Poll: Anyone else hate Starcraft 2?

[UtopiaV1]

So, I've just done an hour of my 7 hour trial version of the game, and so far my experience has been thus:

1. I took nearly 12 hours to download the game. Not necessarily Blizzard's fault, but still skewers my enjoyment of the game.

2. It prompted me to register my copy 3 separate times, even though you can only do it once, and you HAVE to register to download the game, so every other time seems unnecessary and obtrusive. Also, they asked me for my address, telephone number and other private details which i don't normally have to give away just to try a demo of a game!

3. Even though I only wanted to play single player (and MAYBE try multiplayer in my own time) it forces me to do the aforementioned registration several times, which seems bizarre when I do only want to try singleplayer. I was under the assumption that registration was something you did when you wanted multiplay or (the ever so slightly less fun) customer support.

4. The game engine is DirectX 9.0c, and we are living in an age where games are pushing boundaries with DX10 or even the amazing new-age DX11 (although i have heard tell that they're thinking about maybe, possibly, if-they-can-be-arsed, adding DX10 sometime in the near future if they decide to actually add DX10 exclusive graphics, which would kinda, you know, be the point!). Blizzard appears (but might not necessarily be) lazy (which might also explain why it's taken them 12 years to finish this sequel). Despite this, the graphics are very impressive (on ultra anyway, haven't seen how well it scales down yet).

5. The characters (so far) seem laughably paper-thin, stereotypical, irritating and badly voice-acted. Not to mention the storyline, despite it's apparent complexity at the installation clip show (FYI: was only slightly more exciting than someone's holiday slides), can be summed up with RAYNER = GOOD, DOMINION = BAD. They punctuate this several, nay, dozens of times with movies and in-game footage of dominion soldiers killing civilians for no reason, being cruel, hating the (supposed) protagonist for no reason other than word-of-mouth propaganda. I know computer game storylines are usually bad, but i've heard very specific praise for the storyline and characters from a certain, very reputable, gaming site. [Hint: This one]

6. The gameplay itself is dull and 2 dimensional, even for a old-skool strategy game (the basic rules of which are probably nearly 30 years old by now). Compared to Company of Heroes, Total War series, Men of War, and countless other RTS's that have pushed the envelope of enjoyable new gaming experiences, this gameplay seems a bit of a damp squib. Which is, you know, kinda the core of the game. The bit that makes it all fun and worthwhile.

7. And to top off this whole mess, whilst playing the game, the game engine inadvertently corrupted my mouse pointer and chewed up my RAM even when the application had been closed down. I had to restart and change my overclock settings. Not necessarily Blizzard's fault, but... wait, yes, yes it is. Their engine seems buggy and restricted.

In retrospect, I should have put this in the review section of the site, but still, i want everyone else's opinion. Anyone else had a similar infuriating experience?

 

[LightOfDarkness]

The early missions in the campaign are easy if your not a quadruple amputee.

 

[UtopiaV1]

The early missions in the campaign are easy if your not a quadruple amputee.

In which one of my 7 overly-angry points did i complain about the difficulty?

 

[The Austin]

Eh.

I like Company of Heroes better.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Starcraft is ALL about build orders, and is not my kind of RTS. I am a warlord, not an architect so don't make me plan a village.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't hate it. That would imply I actually had some desire to play it and form an educated option on it. I guess I'll put myself down in the "dislike" column.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I'm a bid RTS fan. I think it's well prepared.

(I dislike it)

 

[Tim_Buoy]

aside from a few crashes and blue screens (witch i expected because im playing on a laptop) i thought it wasnt bad and the graphics still look good on low settings one of the aforementioned crashes happened when i cranked up all the graphics to ultra

 

[John Funk]

Not the only one, but I'd venture you're in the minority.

Watch some of the Day9 streams and find out how deeply nuanced the game can be, and then get back to me about calling it "two-dimensional" and shallow. Simple concepts do not imply a shallow game; if it did chess would be the most shallow game of all time.

That said, you are well within your rights to not like a game (and the dialogue is horribly cheesy, yes). To each their own.

But really, you couldn't have used one of the many other SC2 threads for this?

 

[slipknot4]

Shallow? It's the Rts with the most depth to it of all time. It's great and after just playing the multiplayer in the beta I can say that it's well worth the 50$ for the online part alone.

Well, everyone can't like everything but I'll just quote Funk on this one:

Not the only one, but I'd venture you're in the minority.

 

[gerrymander61]

So, I've just done an hour of my 7 hour trial version of the game, and so far my experience has been thus:

1. I took nearly 12 hours to download the game. Not necessarily Blizzard's fault, but still skewers my enjoyment of the game.

2. It prompted me to register my copy 3 separate times, even though you can only do it once, and you HAVE to register to download the game, so every other time seems unnecessary and obtrusive. Also, they asked me for my address, telephone number and other private details which i don't normally have to give away just to try a demo of a game!

3. Even though I only wanted to play single player (and MAYBE try multiplayer in my own time) it forces me to do the aforementioned registration several times, which seems bizarre when I do only want to try singleplayer. I was under the assumption that registration was something you did when you wanted multiplay or (the ever so slightly less fun) customer support.

4. The game engine is DirectX 9.0c, and we are living in an age where games are pushing boundaries with DX10 or even the amazing new-age DX11 (although i have heard tell that they're thinking about maybe, possibly, if-they-can-be-arsed, adding DX10 sometime in the near future if they decide to actually add DX10 exclusive graphics, which would kinda, you know, be the point!). Blizzard appears (but might not necessarily be) lazy (which might also explain why it's taken them 12 years to finish this sequel). Despite this, the graphics are very impressive (on ultra anyway, haven't seen how well it scales down yet).

5. The characters (so far) seem laughably paper-thin, stereotypical, irritating and badly voice-acted. Not to mention the storyline, despite it's apparent complexity at the installation clip show (FYI: was only slightly more exciting than someone's holiday slides), can be summed up with RAYNER = GOOD, DOMINION = BAD. They punctuate this several, nay, dozens of times with movies and in-game footage of dominion soldiers killing civilians for no reason, being cruel, hating the (supposed) protagonist for no reason other than word-of-mouth propaganda. I know computer game storylines are usually bad, but i've heard very specific praise for the storyline and characters from a certain, very reputable, gaming site. [Hint: This one]

6. The gameplay itself is dull and 2 dimensional, even for a old-skool strategy game (the basic rules of which are probably nearly 30 years old by now). Compared to Company of Heroes, Total War series, Men of War, and countless other RTS's that have pushed the envelope of enjoyable new gaming experiences, this gameplay seems a bit of a damp squib. Which is, you know, kinda the core of the game. The bit that makes it all fun and worthwhile.

7. And to top off this whole mess, whilst playing the game, the game engine inadvertently corrupted my mouse pointer and chewed up my RAM even when the application had been closed down. I had to restart and change my overclock settings. Not necessarily Blizzard's fault, but... wait, yes, yes it is. Their engine seems buggy and restricted.

In retrospect, I should have put this in the review section of the site, but still, i want everyone else's opinion. Anyone else had a similar infuriating experience?

Get good kid.

Points 1 and 7 are completely irrelevant and entirely your fault. L2overclock.

Point 2 is your fault. You did not register 3 times unless you failed to read the instructions and did something wrong.

Point 3 is based off a stupid assumption you made. Given that Starcraft 2 is probably one of the most if not the most hotly anticipated title ever it is not unreasonable to assume that there will at least be some form of DRM involved. Kudos to Blizzard for making it not restrictive and irritating like Ubisoft did.

Point 4 is actually in their favour. "Those scoundrels, they made a game look good using something that isn't the absolutely most cutting edge thing on the market so that they can appeal to a wider audience? They must be stopped!" Derp.

Point 5 is again, your fault, since you either didn't play the first game or didn't pay even the slightest amount of attention to the slide show.

Point 6 is a matter of taste. You find the gameplay stale, I don't. You find the game bad, I don't. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise because there's enough idiots in the community as is.

 

[UtopiaV1]

Not the only one, but I'd venture you're in the minority.

Watch some of the Day9 streams and find out how deeply nuanced the game can be, and then get back to me about calling it "two-dimensional" and shallow. Simple concepts do not imply a shallow game; if it did chess would be the most shallow game of all time.

That said, you are well within your rights to not like a game (and the dialogue is horribly cheesy, yes). To each their own.

But really, you couldn't have used one of the many other SC2 threads for this?

What's the Day9 streams? Also, are you honestly going to compare this game to chess? The single most popular boardgame of all time? 3000 year old history? Played by the greatest minds who ever lived? Still not completely mastered by any one person? THAT chess?

Also, what other SC2 threads? (I'm sorry, i'm going to need a fair amount of hand-holding here.)

Yes, it is very well presented and would appeal to many Firefly fans just because it had that feel but eh.

Oh yeah, forgot about the massive firefly influence (although truth be told StarCraft came out before Firefly, could be a good chance that Whedon actually stole borrowed the concept from Blizzard rather than the other way around. All your other opinions are similar to mine too, thanks for sharing friend!

I would recommend upgrading to Windows 7, DX11 is not to be missed!

 

[UtopiaV1]

Point 6 is a matter of taste. You find the gameplay stale, I don't. You find the game bad, I don't. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise because there's enough idiots in the community as is.

Owch. We're all friends here, no need for that. It's all opinions from my experience.

Also, might not be the overclocking that's the issue. More likely that i need newer graphics drivers (silly ATI and their inability to make new drivers fully W7 compatible. It's not the same as Vista! )

 

[John Funk]

Not the only one, but I'd venture you're in the minority.

Watch some of the Day9 streams and find out how deeply nuanced the game can be, and then get back to me about calling it "two-dimensional" and shallow. Simple concepts do not imply a shallow game; if it did chess would be the most shallow game of all time.

That said, you are well within your rights to not like a game (and the dialogue is horribly cheesy, yes). To each their own.

But really, you couldn't have used one of the many other SC2 threads for this?

What's the Day9 streams? Also, are you honestly going to compare this game to chess? The single most popular boardgame of all time? 3000 year old history? Played by the greatest minds who ever lived? Still not completely mastered by any one person? THAT chess?

Also, what other SC2 threads? (I'm sorry, i'm going to need a fair amount of hand-holding here.)

Yes, it is very well presented and would appeal to many Firefly fans just because it had that feel but eh.

Oh yeah, forgot about the massive firefly influence (although truth be told StarCraft came out before Firefly, could be a good chance that Whedon actually stole borrowed the concept from Blizzard rather than the other way around. All your other opinions are similar to mine too, thanks for sharing friend!

I would recommend upgrading to Windows 7, DX11 is not to be missed!

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=104154 Day9. Browse through the videos where he talks about certain build orders and how they fundamentally alter the game two people who are playing as the same race and going for similar general strategies. StarCraft 2 is an "action RTS," where quick twitch reflexes and micromanagement count just as much as strategic planning.

And yes, I am comparing chess to SC2 because of the argument that SC2 is "dated." What could possibly be more dated than a 3,000 year old game that doesn't have terrain tactics, flanking bonuses or unit morale? Hell, both sides are identical.

My point is that chess is a game of nigh-infinite complexity borne out of very simplistic rules and still manages to be one of the most strategic games ever made. SC2 isn't near that level, but to say that it is simple is to utterly misunderstand it.

 

[tsb247]

-snip-

You forgot number 8.

The part where the game kills off your graphics card without a console tweak or a patch that may or may not have been released yet.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102465-Blizzard-Offers-Fix-for-StarCraft-Computer-Melting-Bug

You would think they would have noticed something like this in the beta.

 

[UtopiaV1]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=104154 Day9. Browse through the videos where he talks about certain build orders and how they fundamentally alter the game two people who are playing as the same race and going for similar general strategies. StarCraft 2 is an "action RTS," where quick twitch reflexes and micromanagement count just as much as strategic planning.

And yes, I am comparing chess to SC2 because of the argument that SC2 is "dated." What could possibly be more dated than a 3,000 year old game that doesn't have terrain tactics, flanking bonuses or unit morale? Hell, both sides are identical.

My point is that chess is a game of nigh-infinite complexity borne out of very simplistic rules and still manages to be one of the most strategic games ever made. SC2 isn't near that level, but to say that it is simple is to utterly misunderstand it.

Hmm, that's true, you do put a good point across. However, are you saying all RTS's should have simplistic rules like chess? Are you saying it's a bad idea to add things like morale, cover-systems and armour-facing to new RTS's?

I dunno, it all just feels like a huge step back compared to other older RTS's. Backwards isn't usually a direction you want to go, unless it's a tactical retreat

 

[Wolfram23]

I can agree a fair bit with #5. They definitely outdid themselves to fit characters into stereotypes. Every. Single. One of them. Very flat characters IMO. However, I still like the gameplay and the campaign is fun to play, and the upgrades and such are a welcome addition. I think, tho, the real gameplay is for multiplayer... like MW2. Hah. But seriously. Although, I haven't touched MP since the beta, but it was definitely fun back then.

 

[John Funk]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=104154 Day9. Browse through the videos where he talks about certain build orders and how they fundamentally alter the game two people who are playing as the same race and going for similar general strategies. StarCraft 2 is an "action RTS," where quick twitch reflexes and micromanagement count just as much as strategic planning.

And yes, I am comparing chess to SC2 because of the argument that SC2 is "dated." What could possibly be more dated than a 3,000 year old game that doesn't have terrain tactics, flanking bonuses or unit morale? Hell, both sides are identical.

My point is that chess is a game of nigh-infinite complexity borne out of very simplistic rules and still manages to be one of the most strategic games ever made. SC2 isn't near that level, but to say that it is simple is to utterly misunderstand it.

Hmm, that's true, you do put a good point across. However, are you saying all RTS's should have simplistic rules like chess? Are you saying it's a bad idea to add things like morale, cover-systems and armour-facing to new RTS's?

I dunno, it all just feels like a huge step back compared to other older RTS's. Backwards isn't usually a direction you want to go, unless it's a tactical retreat

Not at all. It isn't a bad idea, it's just a different idea for a different style of game.

SC2 is meant to be an e-sport, and as such eschews pretty much any random element in favor of skill. I don't want to lose a battle just because one of my units happened to lose morale and flee; if I lose I want it to be because I was outbuilt, outmaneuvered and outthought.

Similarly, another gripe is that units in SC2 can stand outside of a fight without moving to engage (unless it's close enough). That's another thing - maybe I'm keeping my guy out of the fight to regenerate energy, maybe I'm keeping it out as a reserve, maybe I'm just not ready to fully commit. If he wandered over, started shooting and got killed, I'd be pissed because in SC2, I want my guys to do exactly what I tell them to do.

Some games are trying to be as accurate a simulation of warfare as they possibly can. SC2 is trying to be a fast-paced and highly balanced game that melds quick thinking and prediction with twitch reflexes and a balance between micromanagement and macromanagement.

It is not an inherently better or worse design than the other games, it is simply different.

 

[UtopiaV1]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=104154 Day9. Browse through the videos where he talks about certain build orders and how they fundamentally alter the game two people who are playing as the same race and going for similar general strategies. StarCraft 2 is an "action RTS," where quick twitch reflexes and micromanagement count just as much as strategic planning.

And yes, I am comparing chess to SC2 because of the argument that SC2 is "dated." What could possibly be more dated than a 3,000 year old game that doesn't have terrain tactics, flanking bonuses or unit morale? Hell, both sides are identical.

My point is that chess is a game of nigh-infinite complexity borne out of very simplistic rules and still manages to be one of the most strategic games ever made. SC2 isn't near that level, but to say that it is simple is to utterly misunderstand it.

Hmm, that's true, you do put a good point across. However, are you saying all RTS's should have simplistic rules like chess? Are you saying it's a bad idea to add things like morale, cover-systems and armour-facing to new RTS's?

I dunno, it all just feels like a huge step back compared to other older RTS's. Backwards isn't usually a direction you want to go, unless it's a tactical retreat

Not at all. It isn't a bad idea, it's just a different idea for a different style of game.

SC2 is meant to be an e-sport, and as such eschews pretty much any random element in favor of skill. I don't want to lose a battle just because one of my units happened to lose morale and flee; if I lose I want it to be because I was outbuilt, outmaneuvered and outthought.

Similarly, another gripe is that units in SC2 can stand outside of a fight without moving to engage (unless it's close enough). That's another thing - maybe I'm keeping my guy out of the fight to regenerate energy, maybe I'm keeping it out as a reserve, maybe I'm just not ready to fully commit. If he wandered over, started shooting and got killed, I'd be pissed because in SC2, I want my guys to do exactly what I tell them to do.

Some games are trying to be as accurate a simulation of warfare as they possibly can. SC2 is trying to be a fast-paced and highly balanced game that melds quick thinking and prediction with twitch reflexes and a balance between micromanagement and macromanagement.

It is not an inherently better or worse design than the other games, it is simply different.

I understand that, and I understand just how fun twitch tactics and balanced gameplay can be! It's great that you enjoy it so much, but let's just quickly compare the game to, say... C&C3: Tiberium Wars. A game 3 years its senior.

C&C3 does all of the things you mentioned just now, with the added bonuses of garrisonable civilian buildings and neutral combat buildings (cannons, emp etc) for extra tactical advantage, veterancy for units that get lots of kills/experience (so battles don't become meat-grinders, you do want your units to survive for the extra guns/armour/health regen they get at vet 1 etc), and as an added added bonus, much better acting in the cutscenes! (KAAAANE!!! No-one can argue with the might of Joseph D. Kucan and Michael Ironside

It is starting to look dated and it's AI isn't as challenging as it could be, but still my personal go-to game for a quick traditional RTS fix. SC2 fails to push my buttons in that way because it -doesn't- have as many bells and whistles as this predecessor, yet advertises itself as a better game in the same sub-genre.

 

[UtopiaV1]

snip

Well, for starters, C&C 3, and let's be honest here, isn't balanced for shit. I love the game, but it's not e-sports material. The base building and tech is way over simplified to allow for any sort of individuality for the players. The units themselves are the epitome of rock-paper-scissors. The best matches I've seen of that game devolved into a simple and uninteresting tank back and forth. By that I mean that both sides massed one type of tank and just moved back and forward in front of the enemy. The cannons/emp buildings come in SC2 in the form of specialist units (ghost, infestor). Veterancy is out of the question because of one simple thing: the winning side would get an even better upper hand over the enemy, it's simply a bad design choice for a competetive game.

Believe me, that game had quite a few people playing it. If it was competetive enough, it would've been picked up in tournaments.

Edit: Oh oh oh, vehicles run over infantry units, killing them instantly, no matter what kind of super soldier that might've been. It's neither balanced nor fun.

That's true, even after a dozen or so patches plus an addon (which, by the way, added a further 6 new factions for the player to choose from (2 per side), allowing a certain amount of the 'individuality' that you said wasn't present) the game still wasn't fully balanced. However, you have to understand, it was one of the first RTS's with built-in officially supported voice-casting and e-sports coverage of games, and a pioneer in a field isn't usually a polished gem through-and-through. Still, i'm not making excuses, you're right, it was buggy and broken. But then so is SC2.

Rock-paper-sissors isn't something to be frowned on in an RTS. That is the core gameplay. It all depends on the games developers on how well they hide that mechanic! This is usually completely subjective, depending on peoples personal experiences of the game, but I found SC2 to be more obvious than C&C3 in this area. Sounds like the games of C&C3 you watched were really dull. When i played PvP games, it was tense and fluid, with people amassing infantry only to be run over by tanks, which in turn were bombed by fighter-jets, which in turn were shot down by AA which was then NUKED!!! Then again, maybe that's not how the professionals played, i don't know. All i know was it was intuitive, interesting and enjoyable.

You misunderstand me, the cannons and EMP satellite control centres were neutral structures in the middle of the map for anyone to capture! You have engineers charging at them under heavy fire, with supporting infantry diving into buildings to cover them and not get run over by tanks! Plus you still had the specialist units under your command, such as the Mammoth tank and Commando etc.

Veterancy is a reward for good micromanagement of you units. You reward skill and attention to detail, at least, that's my personal ethos. I can't abide things like Mario Kart which speed up the player in last place and slow down the player in first (and goddam BLUE SHELLS!!! GAAAH!!! As if red shells from the guy in second place weren't bad enough they had to throw in those game-breakers!), it's just bizarre.

Still, next time you're playing SC2, just ask yourself "Has this been done before? If so, has it been done better? What, if anything, makes this old-skool RTS better than the last old-skool RTS?" Personally, if I want real old-skool strategy, I'll play SunAge. If I want in-depth strategy and micromanagement I'll play Company of Heroes. If I want great tactical and strategic command over huge epic-scale conflicts I'll play Total War. Each of these games excels in its area of expertise, SC2 seems like a jack-of-all-trades, but without the jack! It just tries all the above and falls short of doing well in any area.

Wow, i'm sooooo sorry for the long post! Really didn't mean to go on that long!