Poll: Starcraft 2: whats all the hype about?

[Jazzyluv2]

You actually have to be good at a game to truly have any weight on your opinions when speaking about multiplayer games

This is inaccurate, I know with the first round of a new game if it's going to take actual strategy or if I can master the top 10 OP moves or just camp the graveyard to win. Starcraft is just that, master the top 10 hurry up and click as fast as you can ways to win.

BTW I love the starcraft universe, HATE the multiplayer for the reason above.

Sorry, you are wrong. If it's so easy, go to korea, and make a living at it. Come on, go, if its just 10 Over powered strats then do it. I love people who make biased comments like that. First off, you can't know everything about starcraft the first time you play it. Starcraft is still changing TODAY, in a community with money on the line to promote new styles of play.

 

[kingcom]

compared to the fact i think RTS games are way less fun than other genres.

Perhaps the most hilariously stupid comment ive ever read. The "fact" that YOU "think". See thats an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Trivun]

No. I despise RTS games.

The thing I don't like about them is the lack of persistence. You play a long multiplayer match, you win or lose...and the next match, you're back to square one.

Give me something for my time.

I would recommend the Total War series. The multiplayer is what you describe, but the campaigns themselves are extremely long and fun, and have massive continuity and persistence. For example, you play a campaign of Rome: Total War as the Gauls. You take over, say, Corinth (though admittedly you'd be fighting a long campaign against Germania and Macedon before even getting an army close to the Greek Cities). Then you have a massive army garrisoned there. You lose half your army in defending the city from a siege. Those troops are all you then have left to, say, attack Sparta with. Otherwise you have to wait a turn to recruit more units in that city (from the limited population there), during which time the Greeks can recruit more troops themselves for another attack.

It's challenging. And fun, too. Plus, the actual battles are much more nuanced than just, as the OP put it, "archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc". For example, a light cavalry unit may struggle against a unit of spearmen, but then you have them charge downhill from behind or from a flank and they suddenly do a lot more damage. Archers aren't always useful, what with enemies using shields and armour, and so on. Tactics are designed for the AI based on real military tactics as used in history, and you need to counter those yourself. In short, for a person who doesn't like RTSs in general, the Total War series is as close as you can get to a decent RTS that beginners in the genre can just pick up and love from the start.

And as for the main topic, I won't be picking up SC2 straight away. Mainly because I never played the first one and I'd love to play the original first, before jumping straight into the second. I'll get the original at some point, if I can ever find a cheap copy that isn't on eBay (don't entirely trust eBay, though admittedly I did get the original Half-Life on PC for a pound there that's in brilliant condition...), and then maybe I'll get Starcraft 2 at some point.

 

[Nazulu]

Well I don't get hyped up for things anymore but I will admit I want it now. I haven't enjoyed a new game for awhile and I loved the original Starcraft so I'm hoping it turns out better or at least just as good as the original.

More on topic, fans loved the original (there is a lot of them) and can't wait for the next one. With the improved graphics and slightly changed game play a long with all the new units, the fun starts all over again.

 

[Caligulove]

I played StarCraft back in '98 on some of the first versions where battle.net BLEW MY MIND and Siege Tanks could attack air in Siege Mode. The game has come far since then.

What keeps me playing StarCraft ever since then, no matter what other game Im playing, its just that its just the unpredictability of playing against others and what they're gonna do and throw against you. Its basics that are so simple that I never forget them, I'm pretty sure I know most of the hot-keys for units in that game, for all 3 races.

That and I've always loved how, more than any other RTS I can find, all the 3 races are balanced and unique from one another- and play differently. Far more than the races in WarCraft III that definitely went for quantity over quality

But yes, I'm excited for the sequel of a game I really love. Just like ANY other person who is excited for a sequel. That and I've been expecting StarCraft II for ages, now.

 

[Zero-Vash]

Still play the first one. Been waiting for SC2 since it was announced. It is by far one of my favorite games of all time

 

[GL2814E]

I was pretty bad at the first Starcraft, and I am not very good at playing RTSs so I probably won't bother with Starcraft 2.

 

[martin's a madman]

Right so starcraft 2 is coming out, now personally i only played the original a couple of time and way after it came out, but i really can't see why so many people are excited about. The main problem i have with Starcraft 2 is that it looks like a classic RTS, (the first type of game i played = Age of empires etc.)and after playing many different genres i realised RTS had very little strategy element, essensially build troops, collect reasorces: archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc. for me RTS is a dying genre that cannot live up to others in todays gaming world, being neither particularly exciting or strategic.

Anyway my point is this, i don't think that even with the shiny new graphics Starcraft 2 will build on the RTS genre, it won't suddenly make it good, and i can't see why so many people are desperate for it, especially with other better releases due to come out later in the year (for me Fallout New Vegas)

What are your opinions on Starcraft 2 and RTS games in general?

EDIT: let me elaborate over "very little strategy", what i mean is that RTS games try to fit the very complex procedure of a "real" strategy (that is the complex aquisition of specific resources, researching technologies over long periods of time, wars lasting years etc.) into a small time space, which just feels cheap, i mean ffs some RTS games have 1 resource which is used to produce everything. The worst part is that at the end of the game (1 hours +) you have acheived nothing, except the ability to start again....and its not as though you can say RTS have any story resemblence really...sure somepeople will argue there is a story, but cmon RTS games can never have as much emersion as other genres, especially in the storyline department

You sound a bit close minded. But, it's your opinion so I won't make a fuss.

 

[darth gditch]

Do I give into the hype? No. Do I want to play Starcraft 2 and will I buy it? Yes. I love strategy games, but I still think only Total War had ever gotten the whole package right, especially with Empire and Napoleon and Medieval II. Although Supreme Commander would be my second favorite, matches take too long to spin up. Christ, it takes 83 minutes to build a nuke launcher.

Anyway, Starcraft and its ilk is fun for a strategy game that's only going to last an hour or so. It's a brain tease for me-and yes, I'll get my 60 bucks worth as I enjoy playing others, testing my different strategies, and yes occasionally just spamming zerglings.

 

[Kelbear]

Right so starcraft 2 is coming out, now personally i only played the original a couple of time and way after it came out, but i really can't see why so many people are excited about. The main problem i have with Starcraft 2 is that it looks like a classic RTS, (the first type of game i played = Age of empires etc.)and after playing many different genres i realised RTS had very little strategy element, essensially build troops, collect reasorces: archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc. for me RTS is a dying genre that cannot live up to others in todays gaming world, being neither particularly exciting or strategic.

Anyway my point is this, i don't think that even with the shiny new graphics Starcraft 2 will build on the RTS genre, it won't suddenly make it good, and i can't see why so many people are desperate for it, especially with other better releases due to come out later in the year (for me Fallout New Vegas)

What are your opinions on Starcraft 2 and RTS games in general?

EDIT: let me elaborate over "very little strategy", what i mean is that RTS games try to fit the very complex procedure of a "real" strategy (that is the complex aquisition of specific resources, researching technologies over long periods of time, wars lasting years etc.) into a small time space, which just feels cheap, i mean ffs some RTS games have 1 resource which is used to produce everything. The worst part is that at the end of the game (1 hours +) you have acheived nothing, except the ability to start again....and its not as though you can say RTS have any story resemblence really...sure somepeople will argue there is a story, but cmon RTS games can never have as much emersion as other genres, especially in the storyline department

I think it would make things clearer to think of Starcraft as an RTT, a real-time tactical game. Tactics are what you apply to the immediate situation, while strategy is what you apply to the overarching scenario.

Example: How to take that hill - Tactical problem. How to take Normandy - Strategic problem.

A lot of those RTT games are based around APM/CPM "Actions/Clicks per Minute" which really makes it clear that competition heavily emphasizes speed and efficiency. This doesn't mean there isn't any room for strategy, because if your strategy isn't up to par, you'll get rolled. However, it also means that even if you have superior strategy, if your APM/CPM isn't up to par, you're going to get rolled anyway.

Starcraft isn't just a strategy game, it's a real-time strategy game. It's a hybrid of tactic and strategy composed in a way that produces action with some elements of thinking involved. I think if you really want a purely strategic challenge you'd have to stick to the highly unpopular (but active!) turn-based strategy genre.

 

[Catalyst6]

Ah, spoken like a guy who has never played SC online...

Starcraft is basically like speed chess. You don't have time to sit there an ponder ponder ponder what you're going to do, you have to have a general idea of the strategy of the game and roll with it. Yes, you could sit there and churn out basic units and Zerg rush (where do you think the name came from) but I can guarantee you, against a decent player you will always lose.

I never thought that RTS games could be twitch games, but yeah... a expert SC player will average 150 soverign actions per minute. Lets see Age of Empires do that.

There is a ton of strategy in there, it's just hard to see at first glance.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

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

Actually, I'd say that's the reason I'm NOT interested in getting Starcraft 2. STARCRAFT was an RTS tweaked to perfection (or Brood War was anyway) so Blizzard really should have tried to do something totally different. From a purely gameplay perspective, I sincerely doubt that Starcraft 2 can be anything other than a step back from the original.

Of course, for a lot of people the sequel is worth it for the story and graphics alone. But not for me.

 

[Horticulture]

Compared to all the other leading RTS's in the market - no not really.
Most game's ive seen/played consist of a random mix between who can gank the fastest, who can tech to their best flyer the fastest, and who can harvest the most with wasting as little resources as possible/ rape the other guys harvesters on the sly.

It consists very little of army balancing, positioning, and field manoeuvres.

There are countless examples of army balance and positioning in those videos. The tech path taken by the players continually teeters back and forth between the two. It's particularly telling that the final tier flyer used (battlecruisers) is countered by a tier two Protoss unit (void rays) which then have to be countered with humble marines.

Check out 1:30 in the third video, where TheLittleOne uses his battlecruisers to drive of Nazgul's main force and harass his expansions and then times an attack on the main base with marines to intercept the oncoming void rays while Nazgul's larger army is distracted.

For positioning, look at the way TheLittleOne sets up his expansions, walled in with supply depots and with his Siege Tanks spaced out to make them less susceptible to Colossus fire. This allows him to withstand Nazgul's counterattack until his Battlecruisers arrive to mop up.

 

[Vigormortis]

My stance on this game has gone through a number of phases. After hearing of it when it was announced, my first thought was, "Oh cool. Another Starcraft." In essence, mild enthusiasm. Then, I was compelled to start playing the original again. To reminisce and to get a feel for the game again.

This lead me to feel much more excited with the prospect of it's release. As the months rolled on and the info started to leak I wanted it more and more.

Then, Blizzard dropped a bomb-shell. They announced they'd be splitting the game into 3 parts. Their flimsy excuse being, "Each campaign is too 'Epic' to fit into one game." This lead to a complete sense of apathy towards it. I'd have to buy 3 full games, at full price, just to experience the full game? Yeah, no thanks.

However, soon after, I had the chance to participate in the beta. I gave it a whirl, figuring, at worst, I'd have a sense of what I was missing. Once I saw the changes, balances, and tweaks they had made to the classic mold, I was floored. It was unbelievably fun and (for the most part) perfectly balanced. I was not (and still not) very fond of the new art style, but it doesn't really effect the game-play. In the end, my enthusiasm was again renewed.

Then, Blizzard dropped yet another bit of bad news. They've forgone any inclusion of LAN play. This is the shittiest news they could have delivered. I mean, come on. No LAN play? That's one of the biggest draws of StarCraft. Being able to play it with friends at a LAN. (not to mention the primary way tournaments are set up) This exclusion makes absolutely no sense to me.

So, for now, my stance on StarCraft 2 is a mixed bag of "really wanting to play" and "not being able to play it in a way that's fun". So, unless something changes, I honestly don't care too much about it.

 

[Ze_Reaper_Of_Zeath]

Right so starcraft 2 is coming out, now personally i only played the original a couple of time and way after it came out, but i really can't see why so many people are excited about. The main problem i have with Starcraft 2 is that it looks like a classic RTS, (the first type of game i played = Age of empires etc.)and after playing many different genres i realised RTS had very little strategy element, essensially build troops, collect reasorces: archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc. for me RTS is a dying genre that cannot live up to others in todays gaming world, being neither particularly exciting or strategic.

Anyway my point is this, i don't think that even with the shiny new graphics Starcraft 2 will build on the RTS genre, it won't suddenly make it good, and i can't see why so many people are desperate for it, especially with other better releases due to come out later in the year (for me Fallout New Vegas)

What are your opinions on Starcraft 2 and RTS games in general?

EDIT: let me elaborate over "very little strategy", what i mean is that RTS games try to fit the very complex procedure of a "real" strategy (that is the complex aquisition of specific resources, researching technologies over long periods of time, wars lasting years etc.) into a small time space, which just feels cheap, i mean ffs some RTS games have 1 resource which is used to produce everything. The worst part is that at the end of the game (1 hours +) you have acheived nothing, except the ability to start again....and its not as though you can say RTS have any story resemblence really...sure somepeople will argue there is a story, but cmon RTS games can never have as much emersion as other genres, especially in the storyline department

I liked Starcraft/Brood War, even though I've been playing for 2 weeks or so and I've been waiting for this one.

Anyways, you think Starcraft/Starcraft 2 has little strategy? Have you seen's BoXer's reaction to the massive Carrier force?

Spoiler

He countered with medics, using them to blind the Obeservers who can detect Cloaked units, and then countered with a Cloaked Wraith force.

Or how you can used burrowed Banelings to act as a mine field, and when they walk into the Banelings? Un-burrow and BAM, all troops die.

I admit you can't use these if you lose to a Zerg Rush, but still, it has plenty of strategy,and ways to counter, and smart ways to penetrate the enemy's defenses. Like how you can contain the enemy's expansions, using Phase Cannons or use a Proxy Pylon to warp in several units? You can also use distractions for you to penetrate the bases, and then kill the enemy's economy, so he has little to no resources to counter?

 

[Woodsey]

No. I despise RTS games.

The thing I don't like about them is the lack of persistence. You play a long multiplayer match, you win or lose...and the next match, you're back to square one.

Give me something for my time.

You get a win or a loss, how is that not giving you something for your time? There's a singleplayer campaign mode with a story too.

Campaigns are fun, usually. But there isn't much replay value to RTS campaigns.

I meant that, for your time, you're given progression through the story - and I imagine new units and whatnot.

 

[Delusibeta]

While I have a funny feeling that I may be about to be flamed, I'll take the bait and give a few reasons why SC2 is so hyped.

1) Blizzard has a massive fanbase. Seriously, if a photo of Bobby Kotick had a Blizzard logo on it, it would sell.
2) Starcraft has a huge fanbase. Seriously, if the photo of Bobby Kotick had a Starcraft logo on it, it would still sell.
3) The matchmaking in the beta is gathering a reputation of being the best auto-matchmaking service in recent times. And it's still beta.
4) The single player is... actually quite interesting. Instead of the traditional mission-cutscene-mission structure of RTSes, there's a hub where you can select your mission, hire mercenaries which can drop in if you have the minerals, take up side-missions if you don't want to carry on with the story and even play an arcade game. The missions are plenty varied as well. One mission has

Spoiler: Potential spoilers ahoy

you attacking a temple (I think) with a mining laser while holding off waves of Protoss. You can take control of the laser, and obliterate the enemy. Obviously, while you smash the enemy with the laser you aren't doing your objective, so it becomes a balancing act between defending the laser, damaging your target or using the laser to defend your army.

5) Blizzard is well known for taking their time for their games. Starcraft 1 was released 10 years ago. They plan to release the first expansion pack around 18 months after the release of the base game. By which time Activision has planned to release 3 more Call of Duty games. (It's amazing how two halves of the same company can be so different) As a result, high levels of polish can be expected from a Blizzard product.
6) Mods. Starcraft 2 has the potential to be the most moddable game since, ooh, Half Life 2. Seriously, Blizzard was demonstrating a third person shooter they quickly put together. In a RTS! Sure, there seems to be something of a wave of highly moddable games on the horizon (Natural Selection 2 and Overgrowth, take a bow, to name but two), but it's looking likely that Starcraft 2 will be the first to arrive on shop shelves.

If you don't like RTSes, fine. Just don't declare them all rubbish unless you like getting flamed. (Same applies to any other genre)

 

[Jimbo1212]

Compared to all the other leading RTS's in the market - no not really.
-snip-
It consists very little of army balancing, positioning, and field manoeuvres.

There are countless examples of army balance and positioning in those videos. The tech path taken by the players continually teeters back and forth between the two. It's particularly telling that the final tier flyer used (battlecruisers) is countered by a tier two Protoss unit (void rays) which then have to be countered with humble marines.

Check out 1:30 in the third video, where TheLittleOne uses his battlecruisers to drive of Nazgul's main force and harass his expansions and then times an attack on the main base with marines to intercept the oncoming void rays while Nazgul's larger army is distracted.

For positioning, look at the way TheLittleOne sets up his expansions, walled in with supply depots and with his Siege Tanks spaced out to make them less susceptible to Colossus fire. This allows him to withstand Nazgul's counterattack until his Battlecruisers arrive to mop up.

As I previously said, compared to other rts's on the market, the degree of positioning and army balancing is very little / not needed.
I find it funny that you say 'It's particularly telling that the final tier flyer used (battlecruisers) is countered by a tier two Protoss unit (void rays) which then have to be countered with humble marines'. The counter to the bc is meant to be the phoenix, but it is pathetic, and also, if you play the game enough, you realise that bc's are vastly superior to void ray's - especially when then have the yamato cannon.
However the mechanic of army balancing in StarCraft 2 will always be somewhat broken due to the rate at which units are built and they're life span on the battlefield. You build an army, send it to the enemy, and almost within 10 seconds of meeting, everything is dead (unless you are not playing on fastest and like to watch harvesting for the first 15 minutes). This makes it hard to adjust your army accordingly with reinforcements, or even to see why you are winning or losing.
Again, the speed at which everything dies and moves, combined with the map design, makes positioning unnecessary. You will never need to flank, and it will be very hard ( not worth the effort) to try to flank or move behind an army. The most time you will gain is 10 seconds before the enemies flyers descend upon you.
Also, people have been using supply depo's as walls since they were 10 ( I know I did). It is not a hard tactic, widely used, but really makes you wonder why the hell Blizzard did not put in walls as something to construct?!