has been the sort that focuses on the small scale tactical combat like Dawn of War. In spite of this, I still enjoyed the game.

TB_Infidel:

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

If it makes you feel any better - im "in" on this with you. Reminds me of people that just keep remembering how delicious was that particular ice-cream 20 years ago.

In regards to Starcraft 2 - they should've called it cyber-sport clicking game (CS-CG?) since it lacks "strategy" in it.

TB_Infidel:

-Fixed game speeds are useful
-No cover, moral, melee mechanic, and small mirror image maps make the game more tactical?

Could also add - unbalanced damage across unit types and general lack of unit/building types.

Electric Gel:
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. ...it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.

Yes, she's the character from Starcraft: Ghost that dropped off the face of the Earth before it went anywhere. She makes a cameo in SC2, though, and I have to say playing her level gave me about seven flavors of Kerrigan nostalgia.

About the other bit, I wouldn't say their character design choices are generic. The characters are all distinct and recognizable (even though I'm playing at minimum settings so they all look a bit like cartoony WoW characters) once you get used to them. They're just different, not bland.

Slycne:

TB_Infidel:
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?

Well I can't speak for Tito, but I still enjoy the mechanic of harvesters because it widens the breath of strategies available to you. If resources are only coming in from a static source, then most of your focus is on the two armies fighting it out. As soon as one army gains the advantage then that player just has to lean on that until he wins.

When you introduce harvesters, you then allow for strategies like economy raiding. So maybe I made a poor choice with my main army, took bad losses and had to retreat, but I was able to sneak some units into his base and cripple his economy by killing his harvesters or forcing them off the minerals.

This is why they have static resource points spread around the map at strategic locations to encourage fighting, or force fighting, at certain parts of the map. This was the case in all the RTS's I have talked about. Economy raiding is also possible in these games, the pace is merely faster, more fun, more exciting, and just as tactical, possibly more.

Nunny:
>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.

That's like saying the 195 Nvidia drivers were out of this world for every game because they melted GPU's -.-
Before making a really inane comment, look up why cards are melting because the last I checked having an uncapped FPS isn't the sign of good graphics, it's the sign of a technical screw up of monolithic proportions.

Greg Tito:
Why is "slowing down the game" bad? Why does forcing the player to make strategic decisions on how many harvesters vs. army size make the game automatically bad?

You keep asking for people to to explain "why" something works for them, but it's just as hard for you to justify your feelings. I found the game challenging and fun. I enjoyed making tough decisions in the upgrade systems as well as on the battlefield. The story, while hokey at times, totally sucked me in. I felt like I was building an army and making allies as I gained power and progressed.

You apparently didn't.

The harvester problem isn't a problem for me. You dislike that style of RTS, and that's totally cool. That's why there are different games out there, to cater to different tastes. But you can't just say that a game is complete shit because you didn't like it.

I personally don't like memoirs or non-fiction books. Does that mean that all books that I don't like are bad and shouldn't have been made? No.

If I wanted to merely optimise resource harvesting I would play SimCity, not an RTS.
A slow start is never fun and entertaining...and with the amount of harvesters you need (which you will be able to find out the optimum amount from any forum) it merely limits the size of your army.

Yet again, I have repeatedly explained why it is bad in comparison to every other major RTS in the last 5 years. It is slow, looks worse, less tactical, and has less customisation of game settings. Although the upgrade system is good, how does this make up for the numerous flaws StarCraft 2 has which every other game had fixed?

I'm going finish this post by saying that not one person has explained why it is fun after having all these flaws bar ' It is fun cause I say so derp', and that when I have shown substantiated evidence to back up my points, people merely ignore them eg bad graphics - do you still think it is good in comparison to everything else I showed you? I'll take your silence as 'No, it is dated, my bad'.

Still in two minds as to weather or not this is gona be just like the original Starcraft but with shiny graphics. The genre and gameplay hasn't really changed and adding new units is'nt really a big "2" worthy, it seems more like a fancy addon to brood war imo. Having said that Starcraft was, and to a degree still is, awesome.

nice reference with the "terrible terrible damage"

Shjade:

Electric Gel:
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. ...it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.

Yes, she's the character from Starcraft: Ghost that dropped off the face of the Earth before it went anywhere. She makes a cameo in SC2, though, and I have to say playing her level gave me about seven flavors of Kerrigan nostalgia.

About the other bit, I wouldn't say their character design choices are generic. The characters are all distinct and recognizable (even though I'm playing at minimum settings so they all look a bit like cartoony WoW characters) once you get used to them. They're just different, not bland.

Well I'm still not entirely convinced, but I should probably go and play the game before jumping to conclusions. That cameo ghost level sounds a treat, especially since I was looking forward to that game for ages before it snuffed it.

Right, time to mug some orphans so I can get enough ready's to actually buy this bloody game.

Sigh...

I'm gonna have to back Xocrates on this one, as another person who's been playing RTS games since Dune II and have played a huge if not complete variety of them since. I'll add Homeworld to the list since it's being neglected. I also find Supreme Commander being toted as advanced comparatively laughable because it took Total Annihilation and 'downgraded' it to C&C/SC clone at number 2 and SupCom 1 had *terrible* unit balance between standard and experimentals. DoW as advanced? Are you blurring DoW 1 & 2 together? Because DoW 1 was a fun, alternate take on the C&C/SC formula while DoW 2 campaign was little more than a squad tactical action RPG. Combining DoW 1 & 2 would get you something like SC 2 in scope.

Anyways...

A strategy game is defined by your possible, viable options and limitations. As such, I adore Total Annihilation because of the incredible breadth of choice it offered (And if you thought this game was balanced, then you're stuck in nostalgia mode because the Flash Tank was anything but balanced). But going back to the main point, Starcraft 2 has a compelling and broad set of possibilities and limitations, which is what makes it a great RTS game.

Harvesting resources via workers requires more attention than other methods, true, but it also offers many more options than said other methods. This allows the old school harvester methodology to be compelling if you let it be and think about what strategic and tactical options it actually presents.

The first 2 minutes of a SC 2 match are often rote repeat, but variations in even that little time still make a difference and reveal something of a player's overall strategy. Also, this game is anything but slow. If you think it's slow, you're not playing Multi or Brutal Campaign modes. Third option is your computer is slow and the game is scaling the speed down to compensate for your rig's hardware deficiencies.

And speaking of Time. Time is huge for any RTS, but Time is especially critical for SC 2. The strategic and tactical options in the game are very demanding when put together, so how you use your time is a major measure of a player's skill for SC 2. If that's not your cup of tea, then so be it, however, it doesn't mean the game is outdated. Many 'outdated gimicks' of the game that people are complaining about are still there in order to tax your attention. It's essential to the formula. If you need more of an explanation, then let's just say this sort of strategy game isn't for you, like how Civilization might not be for you.

Saying that this game doesn't have cover and flanking and is thus outdated mostly means you're not in tune to the style of cover and flanking this game does have. Cover is rules of sight, like elevation and terrain obstacles. Flanking is outmaneuvering and outpositioning your opponents forces. We're not talking static, bland bonuses for standing in hex X or shooting someone from a rear arc, we're talking actual field maneuvers here. It's different and very much more demanding while still being deeply tactical in truth.

The UI in SC 2 has also been advanced to the cutting edge for this style of RTS. Complex, Queued actions? Check. Hotkeys for damn near everything? Check. The UI will even let you hotkey your production facilities and automatically spread build loads between them. Total Annihilation was one game I looked to for UI functions I liked, and SC 2 has them all and more (like spacebar cycling to hotspots). And yes, I don't bother with multiple monitors.

And people are complaining about the graphics? Seriously? Have you seen how much environmental detail has been packed into these levels? All the flora, fauna, and geographic details and animations? I have yet to see a game that's even close, including DoW 2 and C&C 4. Have you seen the models for the Thor? Battlecruiser? Mothership? Colossus? Those are crazy detailed and fluidly and complexly animated. Even the protoss warp in animations have a huge amount of detail and complexity. The game just breathes life, and that's before things start exploding, or get sliced and diced, or fried to a delicious crisp.

Oh, right, the story. It was simple, but there was depth in that simplicity, doubly so if you played through SC 1 and Brood War. Also great delivery if some cheesy lines don't turn you completely off. But seriously, you expect to go through all the motions of a complex conversation in 30 seconds like you'd find in a novel? SC 2 story was meant to be more like a graphic novel, and last I checked, branching diologue and plodding conversations were Bioware's schtick.

Final Edit - The comic I got in the collector's edition *is* a pretty colorful jumble of terrible. I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been, but still came off as cluttered, bland action sequences and dreadfully boring cast and plot.

Rythe:
snip

1. You win this thread.
2. I'm amused at the amount of haters that are clearly uneducated and ignorant in the way SC2 works in its most basic. Yes, it has harvesters, and yes, it adds a whole 'nother level of strategy to it; NO, the game is not slow in any way, shape or form (and excuse me, but where the fuck did you even pick that up?). Comparing its pace to the likes of Sins of a Solar Empire or DoW 1 and 2 and then saying it's slower really made me laugh out loud.
3. As you said, and this has to be reemphasised, have you people even seen just how much detail there is in the terrain? No, the graphics aren't the pinnacle of evolution for SC2, but they're damn good and they do their job well.
4. Any of you who think there is no or little strategy involved, I suggest you seeing some SC2 shoutcasts and see just how abundant and varied the strategies in SC2 are.

And, as is always mandatory in a SC2 thread, I'll prove me not being Blizzard fanboy and say this - the campaign in Starcraft 2 sucked, especially when comparing to previous Blizzard titles. Don't even try pulling that card on me.

There goes another poorly worded and laid out argument by me, but seriously, most of you haters don't know shit of what you're talking about, and I feel like some truly experienced and intelligent people here are arguing with a bunch of 5 year olds.

Is this review a joke? Starcraft II isn't a golden brick, its a RTS game that's so goddamn camp I half expect there to be a "biff" every time a Zergling hits my Marines. I mean, not to insult the reviewer or anything, but the game isn't fantastic by any means.

Multiplayer, fine. There are issues with lack of chat channels and map size limits, but whatever, there's always worse things. Multiplayer will be corrected in time.

Singleplayer? Good lord. Brutal is the only level that gives me a challenge, and even then a hefty bioball with my super upgraded medics puts it all to rest. But that's difficulty, and for now I'll refrain from it because its a bit too subjective. Instead, let's look at the dialogue.

Now, I'm a bit spoiled from the conversations in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, so voice acting as a rule of thumb no longer impresses me. Starcraft II wasn't even on the level of Knights of the Old Republic. The lines were just awful, and Mengsk is such a comical villain that I can't take him seriously. 1984 was the perfect way to describe him, because like 1984 the society he built is an oversimplified hunk of oppression and evil that is so mind bogglingly implausible that it becomes unbelievable. Missions have enemies not because its logical for the enemy army to be there, but because the game designers apparently thought that the mission needed something to fight against. Hell, some of the enemies are so forced in to the game that I almost laughed, especially with the Protoss. Religious fanatics? You'd think that a hero like Jim Raynor would be able to go "Hey buddies, I helped your entire race out awhile back, mind lending me this so that we can stop the Zerg?" Fanatical or not, I'd probably give the hero of my entire people something if he asked nicely.

And then those b.s. moral choices that are announced so far in advance I thought I had clairvoyance. There's always this question that leads up to the obvious moral choice mission about an hour before you actually do anything, and then it cuts to a screen where you can pick between Character X and Character Y, with Character Y usually being the attractive female standing up for the side of justice, a.k.a. Nova (who is the right answer.) Why do we even get this? Jim Raynor isn't a custom character, this isn't Mass Effect. All it serves to do is hook in players with a semblance of personalization when its purpose is incredibly unclear. Oh wait, its probably for money.

Honestly, the game isn't bad, and I'd still recommend it to people who really liked Starcraft, but its not the greatest game of the year and its certainly not the best RTS of all time. If you compare it to Starcraft and Brood War, its worse than them (relative to the release date, of course.) But like I said, its not bad, its mediocre. Its a run of the mill, cookie cutter RTS that seems to carry the haunting echoes of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and everything that movie stood for. Which again, was pretty much just money.

TB_Infidel:

If I wanted to merely optimise resource harvesting I would play SimCity, not an RTS.
A slow start is never fun and entertaining...and with the amount of harvesters you need (which you will be able to find out the optimum amount from any forum) it merely limits the size of your army.

Yet again, I have repeatedly explained why it is bad in comparison to every other major RTS in the last 5 years. It is slow, looks worse, less tactical, and has less customisation of game settings. Although the upgrade system is good, how does this make up for the numerous flaws StarCraft 2 has which every other game had fixed?

I'm going finish this post by saying that not one person has explained why it is fun after having all these flaws bar ' It is fun cause I say so derp', and that when I have shown substantiated evidence to back up my points, people merely ignore them eg bad graphics - do you still think it is good in comparison to everything else I showed you? I'll take your silence as 'No, it is dated, my bad'.

Everything you've been bitching about is SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I've played Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, and Dawn of War. I love all of them, and I enjoy Starcraft 2 IMMENSELY.

Starcraft 2 isn't trying to be a Dawn of War clone, it doesn't need squad tactics or a morale system, it went for what worked in the first and refined it. A lot of people like that system, myself included, and the game is still entertaining.

I like harvesting minerals as a means of getting more units.
I like having slow build speeds (means I actually have to pick which unit I want to spend time creating).
I like the fact that the game doesn't use a morale or cover system just because other RTS games have used it.

As for your continued suggestion that the game has poor graphics, reviewers everywhere have been praising it as one of the best looking games of the year. The cinematics are gorgeous and the actual "gameplay graphics" fit perfectly well. They don't need to be photorealistic to be considered "good graphics."

*

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?

yes i dont have a great pc in fact i lagged the whole campain and was running it as low as the grafics go and i still ant to replay every mission and plan to. I dont play multiplayer on RTS games just as a rule if it cant stand alone it aint worth it. i am a little mad i cant earn achivments offline:(

Cristian Capatana:

And yes, nothing new does make it an average game: doing the same thing as everyone else is mediocrity (at it's finest but still mediocrity). In every human field of activity there has always been one person that innovated or made a huge difference and for that they are great and many others that followed, polishing on the original concept, and for that they are only average!

...let me see if I can grasp where you're coming from. If a game isn't innovative, it's automatically a mediocre game?

How does that logic work? *raises eyebrow*

*

JeanLuc761:
snip

Buddy, you haven't actually said WHY you like any of this. What you have done is given opinions.
Why do you like all this? What makes this game better then the competition out there?
Again, look at the picture I linked. Can you really say it is the best looking RTS in the last few years? I think not when the requirements are so low.
Whilst on this topic, why does the childish art style complement a game which is meant to gritty as is shown by the fmv's in game? And if course the fmv's look good, all pre-rendered cinematic's look great.

TB_Infidel:

Slycne:

TB_Infidel:
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?

Well I can't speak for Tito, but I still enjoy the mechanic of harvesters because it widens the breath of strategies available to you. If resources are only coming in from a static source, then most of your focus is on the two armies fighting it out. As soon as one army gains the advantage then that player just has to lean on that until he wins.

When you introduce harvesters, you then allow for strategies like economy raiding. So maybe I made a poor choice with my main army, took bad losses and had to retreat, but I was able to sneak some units into his base and cripple his economy by killing his harvesters or forcing them off the minerals.

This is why they have static resource points spread around the map at strategic locations to encourage fighting, or force fighting, at certain parts of the map. This was the case in all the RTS's I have talked about. Economy raiding is also possible in these games, the pace is merely faster, more fun, more exciting, and just as tactical, possibly more.

Nunny:
>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.

That's like saying the 195 Nvidia drivers were out of this world for every game because they melted GPU's -.-
Before making a really inane comment, look up why cards are melting because the last I checked having an uncapped FPS isn't the sign of good graphics, it's the sign of a technical screw up of monolithic proportions.

Greg Tito:
Why is "slowing down the game" bad? Why does forcing the player to make strategic decisions on how many harvesters vs. army size make the game automatically bad?

You keep asking for people to to explain "why" something works for them, but it's just as hard for you to justify your feelings. I found the game challenging and fun. I enjoyed making tough decisions in the upgrade systems as well as on the battlefield. The story, while hokey at times, totally sucked me in. I felt like I was building an army and making allies as I gained power and progressed.

You apparently didn't.

The harvester problem isn't a problem for me. You dislike that style of RTS, and that's totally cool. That's why there are different games out there, to cater to different tastes. But you can't just say that a game is complete shit because you didn't like it.

I personally don't like memoirs or non-fiction books. Does that mean that all books that I don't like are bad and shouldn't have been made? No.

If I wanted to merely optimise resource harvesting I would play SimCity, not an RTS.
A slow start is never fun and entertaining...and with the amount of harvesters you need (which you will be able to find out the optimum amount from any forum) it merely limits the size of your army.

Yet again, I have repeatedly explained why it is bad in comparison to every other major RTS in the last 5 years. It is slow, looks worse, less tactical, and has less customisation of game settings. Although the upgrade system is good, how does this make up for the numerous flaws StarCraft 2 has which every other game had fixed?

I'm going finish this post by saying that not one person has explained why it is fun after having all these flaws bar ' It is fun cause I say so derp', and that when I have shown substantiated evidence to back up my points, people merely ignore them eg bad graphics - do you still think it is good in comparison to everything else I showed you? I'll take your silence as 'No, it is dated, my bad'.

ok first off i want this to be clear i do NOT play any RTS games online there for all games must prove them selves with single player. Now saying that i loved the campain and plan to keep replaying it till the next one comes out and before you say it yes im a little mad i dont get all 3 campains but hey this one shined for me much better then ANY RTS game ive played in the last 10 years and yes i have played most of them. Now before you go off and say im a blizz fan boy let me say this ahem I HATED YES HATED STARCRAFT 1! IT HAD A VERY LOSELY FITED STORY AND I HATED IT! now that thats out of the way i say pick the game up and stop trying to compair it to art its fun play it. you dont like it pawn it and STFU!

J.T.Hipster:

And then those b.s. moral choices that are announced so far in advance I thought I had clairvoyance. There's always this question that leads up to the obvious moral choice mission about an hour before you actually do anything, and then it cuts to a screen where you can pick between Character X and Character Y, with Character Y usually being the attractive female standing up for the side of justice, a.k.a. Nova (who is the right answer.) Why do we even get this? Jim Raynor isn't a custom character, this isn't Mass Effect. All it serves to do is hook in players with a semblance of personalization when its purpose is incredibly unclear. Oh wait, its probably for money.
.

Nova isn't the right choice. If you go with Tosh you will discover that the Specters were fine all along. There isn't any moral choices in SC2 at all. Just missions that let you pick different rewards and different ways to solve that particular side mission.

So yeah, you just complained about nothing really. ^^

Xocrates:

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)

-I've no idea what you're on about saying no need for expansions in DoW - can you elaborate?
-There is only DoW 1 with 3 expansions and DoW 2 with 1 expansion....It's hard to debate something when you make such a large mistake. The tech trees in Sup Com are nothing alike, and SC2 tech trees are almost identical with each unit filling one specific role. So again please stop talking about a game you clearly spend the best part of 15 mins playing.
-The graphics are so dated we are talking an AGP GPU can run the game. That's not updating your PC every year, that's running a machine from the best part of a decade ago so stop acting as if I'm demanding DX11 with triple SLI.
- Really? Any chance of posting some pics with altered texture quality etc as I find it very hard to believe.

TB_Infidel:

JeanLuc761:
snip

1. Buddy, you haven't actually said WHY you like any of this. What you have done is given opinions.

2. Why do you like all this? What makes this game better then the competition out there?

3. Again, look at the picture I linked. Can you really say it is the best looking RTS in the last few years? I think not when the requirements are so low.

4. Whilst on this topic, why does the childish art style complement a game which is meant to gritty as is shown by the fmv's in game? And if course the fmv's look good, all pre-rendered cinematic's look great.

1. Opinion is mostly what you've been posting as well. You say that (for example) Dawn of War's retribution and morale system is a provably better gameplay mechanic than harvesting minerals and lack of said morale system. It's not provably better, but it may appeal more to your personal preference.

2. While the system may feel "dated," to some, it's polished to a mirror shine, tactical gameplay is omni-present (much more than click spam) and it just...I honestly don't know how to explain it directly other than I just find it appealing. While I enjoy the additions to the RTS formula that Dawn of War brought to the stage, I don't necessarily think those made the genre "better," just "different."

3. I never said it was the best looking RTS in the last few years, I'm simply saying it's not poor. The game is beautiful so far as art style goes, even if the texture detail and lighting isn't as photorealistic as some other RTS games.

4. Colorful and vibrant =/= childish and I'd argue it's somewhat narrow-minded to think so. I like that the game didn't go for the gritty look that Dawn of War and Company of Heroes use, not only because it makes the game stand out from the pack but also because I happen to find it visually attractive. And yes, the pre-rendered cinematics look great, but they always do. The in-engine cutscenes are absolutely gorgeous as well.

TB_Infidel:
Buddy, you haven't actually said WHY you like any of this. What you have done is given opinions.

Which is what SUBJECTIVE means.

A dictionary, get one.

TB_Infidel:
Again, look at the picture I linked. Can you really say it is the best looking RTS in the last few years? I think not when the requirements are so low.

Starcraft was designed to be readable first and foremost. Of all the screenshots you posted, SC2 is amongst the ones it's easier to see what the hell is going on (and it's an old screenshot at that).

ecoho:

TB_Infidel:
snip

ok first off i want this to be clear i do NOT play any RTS games online there for all games must prove them selves with single player. Now saying that i loved the campain and plan to keep replaying it till the next one comes out and before you say it yes im a little mad i dont get all 3 campains but hey this one shined for me much better then ANY RTS game ive played in the last 10 years and yes i have played most of them. Now before you go off and say im a blizz fan boy let me say this ahem I HATED YES HATED STARCRAFT 1! IT HAD A VERY LOSELY FITED STORY AND I HATED IT! now that thats out of the way i say pick the game up and stop trying to compair it to art its fun play it. you dont like it pawn it and STFU!

Yet again, if I got paid for people saying the game is ''great cause lol ', I would be very rich thanks to this forum.
Why is this game better then then competition on the market? What makes this game the undisputed RTS champion of the decade? Already people have said the story is great, yet others have said it is predictable and the story was based around the missions. The graphics are poor compared to any other RTS, yet people try to say they are great showing that someone somewhere is lying through their teeth.

oliveira8:

J.T.Hipster:

And then those b.s. moral choices that are announced so far in advance I thought I had clairvoyance. There's always this question that leads up to the obvious moral choice mission about an hour before you actually do anything, and then it cuts to a screen where you can pick between Character X and Character Y, with Character Y usually being the attractive female standing up for the side of justice, a.k.a. Nova (who is the right answer.) Why do we even get this? Jim Raynor isn't a custom character, this isn't Mass Effect. All it serves to do is hook in players with a semblance of personalization when its purpose is incredibly unclear. Oh wait, its probably for money.
.

Nova isn't the right choice. If you go with Tosh you will discover that the Specters were fine all along. There isn't any moral choices in SC2 at all. Just missions that let you pick different rewards and different ways to solve that particular side mission.

So yeah, you just complained about nothing really. ^^

I use the phrase "moral choices" because it sounds better than just "choices." I'm complaining because its an otherwise linear game that shoves in these choices not because its good for characterization or plot, but because it feels sort of like having freedom, but not really. I'm complaining that its like everything else about Starcraft 2, something forced in to milk money out of things, just like Gom T.V. and facebook connectivity.

Also Nova is the right choice because she is Nova. She's a character who is famous for not existing and any time a character is put in for fan service you need to pick them. Also, Ghosts have the snipe ability.

[Edit]

Here's the ultimate problem with Starcraft II, at least my issue. Its not the plot, its not the graphics, and its certainly not the gameplay. The plot is mediocre, but so was the original Starcraft, and the gameplay is still tight because it hasn't changed much from Starcraft 1. The graphics are fine, and I guess they're better than Dawn of War 2, or at least they have less orcs in space, so that's not a problem. Its just the fact that instead of a glorious RTS game that would set the new standard for the genre, it was really just more of the same.

The fact that it took twelve years for this game to come out is the biggest issue. Twelve years is more than a childhood. If you started playing at the age of 8, much younger than you should have, you are now 20. 12 years waiting for a game to come and bring you something new to play, something innovative and fun that would last just as long as the original.

Honestly, Starcraft II isn't that. Its a game that felt like it was developed in 3 years, not 12, it felt like a game that wasn't quite as inspired or brilliant as say, Mass Effect was for RPGs. Starcraft II should have been a revolution for RTS games, like Mass Effect was for RPGs, but it wasn't. I shouldn't be able to go back to Brood War and go "This is still pretty fun," I should be wanting to get on Starcraft II as much as possible, but it just doesn't have that spark. It didn't live up to the standards that I expected, that others expected.

We're not exactly being unfair here. Twelve years is a long time, much longer that we've had to wait for any game I can think of, and what was released should have been flawless, but it wasn't. The single player is terrible, and while the multiplayer is good, that doesn't really justify it. Starcraft II is a good game, don't get me wrong, but after more than a decade, it should have been a great game. I mean, in the time it took to make it, the U.S. Highway System would have been built four times over. That's the scale we're talking about here.

J.T.Hipster:

Also Nova is the right choice because she is Nova. She's a character who is famous for not existing and any time a character is put in for fan service you need to pick them. Also, Ghosts have the snipe ability.

I don't know I liked the stun ability. It came in handy some times. Also I thought they only put Nova in as a nod to the late Starcraft:Ghost game, where the main character was a Ghost named Nova.

P.S:ALso I liked the choice missions, mainly the one where you had to chose between destroying the zerg flier nests or the nidus worms and in the final mission the one you picked wouldn't make an appearance. More of those in the sequels.

TB_Infidel:

ecoho:

TB_Infidel:
snip

ok first off i want this to be clear i do NOT play any RTS games online there for all games must prove them selves with single player. Now saying that i loved the campain and plan to keep replaying it till the next one comes out and before you say it yes im a little mad i dont get all 3 campains but hey this one shined for me much better then ANY RTS game ive played in the last 10 years and yes i have played most of them. Now before you go off and say im a blizz fan boy let me say this ahem I HATED YES HATED STARCRAFT 1! IT HAD A VERY LOSELY FITED STORY AND I HATED IT! now that thats out of the way i say pick the game up and stop trying to compair it to art its fun play it. you dont like it pawn it and STFU!

Yet again, if I got paid for people saying the game is ''great cause lol ', I would be very rich thanks to this forum.
Why is this game better then then competition on the market? What makes this game the undisputed RTS champion of the decade? Already people have said the story is great, yet others have said it is predictable and the story was based around the missions. The graphics are poor compared to any other RTS, yet people try to say they are great showing that someone somewhere is lying through their teeth.

ug i said this already on this forum my computer is a peice of shit mostly because i like haveing heat and food so i could care less about graphics if a game is fun i play it so please do us all a favor and just shut up now it was nice for you to put out YOUR opinoin but seriously do you think it will change anyones mind? im gonna say this if you like the game dont lision to people like this guy just play the game and laugh at his kind in the comfert of your own home like i do.

If I get any money for my exam results, then I'm upgrading my PC. Then I'm buying this game.

Mazty:
-I've no idea what you're on about saying no need for expansions in DoW - can you elaborate?

Expansion: A secondary base.

Mazty:
-There is only DoW 1 with 3 expansions and DoW 2 with 1 expansion....It's hard to debate something when you make such a large mistake.

What large mistake? Saying the DoW series removed base building by game 2?

Mazty:
The tech trees in Sup Com are nothing alike

You're kidding right?
http://uk.faqs.ign.com/articles/887/887397p1.html

For comparison:

Zerg: http://www.sc2win.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/zerg_techtree.jpg
Protoss: http://www.sc2win.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/protoss_techtree.jpg
Terran: http://www.sc2win.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/terran_techtree.jpg

Mazty:
So again please stop talking about a game you clearly spend the best part of 15 mins playing.

I don't see that stopping you.

Mazty:
-The graphics are so dated we are talking an AGP GPU can run the game. That's not updating your PC every year, that's running a machine from the best part of a decade ago so stop acting as if I'm demanding DX11 with triple SLI.

And what you fail to realize is that the graphics don't need to be state of the art for a game to be good. Blizzard always launched their games with "dated" graphics. It means it's more accessible.

Why that's a problem I don't understand.

Mazty:
- Really? Any chance of posting some pics with altered texture quality etc as I find it very hard to believe.

Your wish is my command (with a rendering issue in the top one to boot, just to prove it's real time) http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1007/image3jq.png

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

DoW? The first one and it's expansions is one of my all-time favorite games.
CoH? Also a big fan, and I play it regularly with my steam friends
TW? Not a fan, but I certainly see the appeal
DoW2? Did not like it near as much as the original, but I did like the campaign immensely.
SC? Played the demo, liked it but never bought it, played the second game's demo, thought it was bad.
SOSE? great game, but it's really more of a 4X game than an RTS.

That being said, I didn't play starcraft til a few months ago, and I didn't really like it, however I LOVED warcraft 3. I am also confident in saying Starcraft 2 is an AMAZING game, and for someone like you to go through all this trouble trying to convince people why it's "shit that has done nothing for the genre", I can safely assume that the original in some way did you harm. Did it rape your mother? Kill your father? Make fun of you in school in front all of the other kids?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 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