Am I crazy?

[SL33TBL1ND]

I can understand not liking SC2 all that much. It's a very specific type of RTS that has a certain type of audience.

 

[Dartinin]

If your asking this question then yes you are crazy congradulations! Your not insain though becoue your still selfaware.

 

[wrightguy0]

I think we're all a little Nuts TBH, we have to be, you enjoy an RTS that many find to be lackluster in it's depth and mechanics, while others enjoy playing Starcraft II against Koreans.

even i'm not immune to it, my own brand of insanity has me recreating the great Ocean Liners of the 30's in Minecraft...so we're all a little crazy, you're no more crazy than Myself or the people who posted before or after me.

heck the fact that videogames exist at all are because of people with crazy dreams of controlling little electronic objects rendered on a screen.....heck, if we didn't all possess some level of crazy we wouldn't have left the caves of old.

so sit back and embrace it

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

You couldn't be more crazy if you were beat 'round the head by a mad badger in a tutu with a crazy stick.

I'm not talking about you not liking Starcraft very much, I'm talking about the fact that you think Halo Wars can be a more enjoyable RTS over others; and it's on console.

I'm a console gamer, but I would play an RTS on a PC any day, and in fact, I do. RTS is all about control - a massive game of skill, tactics and psychological fisticuffs. Halo Wars is just about building an army and seeing if your troops get a little more luckier over your opponents synchronised steamroll. It's bland, limiting, casual (and RTS's aren't supposed to be casual), redundant. I've not play Starcraft but from what I've seen it is the opposite end of the spectrum... of videogames, amongst other RTS's. Halo Wars is down the other side with Viva Pinata and dancing games.

If you said you liked RTS's and your prime example was how much you enjoyed Halo Wars. I think it's time for you to give up on engaging gaming and pick up an iPhone for some mindless fun instead.

Good, now that he's taken the bullet, no one else has to embarrass themselves with the hideously tired "PC vs. console" bullshit that anyone with more than two brain cells can't stand. Thanks.

 

[Kordie]

Yes you are crazy. But take solace in the fact that you are crazy merely because everyone is crazy. Had you at any point been sane, everyone else's insanity would have caused a mental break. So embrace the crazy and spread the crazy. As my momma always said, life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when the peanuts will rise up and kill someone.

Anyways, on topic, I played halo wars and it was a fun game. I can see the draw to it, in that console RTS's are often times slower due to the controls. The big thing that makes SC2 complicated, is the time aspect. The mechanics are not overly complicated, but the pressure from time makes everything a pain. It is not a game for everyone, but where I would offer it a saving grace is in the custom games. If you haven't already, try them out. There is likely a map or two that you will enjoy. I say this not in defence of SC2, but in defence of your wallet. With the right map/mod, you can really get your doller's worth.

 

[Vrach]

You like what you like and dislike what you dislike. Having a different opinion doesn't make you crazy.

^This. For what it's worth, I also like the simple RTSs and can't possibly get into the complicated ones, prefer TBSs like Civilization where I can take my time. To be fair though, RTSs are not really my thing, but some of the simpler ones (say, C&C Generals) I find fun with some mates from time to time.

 

[surg3n]

I prefer more straightforward RTS games too - I haven't played Starcraft2, but really liked the first game. For me, the best RTS is C&C Generals - I usually just make a massive army then tear up the level, but I find it fun, especially playing head-to-head with someone, then spending half the game trying to hide about 300 hackers .

Maybe it's the non-bulding part of Starcraft2 that you don't like, when your running around with just your dudes - that annoyed me in the first game, seemed to go against all that was fun about the building aspects.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

You like what you like and dislike what you dislike. Having a different opinion doesn't make you crazy.

^That.

I've never played Halo Wars, since I never had the interest to. So I can't really comment on it.

But I can say that I did play SC2, and I thought it was really, really boring. The campaign was.. alright. Once it was over, I played one multiplayer match, then never played it again. For comparison, I got Warhammer: Dawn of War 2 soon after SC2 and this turned out to be waaaaaay better and way more fun than SC2 was.

I don't think the Starcraft series should be considered as the Benchmark for RTS games. I loved, LOVED the first game+Brood Wars, and thought SC2 was meh - and by extension stopped caring about the next 2 'expansions' entirely. Sure your opinion regarding these 2 games may not be same as the apparent majority, but that doesn't make you crazy. I guess the good thing about the RTS genre is that so many different game series have their own ways to pull off an RTS.

 

[Starke]

]. I still find the original Dawn of War expansions to kinda be a more true sequel to SC.

But they play completely differently
They're almost as seperate as rts's can be

OT: You don't like competitive rts then, but you still like them. I think that's a bit unusual, I've played both and love sc2, but meh. You prefer the more casual one, which is perfectly fine. SC2 is stressful

Only sort of. Obviously there's no 'nids in DoW1, so no Zerg. But with Marines as, Terrans, and Eldar as Protoss, it feels a lot more like StarCraft updated with an understanding of what does and doesn't work in RTSs.

And, thats what I meant when I said a sequel. Dawn of War feels like an RTS made in the mid 2000s. There's the switch to squads rather than individual troopers, for less micromanagement. Fewer individual unit types with greater customization of each type. For instance, instead of flamer marines in DoW being a separate unit, as Firebats were, they're an upgrade off normal marines.

Beyond that Dark Crusade and (although most of it sucks) Soulstorm, actually have that Risk style open game world. And, in the case of Dark Crusade, it's actually one of the better Risk style overmap RTS.

When you go back to StarCraft 2 it really feels, at least to me, like I'm playing a second expansion to the original game. No acknowledgement that it was 2011, and that over a decade of RTSs changing and advancing, just the original StarCraft all over again. Not a sequel, just a really well polished Expansion Pack with a graphics update.

EDIT: Fixed some embarrassing typos.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

]. I still find the original Dawn of War expansions to kinda be a more true sequel to SC.

But they play completely differently
They're almost as seperate as rts's can be

Only sort of. Obviously there's no 'nids in DoW1, so no Zerg. But with Marines as, Terrans, and Eldar as Protoss, it feels a lot more like StarCraft updated with an understanding of what does and doesn't work in RTSs.

Well from what I heard, blizzard was actually commissioned to make a Warhammer rts. I forgot where I saw that, but that's where the races came out. They started tyranids, eldar and imperials and just kept going when it got cancelled.

And, thats what I meant when I said a sequel. Dawn of War feels like an RTS made in the mid 2000s. There's the switch to squads rather than individual troopers, for less micromanagement. Fewer individual unit types with greater customization of each type. For instance, instead of flamer marines in DoW being a separate unit, as Firebats were, they're an upgrade off normal marines.

I don't see why that would count as a sequel though. RTS don't often change too much, it's mainly about the polish. So changes like this, are a big deal. In starcraft you'd through a ton of marines into tank fire too free up supply, whereas you'd want to keep your guys alive in DoW because you can get upgrades.
And then there's the complete removal of micro. You can cast spells, but that's about it. Basically just blob v blob, whoever has the biggest and most upgraded blob wins.
And then even more, there's the resources. There's no active resource gathering. You send some guys to get strategic points. You don't need to guard it, it just sits there and gives you money. Same with power.
and I don't see the problem with more powerful units instead of upgrades. It allows transition into higher teir tech, instead of still producing shitty units from basic building and then upgrading it. If I go into someone's base when they're zerg and snipe their greater spire, it sets them back a long way and feels awesome. I like that. (And firebats are a terrible alternative to marines Just focus fire and they're dead)

Beyond that Dark Crusade and (although most of it sucks) Soulstorm, actually have that Risk style open game world. And, in the case of Dark Crusade, it's actually one of the better Risk style overmap RTS.

While the risk map is great, I don't get why that would make it feel like a sequel to starcraft BW. Nothing in common.

When you go back to StarCraft 2 it really feels, at least to me, like I'm playing a second expansion to the original game. No acknowledgement that it was 2011, and that over a decade of RTSs changing and advancing, just the original StarCraft all over again. Not a sequel, just a really well polished Expansion Pack with a graphics update.

This is blizzard we're talking about here .
They don't innovate as much as polish. I can't think of a big innovation that they've done in the last 5 years. What they did was take BW up to date, and fixed a lot of the problems. Especially with RTS, a genre that doesn't innovate that often to begin with, coupled with blizzards view on sequels, then I wouldn't expect them to be radically different.
And even then, BW and starcraft 2 play quite differently. Practically none of the strategies are the same. "really well polished Expansion Pack with a graphics update."
These are blizzard sequels in a nutshell
And their games would probably be a lot worse if they weren't like this (With the exception of D3

Thoughts and stuff.
One last thing.
Blizzard wanted their game to be a huge impact on e-sports, just like the first one. It would be far to risky to make an entirely different type of rts and hope it is just as competitive. I love DoW, but it's not competitive or well balanced.

 

[Bvenged]

Good, now that he's taken the bullet, no one else has to embarrass themselves with the hideously tired "PC vs. console" bullshit that anyone with more than two brain cells can't stand. Thanks.

I don't recall mentioning that PC was better than console, or the other way around. I remember stating that:

I'm talking about the fact that you think Halo Wars can be a more enjoyable RTS over others; and it's on console.

I'm a console gamer, but I would play an RTS on a PC any day, and in fact, I do.

I'm pretty sure that highlights that I enjoy both platforms for different reasons but regardless, RTS on console is more limited than PC and Halo Wars in general was just a poor example of a Real Time Strategy, due to a lack of strategy.

And I'm damn sure that's not a polarised opinion but something most people who predominantly game on either system "with more than two brain cells" could agree on - because you simply don't have as much control over such a game with a controller as you do with a keyboard and mouse.

I have no intention of arguing over which platform is better as there are too many variables and is heavily weighted in preference. anyone with "two brain cells" would see that in my post as I state clearly that I'm a console gamer but play RTS on PC as it's a more suitable environment for that genre. I certainly don't appreciate you stating that I've embarrassed myself or that I'm a bullshitting moron because you're seeing things I didn't write.

Since I'm close to getting my probation cleared on these forums, I'll just settle for waiting for an apology than blurting out insults back.

 

[Starke]

]. I still find the original Dawn of War expansions to kinda be a more true sequel to SC.

But they play completely differently
They're almost as seperate as rts's can be

Only sort of. Obviously there's no 'nids in DoW1, so no Zerg. But with Marines as, Terrans, and Eldar as Protoss, it feels a lot more like StarCraft updated with an understanding of what does and doesn't work in RTSs.

Well from what I heard, blizzard was actually commissioned to make a Warhammer rts. I forgot where I saw that, but that's where the races came out. They started tyranids, eldar and imperials and just kept going when it got cancelled.

Yeah, see, no. First off, there are no Eldar or Tyranids in Warhammer. 40k? Yes. Warhammer not so much.

Warcraft may well have started its life as a Warhammer RTS, but by the time Starcraft came along, there was no Games Workshop affiliation left.

Second, you just revealed you don't play Dawn of War, or at least haven't played enough to get the flavor of the factions down.

And, thats what I meant when I said a sequel. Dawn of War feels like an RTS made in the mid 2000s. There's the switch to squads rather than individual troopers, for less micromanagement. Fewer individual unit types with greater customization of each type. For instance, instead of flamer marines in DoW being a separate unit, as Firebats were, they're an upgrade off normal marines.

I don't see why that would count as a sequel though. RTS don't often change too much, it's mainly about the polish. So changes like this, are a big deal. In starcraft you'd through a ton of marines into tank fire too free up supply, whereas you'd want to keep your guys alive in DoW because you can get upgrades.
And then there's the complete removal of micro. You can cast spells, but that's about it. Basically just blob v blob, whoever has the biggest and most upgraded blob wins.
And then even more, there's the resources. There's no active resource gathering. You send some guys to get strategic points. You don't need to guard it, it just sits there and gives you money. Same with power.
and I don't see the problem with more powerful units instead of upgrades. It allows transition into higher teir tech, instead of still producing shitty units from basic building and then upgrading it. If I go into someone's base when they're zerg and snipe their greater spire, it sets them back a long way and feels awesome. I like that. (And firebats are a terrible alternative to marines Just focus fire and they're dead)

And equipping Flamers to marines is a pretty awful idea, unless you're dealing with IG in close range.

Okay? Honestly? The reason I've been careful to say DoW1 and not 2 is because there are radical changes between the games. Where Dawn of War 1 feels like a bridge between Starcraft and modern gaming, Dawn of War 2 feels like a bridge between RTSs and Action RPGs. And, so far as it goes, feels a lot closer to the 40k fluff, if not the actual tabletop rules.

While I'll grant you, smaller iterative changes are the norm in a franchise, the bog standard RTS of 2012 looks nothing like Starcraft. For the most part the genre has taken what it could learn from that and streamlined it. DoW is an example of that streamlining. Rather than making you sit there and cobble together a base for two minutes while your opponent spams Zerglings, DoW focuses on getting units into combat with each other quickly.

Beyond that Dark Crusade and (although most of it sucks) Soulstorm, actually have that Risk style open game world. And, in the case of Dark Crusade, it's actually one of the better Risk style overmap RTS.

While the risk map is great, I don't get why that would make it feel like a sequel to starcraft BW. Nothing in common.

On that front, no. But on the front that Starcraft basically says "fuck you all, the last ten years never happened, here I am", and Dawn of War doesn't.

Here's the thing, the Risk type map is a really nice innovation in the RTS genre. It gives a nice context to the smaller battles. We've even seen some pretty distinct takes on it, from Empire at War and Sins of a Solar Empire's real time over-world maps, to Battle for Middle Earth 2's and Dawn of War: Dark Crusade's turn based affairs. Of course the elephant in the room remains the Total War series. But the point is, it's a major element of the genre now. An element that can really work. It's also something that is almost completely absent from Starcraft 2.

The Squad based infantry is in a similar vein. A lot of RTSs have gone to that because it streamlines the game for combat, instead of messing around with individual soldiers, you task out by squad. And, for the most part, it's the direction that the genre has gone.

When you go back to StarCraft 2 it really feels, at least to me, like I'm playing a second expansion to the original game. No acknowledgement that it was 2011, and that over a decade of RTSs changing and advancing, just the original StarCraft all over again. Not a sequel, just a really well polished Expansion Pack with a graphics update.

This is blizzard we're talking about here .

Yeah, you don't need to remind me of that.

They don't innovate as much as polish. I can't think of a big innovation that they've done in the last 5 years.

Yeah, but here's the thing. We're talking about fucking Starcraft. Without knowing your age, I'm going to go off the random assumption you just aren't old enough to understand what that means.

Starcraft was a very innovative RTS when it first came out. It was the first to really nail asymmetrical power dynamics in the genre. Reviews for it at the time talked about the Terrans being the "normal" RTS faction, with the other two being radically different. Go back to Warcraft 2, the game that preceded it, and you find a game where the only factional differences are a handful of unit special abilities.

They take this legacy, sit on it for a decade, and when the time finally rolls around to turn another Starcraft game loose? It's just a texture upgrade and a few new units.

What they did was take BW up to date, and fixed a lot of the problems. Especially with RTS, a genre that doesn't innovate that often to begin with, coupled with blizzards view on sequels, then I wouldn't expect them to be radically different.
And even then, BW and starcraft 2 play quite differently. Practically none of the strategies are the same. "really well polished Expansion Pack with a graphics update."
These are blizzard sequels in a nutshell

Yeah, no, not so much. This is post-Activision Blizzard in a nutshell. Which isn't a valid excuse. WoW in it's day was pretty innovative (I'm told, by people who actually played MMOs back in 2004), Warcraft 3 was a further iteration off of what we'd seen with Starcraft. Asymmetrical power dynamics across four factions instead of three... RPGish mechanics on their hero units, which was new, or newish at the time. Diablo 2 was somewhat innovative in the Action RPG genre, though not as much as the first, but it did give us a lot of industry standard features like socketed upgrades, item sets, and so on.

Though, I still think, with it's hybrid class system, Titan Quest was the closest I've seen to someone recapturing Diablo 2 and innovating there...

The point is, each game used to bring us something new. Something significant. With Starcraft 2, it really seems like they didn't even notice the world outside their window changed.

And their games would probably be a lot worse if they weren't like this (With the exception of D3

Which ends up in the territory of "damning with faint praise." The problem is, of course, that Blizzard has stopped innovating. Maybe they just don't feel the need, I'm not sure. But for whatever reason, they've stopped. Saying "no, they're just polishing" isn't really a valid excuse either.

And this is where I go back to my original statement. Dawn of War, for all of it's lack of polish feels more like a sequel to Starcraft, to me. Because it does what Blizzard used to do. It does actually innovate. The Requisition points force players to interact, and discourage turtling, one of the least interesting strategies from Starcraft, field reinforcement, and unit customization on the fly makes units much more versatile at responding to your opponent's tactics after they've left the base, and much more dangerous if a few stragglers get away. More distinct asynchronous power dynamics, than Warcraft 3. Again, it feels more like a successor than Starcraft 2 does, at least in the old Blizzard vein.

Thoughts and stuff.
One last thing.
Blizzard wanted their game to be a huge impact on e-sports, just like the first one. It would be far to risky to make an entirely different type of rts and hope it is just as competitive. I love DoW, but it's not competitive or well balanced.

Yeah, balance is a function of polish, and it takes a lot of energy to fully polish an RTS. Relic will never polish a game as thoroughly as Blizzard. They'll never spend ten years polishing the living shit out of a game. And, you know what? That's fine. Because, at it's core, Dawn of War, and Dawn of War 2, are new experiences. Starcraft 2? Not so much. Starcraft 2 is the annual franchise release, a decade late.

Blizzard has already demonstrated they don't understand what they're doing with the competitive game, when they tied the game to battle.net as a DRM.

 

[viranimus]

I think its actually pretty logical. Its a different style of gameplay. One that more closely mirrors other Ensemble studios work in the Age of empires franchise. So while you might dislike starcraft, you might find yourself struggling to dislike say Age of Mythology.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Nah, personal taste does not make you crazy.

 

[Syzygy23]

After considerable time spent on Starcraft II and Halo Wars (On my no longer present 360) I had far more enjoyment playing the latter. And my main motivation towards possibly repurchasing a 360 is to once again play this game. Everywhere I look I see such praise over Starcraft, I like the game, not to knock it. But perhaps I simply enjoy a more casual simplistic RTS?

Both are mediocre. You want a good RTS that's easy to learn, difficult to master? Try the Dawn of War series. Specifically, soulstorm or dark crusade.

 

[Trivun]

Hell no. I liked the game anyway because I'm a massive Halo fan, and I appreciated the references to the expanded universe and the way the game managed to expand the whole mythos of Halo and still tell a decent story all of its own. I really do wish 343 would announce a sequel, since unfortunately Ensemble won't be making one...

But, on another level, it was also one of a very tiny number of RTS games that was not only designed with console gameplay in mind, but also managed to make it work. Normally I hate console RTSs, and I do love my RTS games. But I felt good with the Halo Wars control scheme, it was designed specifically for use with a controller rather than a mouse and keyboard, and never felt awkward at all. And it was easy to get the hang of, instead of making the game artificially hard (admittedly after mission 5 or so the game does get pretty damn difficult, but that's more an issue with the learning curve and level scaling than anything else). Truth be told, most arguments I've heard against the game previously are either from people who hate Halo as a franchise anyway without justification (usually claiming it's just an attempt to milk the franchise), or from die-hard RTS players who denounce the very idea of a good RTS on anything other than PC - equally not worth listening to, because such people won't even give the damn thing a chance...

 

[Crazy Zaul]

No. If you were crazy you would be sat outside Starbucks at 4am, dipping burritos in custard and throwing them at the windows.

 

[Realitycrash]

Possibly. I have not played Halo Wars, but that's because it's only on console. I can't stand an RTS with console controls. I never thought of Starcraft as being that complex. If it is, then for the love of God stay away from and Civilization game.

It's more about reflexes and being able to do a gazillion things at once than complexity. Sure, it is there, but the rock-paper-scissor is fairly obvious.