Did Starcraft 2 seem like a disappointment to you?

[cWg | Konka]

Tbh I though Starcraft 2 was the worse RTS I've played ever

Oh come on...

It cannot possibly be the WORST rts you have ever played. It is too polished.

im even ranking universe at war high then Sc2

 

[baker80]

I certainly think this game doesn't live up to the hype in the slightest. Starcraft 1 already wasn't a particularly innovative game, but Starcraft 2 is literally exactly the same except with better graphics. I genuinely can't find a single real improvement over the original formula, except that you can now select more than 12 units at a time. For all intents and purposes it's just a reskin of the original.

Honestly, with Blizzards reputation I was halfway hoping for the next step in Real-Time Strategy, or at least something markedly different and better than the previous incarnation. What we got was a run-off-the-mill formulaic RTS that caters to competitive multiplayer so damn hard it might as well tell everyone else to just fuck off. If Blizzard had put as much effort into improving gameplay as they did into developing BattleNet 2.0 and the DRM, it might have actually been worth the effort.

As it is, though, Starcraft 2 isn't "big". It's just the new standard for the same kind of people who would've gone on playing Starcraft 1 forever if this hadn't been developed. A vocal group, but certainly not representative of the average player.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Given from what I have experienced of it, its not a bad game. I'm not an RTS fan, but even I liked it. It was challenging and I enjoyed the characters...soo....Ya, I don't think it flopped.

 

[veloper]

Nope, SC2 did exactly waht it promised to do and it sold very well.

Pretty much the opposite of a flop.

 

[xDHxD148L0]

Well, I know it didin't do as well as they had hoped in Korea, minaly due to not having lan and the forced use of battlenet

 

[Sybban]

I hate to say this but I've noticed a trend of people not being good at the multi-player, not liking the game. The micro required to play against platinum and above level players is insane. The single player was quick and fun but not at all meant to be the point of it (don't really care what yahtzee says about that)

The love story was mentioned in the books.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

A great game that I love immensely, and I can't get away from the marvelous multi player.

 

[euro2019]

EDIT: My bad flop was the wrong term, I just mean a disappointment. The game was too high grossing to flop

I like how nobody noticed I added this in there lol

I have to agree with a lot of you the story was definitely weak, and it's even more disappointing that they decided to "split it up" into 3 parts. I think that's just down right insulting, 60$ three times? That's a bit money grabbing don't you think so blizzard? Or is it Bli$$ard?... ok that wasn't very clever -.-...

Honestly the story length wasn't even that long. Hell the original command&conquer did a better job on its story line and IT was even longer than SC2's and they did two different ones!

There's no excuse for this other than making more money, the story wasn't long, they could of made two more and put them in there with it! BTW for the next collectors edition I want a damn Hydralisk skull (A REAL ONE FOR THAT PRICE) so I can put it on my wall next to Al Pacino -.- (don't ask).

As for the multiplayer, I like the custom maps, but truly I play games for their single player. Its like an interactive movie for me, and the quality of the game for me is determined by single player. Just like COD, C&C, DOW, etc.

I just don't want to have to rely on other players to enjoy the game for a longer time.

 

[Saphra20]

In my opion it is the best game ever made. And as was stated erlyer don't fix what isent broken. Blizzard has been making the best RTS's from the begining so its going to feel the same because its had to get better when your already amazing.

And to further my point heres a review I agree with 100%
http://angryjoeshow.com/2010/07/starcraft-ii-review/

 

[HappyHacker]

im more or less in the belife that it was a disapointment beceause it was incompleate.

 

[Flac00]

I know this is wayyyy late but I remember a time when I was just itching for Starcraft 2 to come out. When I saw the first official trailer I was all excited and couldn't wait for it to come out. Finally it came out, I went and bought it on the first day it came out, and I haven't been able to get into it. At least not the way I thought I'd get into it. It felt like they just re-skinned Warcraft 3 with a Starcraft title and added better 3D modeling and a physics engine.

Maybe the hype over the years built up this bar that was impossible to achieve? But it seems like the game has disappointed me completely. I still have more fun playing the original SC than I do SC2. Maybe it's because my computer can't handle the game at max settings? Maybe because the first SC seemed more simple and less bloated? What are your guy's opinions on the game, for those of you whom have played both?


EDIT: My bad flop was the wrong term, I just mean a disappointment. The game was too high grossing to flop

woah, what? A Re-skinned Warcraft 3?? I'm not to sure we played the same game. Warcraft 3 was much more focused on single units and heros while StarCraft 2 has much larger armies. Completely different gameplay styles. I could understand it being compared to StarCraft 1, but not Warcraft 3. StarCraft 2 did not feel bloated, at least to me. Were there a lot of units and other stuff, yes, but StarCraft 1 had that too. I like StarCraft 2 a bit more, honestly. It feels more balanced and faster paced.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I actually just finished the campaign. And I'm extremely dissapointed by the ending and the fact I have to wait for the other two games, it also felt really short.... which is a shame because I loved the upgrades and what-no.

Multiplayer seems just as good as it ever was. But I was always into StarCraft for the story.

 

[Zanaxal]

Storywise it was pretty bad, wanted to morph it into some wow like popculture-rastafarian/mass achievements thing with new characters that just get killed off for convinience and just introducing some dark force as a antagonist it's just lazy and not well thought through. Also like there being a new hostile protoss faction out of nowhere = Yeah right.

Gameplaywise = Awesome, Incredible, Superb.

1v1 Multiplayer = OMG i want to give all the money i spent on games this year just for this.

Also i've been playing alot of rts's multiplayer and singleplayer for a long time and this is the only one that i've really really enjoyed playing much.

People who don't like it just fail to grasp the mecanics. Doomed to forever dwell in bronze.

Also day9 is my hero.

Statswise. There's around 1'5-1'2 million players online daily. In contrast GoY game like CoH that requires login barely had something like 7000-8000

 

[TerranReaper]

I can understand if you can't be competitive in the multiplayer, but are you really going to call that cheating? It's like calling camping in FPS cheating, it's frustrating to deal against but it's not cheating.

Yes it is. You're purposely denying someone a well earned victory when you know you cannot win. This happened to me way to many times. I beat out a terran player only to have no means through which to build say a viking. The dude lifts up his command center, puts it in a place I cannot reach and basically denies me victory even though I won. It's a delaying tactic and that has no place in a multiplayer game. You lost, deal with it. I'm glad Blizzard is actually baning people for using such a tactic.

My mistake then, I thought you meant something like a proxy barracks. In that case, I agree with your point. It's not exclusive to Terrans though, but a hell lot easier to do as Terran.

 

[No_Remainders]

SIGH!

Fail-thread.

Starcraft 2 was not a flop. This is obvious. One can simply look at the amount of money that Blizzard made from it and see that.

A flop is, by definition, something that doesn't sell. Not a bad game, that's just a bad game.

So no, SC2 was not a flop in any proper sense of the word.

 

[No_Remainders]

snip

Well he should've changed the title of the thread itself. I'm not gonna sift through too many posts before I post, it's pointless.

Fine, want my opinion? The original had more content, and therefore, was far better.

 

[Odbarc]

Incomplete story line per single purchase versus the traditional (every race x7~10 missions) is VERY irritating. I don't WANT to play Terran! I don't WANT to play Protoss! I want my damn Zerg missions!!!!!

Ladder wise, I'm a little happy with the ladder system being given fairly even match-ups versus WC3's smurfing or SC1's "get lucky, flip a coin" match-ups.

I'm waiting for some truly good TD's to show up. Tug of War auto-spawn maps seem pretty big at the moment.

I find the Zerg 'new' units are rehashes from SC1 and offer nothing truly new while Terran has Reapers, Raven, Marauders and Protoss come in with Colossus, Immortal, Void Rays.

Roaches are kind of new, but it's pretty hard to get move-burrow working to my advantage in any situation as detectors come out quick and easy and the quick-regen doesn't seem to do much other than get my units SHOT.
Brood Lords = Guardians with broodling's on attack.
Corruptor = Devourer without mutalisk upgrade and a small ability to weaken enemies.
Lings, Hydra, Muta all the same unit. Ultralisk buffed to what it SHOULD have been all along.
Infestor's abilities give it a weakened-mind control which usually get it's self killed attempting to use. It's burrow/InfestedTerran ability is pretty cool sometimes.
Banelings are an alright choice.
Queen isn't really a 'unit' in my opinion. No one masses queens and wins.