Poll: Starcraft 2: whats all the hype about?

[reg42]

Also, to throw in a few new missions for those who actually follow the SC storyline.

I kind of hate the fact that everyone is completely disregarding the singleplayer (you know, where you complete the story) that comes with SC2. I mean, come on, what Blizzard game had a story just 'thrown in' with the multiplayer? By the trailers and the recently released in-game cutscene alone it's easy to see just how much work they've already put in the campaign. Everybody discarding that makes me a sad panda.

It is a bit that they're releasing one campaign at a time though, or did they give a reason for that which I missed?

 

[gagalloogie]

yeah whatever man, as i said when it comes right down to it, all it's just a matter of knowing which unit kills which other unit.

What's FPS's then? Even less! FPS is knowing what to shoot with what, that's it. RPG is knowing what to level up, puzzle games are what to put where, and platformers are where to jump.

Boil anything down like that and you'll get something simple, you aren't doing much to help your argument.

FPS are about reactions, emersion in the moment, there is sooooome strategy but very little, i'm not saying its logical that people find it fun, but fun FPS games are, and RPG games are about the story mainly, exploration and discovery etc, and again emersion in the game, its fun like watching a good film in that respect.

I just don't think that RTS games are interesting enough to hold a persons attention, once you've played a few games of an RTS, you probably won't see anything new in the next 1000 games, ( yeah sure FPS are the same, but thats also about leveling up to get more stuff etc. and its just fun to shoot people ) when an RTS game finishes, the result has no further impact

 

[gagalloogie]

i realised RTS had very little strategy element

....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That might just be the most uneducated claim about a gaming genre I've seen in quite some time.

Try having that attitude while going against some of the pros.

Starcraft 2 isn't just an RTS, it's (By the looks of it anyway) an RTS tweaked to perfection.

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

yeah whatever man, as i said when it comes right down to it, all it's just a matter of knowing which unit kills which other unit.

No. No it really isn't. Only someone with virtually no experience in the RTS genre would say that.

Only someone who plays RTS too much would say what you have, besides whilst i believe there is little strategy, thats only a minor point compared to the fact i think RTS games are way less fun than other genres.

 

[michael_ab]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

Well it's an RPG built around FPS mechanics.

id file it vise versa, and truth be told, the fps element really REALLY sucked (on th colsole) if you need to use vats to hit shit there is a problem. im keeping my eye on fallout, and if iot cleans up the fps i might actually prefer it over oblivion

 

[Cherry Cola]

i realised RTS had very little strategy element

....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That might just be the most uneducated claim about a gaming genre I've seen in quite some time.

Try having that attitude while going against some of the pros.

Starcraft 2 isn't just an RTS, it's (By the looks of it anyway) an RTS tweaked to perfection.

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

yeah whatever man, as i said when it comes right down to it, all it's just a matter of knowing which unit kills which other unit.

No. No it really isn't. Only someone with virtually no experience in the RTS genre would say that.

Only someone who plays RTS too much would say what you have, besides whilst i believe there is little strategy, thats only a minor point compared to the fact i think RTS games are way less fun than other genres.

It's funny that you should say that, since I haven't played an RTS for quite some time.

I did do it casually though, a long long time ago, and I got completely destroyed by my friend who was incredible at RTS games. He used to teach me tons of different strategies to winning a game, and even then I wasn't a match for him. I got noticeably better against the computer, getting so far as to play on hard mode and winning a couple of times, yet I found that there were always new strategies to be learned.

Actually, this conversation has made me interested in playing some Warcraft 3. Damn it, I thought I had come clean! This is my WoW addiction all over again!

 

[Kragg]

Also, to throw in a few new missions for those who actually follow the SC storyline.

I kind of hate the fact that everyone is completely disregarding the singleplayer (you know, where you complete the story) that comes with SC2. I mean, come on, what Blizzard game had a story just 'thrown in' with the multiplayer? By the trailers and the recently released in-game cutscene alone it's easy to see just how much work they've already put in the campaign. Everybody discarding that makes me a sad panda.

i never even played starcraft online, just single player and i loved it. too bad they will probably spread the story over multiple games. wings of liberty human campaign, and so forth

 

[reg42]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

Well it's an RPG built around FPS mechanics.

id file it vise versa, and truth be told, the fps element really REALLY sucked (on th colsole) if you need to use vats to hit shit there is a problem. im keeping my eye on fallout, and if iot cleans up the fps i might actually prefer it over oblivion

I'd like to say that the shooting was meant to be bad, so you used VATS more often, but true be told I think Bethesda need some practice at FPS's.

 

[John Funk]

Because it's a sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, and in its multiplayer beta format it's already one of the best games of the year?

Just going out on a limb here.

 

[gagalloogie]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

Well it's an RPG built around FPS mechanics.

id file it vise versa, and truth be told, the fps element really REALLY sucked (on th colsole) if you need to use vats to hit shit there is a problem. im keeping my eye on fallout, and if iot cleans up the fps i might actually prefer it over oblivion

I'd like to say that the shooting was meant to be bad, so you used VATS more often, but true be told I think Bethesda need some practice at FPS's.

Fallout is RPG (note the heavy storyline emphasis, otherwise if you wanted to (granted you'd have to be a *bit retarded) you could argue that oblivion is an FPS as you can shoot with a bow/spells), and wtf the shooting wasn't awful on Fallout 3, and anyway you didn't need to use a gun if you didn't want to
*VERY

 

[reg42]

Really, if you aren't into RTS's, you can't understand the anticipation. Would you think that people saying F:NV had a legitimate point if they said that it would be a bad game simply because they didn't like the FPS' genre?

Ahem, Fallout: New Vegas is going to be a RPG.. so, before we start this whole Genre fight, at least put the games into the correct genre. I agree this statement aside form that.

Well it's an RPG built around FPS mechanics.

id file it vise versa, and truth be told, the fps element really REALLY sucked (on th colsole) if you need to use vats to hit shit there is a problem. im keeping my eye on fallout, and if iot cleans up the fps i might actually prefer it over oblivion

I'd like to say that the shooting was meant to be bad, so you used VATS more often, but true be told I think Bethesda need some practice at FPS's.

Fallout is RPG (note the heavy storyline emphasis, otherwise if you wanted to (granted you'd have to be a *bit retarded) you could argue that oblivion is an FPS as you can shoot with a bow/spells), and wtf the shooting wasn't awful on Fallout 3, and anyway you didn't need to use a gun if you didn't want to
*VERY

I didn't say it wasn't an RPG...

RPG built around FPS mechanics.

 

[Avaholic03]

Also, to throw in a few new missions for those who actually follow the SC storyline.

I kind of hate the fact that everyone is completely disregarding the singleplayer (you know, where you complete the story) that comes with SC2. I mean, come on, what Blizzard game had a story just 'thrown in' with the multiplayer? By the trailers and the recently released in-game cutscene alone it's easy to see just how much work they've already put in the campaign. Everybody discarding that makes me a sad panda.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the story is bad in any way. It's one of the most underrated parts of the game. But it's pretty obvious that the majority of players are more excited about the multiplayer, and some might not even play the single player campaign since they already know the game mechanics and probably have played the Beta.

 

[gagalloogie]

Because it's a sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, and in its multiplayer beta format it's already one of the best games of the year?

Just going out on a limb here.

The original was good for its time yes, but so was age of empires and i probably wouldn't buy a new age of empires either. But one of the best games of the year...? Apparently i'm in the minority here but i wouldn't say that compared favourably to later releases this year: Fallout new vegas, Civilization 5, COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual), OR some already out: Napoleon TW, STALKER Call of Pripyat

 

[AndyFromMonday]

The original was good for its time yes, but so was age of empires and i probably wouldn't buy a new age of empires either. But one of the best games of the year...? Apparently i'm in the minority here but i wouldn't say that compared favourably to later releases this year: Fallout new vegas, Civilization 5, COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual), OR some already out: Napoleon TW, STALKER Call of Pripyat

Are we talking production values, quality of the graphics/gameplay or are we just plain comparing RTS's to RPG's and Shooters?

 

[gagalloogie]

The original was good for its time yes, but so was age of empires and i probably wouldn't buy a new age of empires either. But one of the best games of the year...? Apparently i'm in the minority here but i wouldn't say that compared favourably to later releases this year: Fallout new vegas, Civilization 5, COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual), OR some already out: Napoleon TW, STALKER Call of Pripyat

Are we talking production values, quality of the graphics/gameplay or are we just plain comparing RTS's to RPG's and Shooters?

Nothing specifically just general gameplay - emersion, replayability etc

 

[John Funk]

Because it's a sequel to one of the most beloved games of all time, and in its multiplayer beta format it's already one of the best games of the year?

Just going out on a limb here.

The original was good for its time yes, but so was age of empires and i probably wouldn't buy a new age of empires either. But one of the best games of the year...? Apparently i'm in the minority here but i wouldn't say that compared favourably to later releases this year: Fallout new vegas, Civilization 5, COD7 (i presume, which will be decent as usual), OR some already out: Napoleon TW, STALKER Call of Pripyat

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like RTS games. Of course you won't think so.

SC2 is the most fun I've had with any game so far this year, hands down.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

No, I will not be buying SC2 as every time I look at it the first thing which runs through my mind is "Oh look it's that crappy rip-off of WH40k with all of the awesome stuff removed".

I'll stick with the Total War series, thanks.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like RTS games. Of course you won't think so.

SC2 is the most fun I've had with any game so far this year, hands down.

So Napoleon: Total War is not longer a strategy game? It has a greater strategic element in it then any of the StarCraft/DoW/AoE style games.

 

[A_Parked_Car]

I really enjoy RTS games. I never got into Starcraft because I found it well, lacking tactics. But the Total War series has a special place in my heart.