Poll: Starcraft 2: whats all the hype about?

[oden636]

The hype is Blizzard have gotten off there WoW patching routine and developed something. I wont be getting it as they prioritized it above Diablo 3 which feels like a stab in the back.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

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

Comparing Fallout: New Vegas to StarCraft II is like comparing apples and oranges. Not only are they from different genres, people like them for very different reasons. So I do not see how excitement for one title is necessarily relevant towards the excitement of the other. I myself am looking forward to both titles (although more so towards SC2, since I have had a longer interest in StarCraft then most other games).

Anyway, your topic preety much demands a significantly long post to explain. But before I dive into explaining why there is such an excitement for StarCraft II, let me explain why people like RTS games in general.

It is undeniable that RTS games, by no means, do not potray strategy realistically. Real-life campaigns last for many days, months or even years, involve thousands upon thousands of individuals (if not many, many more) and require intricate detail and planning on many levels. Overall, real war has so many elements to it that it is beyond the scope of a mere game (even if they try really hard to do so, like The Operational Art of War III and Hears of Iron II....both warmly recommended titles, by the way ). So for the purpose of an RTS game, strategy is intentionally simplified.

However, simplified doesn't mean "dumbed down". Just beacuse it isn't as demanding or require as many people as real military strategy does not mean that it is irrelevant or easy. Infact, to win any game, you preety much have to enter it with a certain long-term strategy in mind. And since plans will inevitably fail a lot of the times due to your opponent's activities, you need to be able to react and adjust your plans accordingly. So even though they are not as intricate as actual wars, RTS games still require a great deal of strategic thought.

There are also two further elements that add to the difficulty of an RTS. The first one is control. Units and peons create, fight and die at your bidding, giving you that primitive satisfaction of playing god. However, that same control also requires you to pay a great deal of attention to each detail and task, making sure it is completed to perfect satisfaction. This, however, increasingly difficult as you have to contend with the enemy as well as an increasing amount of peons/workers and buildings.

This leads me to the other element...speed. When talking of the genre, people will always talk of the "Strategy" component and not enough of the "Real-Time" one and RTS games in general have a great sense of urgency about them. No matter what you are doing, it is important that the task is completed as fast and as efficiently as possible and this too scales with difficulty as a certain game progresses. So not only is it important what actions you take, but also how fast and how accurately you take them.

Of course, developers can fail to see what the genre is about, thus producing bad games. But a successful blend of strategy, control and speed is what makes an RTS both challenging and rewarding. Ultimately, it is what makes RTS games a lot of fun to play.

Now that I explained that, let me turn to the issue of excitement over StarCraft II. And there is a lot of reasons that can be found for that:

- The first one is the sheer basic fact that Blizzard is making it. In the eyes of many gamers and game developers, Blizzard has become a brand which has become known for polish and quality. Even if you do not like their games (which is completely fine; everyone has a different opinion on what makes a great game, afterall), you cannot really argue with results. Each of their games has been a massive success both critically and commercially and each of their franchises have a die-hard following that has lasted for many years and that is very much alive to this day.

This is not to say that Blizzard is flawless. On the contrary, those same die-hard fans can attest to many specific problems that were either caused or went unresolved beacuse of Blizzard. But when Blizzard is working on a game, that in itself is big news as far as gamers and the gaming industry in general is concerned.

- Then there is the fact that it is an RTS game. While the genre is far from dead, let's face it...it is not exactly the most popular one either. So any new addition to it is very welcome in the eyes of many people.

Furthermore, it is a classic-type RTS. While some use this as a point of criticism against the game, it is actually a good thing in many ways. The problem with many of the more recent RTS games is that they (strongly) deemphasise control (which, as I mentioned, is an important part of an RTS). They remove many of the tasks that were deemed mundane (such as resource gathering and base building) and that were required of the player. However, it is precisely these tasks that help make an RTS challenging to play and developers fail to properly compensate for their absence. As such, the games practically end up playing themselves, making for very uninteresting gameplay. So it should come as no suprise that most RTS games end up not being actively played after a mere year of existance.

This is not to say that all RTS games need to implement control in the same manner. However, I think Blizzard's approach of keeping these tasks and making them more interesting instead of removing them outright is a better long-term approach and will help the RTS genre "find it's way" in a sense.

- It is a PC game. The PC platform has not been doing well in recent years, even though it is far from dead or dying. Due to the console/multiplatform focus of most companies, PC versions of their games either never show up or are unoptimised for the platform. Let's not even go into the topic of PC exclusives....

StarCraft II is a high-profile title that is exclusive to the platform and that is being developed specifically around the platform (the game is meant to work on a wide range of setups). As such, many hope that it's release will reinvigorate both PC game development and PC gaming in general.

While Macintosh users have recently seen an increased support for their hardware of choice, they previously suffered due to years of neglect from the gaming industry. So they too are probably glad of another title for their system, especially since Blizzard has traditionally supported the Mac.

- The singleplayer portion of the game has a lot to be excited about. The first is the simple fact that the storyline is finally being continued. The story in the original StarCraft and Brood war is not only considered the best in the RTS genre, but one of the best in gaming in general. So many people are looking forward just to find out what happens next in the epic struggle between Terran, Zerg and Protoss.

Then there is the gameplay. Ever since the beginning, the singleplayer in RTS games has suffered from the view that multiplayer is all that matters and that the singleplayer should merely serve as a tutorial for it. Consequently, most singleplayer portions merely ended up being a series of melee missions against the AI with little variety. StarCraft was also very much guilty of this.

With StarCraft II, Blizzard has recognised that the singleplayer will never prepare a player for the the butchering he usually receives when playing the multiplayer...so this time, they are not even trying to do that. Instead, they are making the singleplayer so it has it's own dynamic and gameplay seperate from the multiplayer, thus making it a legitimate part of the game in it's own right.

If it suceeds, it could spark a revolution and force RTS developers to put more effort into the singleplayer portion of their games.

- The multiplayer is preety much a no-brainer reason to be excited. StarCraft was one of the most challenging and competitive games of all time. It has a competitive scene that has lasted for over a decade and that is still going strong (or at least was up until the release of the StarCraft II beta). Combined with it's almost perfect balance between the three races and it is little wonder that the game has lasted longer then almost any other title. It has been a regular World Cyber Games title ever since the very first WCG Challenge Tournament.

But StarCraft is not just interesting to play. Due to it's very visceral, yet clear nature, thus making it both easy to understand and exciting to watch, it lends itself well to spectating. In Korea, this has turned StarCraft from a highly-competitive game into a sport in it's own right. At one point, it was the second most viewed sport in Korea and has been the carrier of e-Sports throughout the industry's existance. Even today, there are still two television stations dedicated to showing professional StarCraft matches and professional gamers receive a regular salary from corporate sponsors.

However, things have not been looking good in recent years even in the "Mecca of StarCraft". For all it's quality, the game has started to show it's age as the optimal way to play any matchup has preety much been mapped out. As such, there is very little room for innovation left. Combined with certain mishandlings from the Korean e-Sports Players Association (or KeSPA), this has resulted in decreasing views overall. It's loss of the position as the most played video game in PC-baangs (essentially, Korean e-Cafés) and the recent match fixing scandal have only made things worse. And since StarCraft is the premier e-Sports title in Korea, the fate of the entire industry hangs in the balance.

Of course, there is a far greater problem that indirectly connects the Korean e-Sports industry and that is the simple fact that e-Sports never really took off outside Korea. In order for the Korean e-Sports scene to grow, e-Sports needs to spread outside Korea's borders. Even the most famous StarCraft player in history, Lim " SlayerS_`BoxeR`" Yo Hwan, said so in a recent interview. But in spite of the best efforts from the StarCraft community and others, this has not happened. Many attribute this to the general bias towards gaming as well aa the fact that StarCraft is too old to catch the attention of the general public in non-Korean countries. It doesn't help that game developers very rarely make titles that are e-Sports oriented and the games that do make are either not competitive enough or not spectator-friendly enough (or, very frequently, both).

Considering all this, there is a great need for a title that will not only bring life back to the Korean competitive scene, but that will also introduce e-Sports to markets outside Korea (China is particularly viewed as a market with a lot of potential, due to the popularity of WarCraft III there). Will StarCraft II be that title? Not necessarily. But that doesn't stop people from hoping that it will be. Even now, in beta, we can talk of a professional SC2 scene as there is already a whole slew of tournaments going on. So the competitive and e-Sports potential certainly is big.

- Another aspect that cannot go unmentioned is mapmaking and modding. Blizzard games in general have enormous mapmaking and modding communities. Infact, the large amount of user-generated content has been one of the main factors why Blizzard games have lasted as long as they did. Even if you were tired of the core game, there was more then enough content for you to try outside of it. Some of that content has become so successful that it has helped spawn entire seperate communities (like the Defense of the Ancients or DotA one) and even entire new types of games (like tower defence).

The Galaxy editor included with StarCraft II promises to be even more powerful and robust then the editors in previous games, allowing for even more flexibility. Blizzard itself already demonstrated it's power by showcasing three games their employees made in their spare time with the editor during BlizzCon:


Of course, mapmakers and modders have been known to create almost unbelievable things with the previous editors (for example, someone made a First-Person Shooter using the WarCraft III engine). So the possibilities seem endless.

To add to this, there is also going to be a Marketplace on Battle.net where mapmakers/modders will be able to provide their work as Premium content (something along the lines of the iStore), allowing them to actually earn money with their work (as long as it has enough custom content to justify a price tag, of course; total conversions along the lines of Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat might apply, whereas something like DotA or a tower defence game would not since such games rely a lot on already existing game content). This is important, since a lot of people use mapmaking and modding as a stepping stone to obtaining a career in the gaming industry. Indeed, many successful mapmakers and modders have subsequently found jobs in various game companies. But if they are impressed by a successful map or mod, they will be even more impressed with a successful map or mod that sells.

Plus, the ability to provide payable content will allow mapmakers/modders to form small-scale development teams, which in turn will allow them to create content that previously could not be created due to time and financial constraints. Many grand projects, like total conversions, tend to fail precisely beacuse the amount of work they require is too much for mapmakers/modders to do in their spare time purely out of the love for the activitiy. However, if they can do it as a sort of a side-job, then it makes far more likely that such projects will come to fruition.

- Last, but not least, among the reason is...well, it's StarCraft. It has sold over 10 million copies in over a decade and anyone who has had any sort of contact with the RTS genre generally has fond memories of it. And people have been waiting for a sequel for just as long. Simply put, for many people, there is no reason not to get excited at the prospect of a new StarCraft game.

Also, StarCraft II brings with it the new Battle.net. While the classic Battle.net is still used by millions of people, it is in desperate need of a major overhaul as it is seriously outdated by modern standards. So a brand new service is yet another reason to be excited.

Well, this turned out to be longer then expected. Honestly, I could write numerous pages on this subject. But I hope I have been able to potray why people like RTS games and why StarCraft II in particular is such an important title for many people.

 

[Horticulture]

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.

Phoenixes counter mutalisks and disable ground units. As for void rays vs. BCs...again, look at the video. There's a point at which 13 void rays square off against 6 BCs (with yamato) supported by marines and a ghost. 3 void rays still remain at the end of the battle. Both fleets are similar in supply consumption, but the void rays still win pretty decisively in the face of ground support.


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?![/quote]

There's no reason that the speed of Starcraft should make it any less tactical. Dropping a small force in a vulnerable position or at the flanks of an opponent's army is a very effective maneuver. Even something as simple as manually moving marauders in front of the squishier marines can change the outcome of a battle. Flanking isn't required in the same way it is in CoH, where it's necessary in practically every encounter, but shrewd players will absolutely benefit from it.

 

[Poomanchu745]

For everyone out there looking at SCII. We got a new user group up for the beta and getting people together to practice and learn the game or hone your skills.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/StarCraft-2-Beta

 

[Jimbo1212]

Phoenixes counter mutalisks and disable ground units. As for void rays vs. BCs...again, look at the video. There's a point at which 13 void rays square off against 6 BCs (with yamato) supported by marines and a ghost. 3 void rays still remain at the end of the battle. Both fleets are similar in supply consumption, but the void rays still win pretty decisively in the face of ground support.


There's no reason that the speed of Starcraft should make it any less tactical. Dropping a small force in a vulnerable position or at the flanks of an opponent's army is a very effective maneuver. Even something as simple as manually moving marauders in front of the squishier marines can change the outcome of a battle. Flanking isn't required in the same way it is in CoH, where it's necessary in practically every encounter, but shrewd players will absolutely benefit from it.

Well, all the above is negated if the player does any micro management of the fights.
You position tougher units in front - player just shoots through into the softer units.
6 BC's against void rays, micro'ed right the BC's would have won without a problem. (Yamato is almost a free kill).
NB. The Phoenix is meant to be the superior AA flyer for protos. The fact that void rays do better against most flyers show the balancing is off.

You also failed to address the problem of army balance when the health of a unit is so low compared to its fire power. As the fight can not be sustained for long, the player is unable to adjust the army accordingly. All you can do is hope that your first army is right.

 

[Horticulture]

Well, all the above is negated if the player does any micro management of the fights.
You position tougher units in front - player just shoots through into the softer units.
6 BC's against void rays, micro'ed right the BC's would have won without a problem. (Yamato is almost a free kill).

If you don't believe me, watch the video. These are top-tier players with good micro ; you can see weaker units being microed back (easier for the faster void rays) and Yamatos going off. The void rays aren't a hard counter for BCs the way that Immortals counter Siege Tanks, but they certainly have a leg up in cost/supplyerformance ratio when fighting them.

NB. The Phoenix is meant to be the superior AA flyer for protos. The fact that void rays do better against most flyers show the balancing is off.

Check out the stats for the Phoenix [http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Phoenix]. It has a large damage bonus against light flyers, which AFAIK are only mutas and phoenixes. They're not equipped to take on BCs regardless of balance.

Regarding general balance, the game is still in beta. At least roaches don't completely dominate everything now.

You also failed to address the problem of army balance when the health of a unit is so low compared to its fire power. As the fight can not be sustained for long, the player is unable to adjust the army accordingly. All you can do is hope that your first army is right.

I don't think that's a problem. Starcraft is a fast game, and fragile units encourage scouting, map control, and positioning before battles even occur. In a word, strategy.

 

[Liberaliter]

Oh gee, i wonder what all the hype is about. It's just the sequel to NORTH KOREA'S NATIONAL FUCKING SPORT. You people are overreacting.

You mean South Korea.

Anyway on SC2, It's Blizzard, and for some reason people really love Blizzard, even though all they have made are some shitty RTS games and an MMO. I love RTS games but Blizzards ones suck, I hate only being able to have 10 units, I want thousands, like in Cossacks.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

What's the hype about? Ok... for starters, it's a Blizzard game. Last I checked Blizzard has never released a game that was less than incredible. Secondly, Starcraft is one of the biggest franchises in gaming. Starcraft is still one of the more popular online games over a decade after it's release. If you have played the beta, you know why it's got so much hype. It's pretty fucking incredible, honestly. I didn't even play SC1 (was too big into Warcraft 3), and even I think SC2 is the best RTS I've ever played. In it's beta phase.

 

[Jimbo1212]

-Snip-
I don't think that's a problem. Starcraft is a fast game, and fragile units encourage scouting, map control, and positioning before battles even occur. In a word, strategy.

Im going to draw attention to the above quote as I feel it is slightly wrong.

As the units are fragile, you can not have strong map control. For this you would need either :
Strong defensive structures.
or
Strong defensive units - Units that can hold their ground against an army whilst reinforcements move in.
StarCraft 2 does not have either of these features ( before you say it, the siege tank is a poor defensive unit as it has low hp and no aa). If you try to have full map control, you will need to split up your army, which will end up with you losing as the enemy will just smash his way through you as he will have far more fire-power in a single location. Due to slow build rates, you will then not be able to replace a fraction of what you have lost before the enemy is at your base. This makes the game a 'one fight, winner takes all' rts.
Also, I still think positioning is not a viable tactic in SC2 as the flyers are so powerful. No matter how you position, the flyer can micro through anything you do with ease.
However I am mainly comparing SC2's tactical level to that of SupCom:FA.

 

[Plurralbles]

I want it very badly. It's a sequal to one of my favorite video game universes. It is the sequel to one of my favorite video game plots of all time. It's a sequel to gameplay I enjoyed immensely. It will run on my computer. I haven't heard, "Build more Overloads", "need more vespene gas", "Yeah, I hear ye", "Let's burn", "build additional pylons" in a very long time and even though some of those voices will be missing, the new ones will be just as awesome. Most of all, I've waited too long to have this game. 12 years is too long for such a game at the level of quality and fandom as Starcraft is.

 

[Horticulture]

Im going to draw attention to the above quote as I feel it is slightly wrong.

As the units are fragile, you can not have strong map control. For this you would need either :
Strong defensive structures.
or
Strong defensive units - Units that can hold their ground against an army whilst reinforcements move in.
StarCraft 2 does not have either of these features ( before you say it, the siege tank is a poor defensive unit as it has low hp and no aa). If you try to have full map control, you will need to split up your army, which will end up with you losing as the enemy will just smash his way through you as he will have far more fire-power in a single location.

You can assert map control by having a mobile force that your opponent can't engage in an even fight or by pushing him back and setting up static defenses along the easiest routes of advance. Many units have narrow roles, but that doesn't make them unfit for defense. Unsupported Siege Tanks are easy targets, but deployed behind a wallin with support from marines, missile turrets, marauders, and thors, they can make a position unassailable without heavy losses. This does require your army to be there, but timing your excursions so as not to leave yourself vulnerable to a counterattack is itself part of the game's strategy.

Due to slow build rates, you will then not be able to replace a fraction of what you have lost before the enemy is at your base. This makes the game a 'one fight, winner takes all' rts.
Also, I still think positioning is not a viable tactic in SC2 as the flyers are so powerful. No matter how you position, the flyer can micro through anything you do with ease.
However I am mainly comparing SC2's tactical level to that of SupCom:FA.

If you lose a 150-supply army, yes, you will probably lose the game. But it's possible to retreat, replace losses as you fight, and most importantly, scout out your opponent's movements so that you can fight on advantageous terms.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

To be honest, they've taken too long. I used to care, but I'll just get it when I get it, no point in rushing.

 

[Uszi]

- Another aspect that cannot go unmentioned is mapmaking and modding. Blizzard games in general have enormous mapmaking and modding communities. Infact, the large amount of user-generated content has been one of the main factors why Blizzard games have lasted as long as they did. Even if you were tired of the core game, there was more then enough content for you to try outside of it. Some of that content has become so successful that it has helped spawn entire seperate communities (like the Defense of the Ancients or DotA one) and even entire new types of games (like tower defence).

The Galaxy editor included with StarCraft II promises to be even more powerful and robust then the editors in previous games, allowing for even more flexibility. Blizzard itself already demonstrated it's power by showcasing three games their employees made in their spare time with the editor during BlizzCon:


Of course, mapmakers and modders have been known to create almost unbelievable things with the previous editors (for example, someone made a First-Person Shooter using the WarCraft III engine). So the possibilities seem endless.

To add to this, there is also going to be a Marketplace on Battle.net where mapmakers/modders will be able to provide their work as Premium content (something along the lines of the iStore), allowing them to actually earn money with their work (as long as it has enough custom content to justify a price tag, of course; total conversions along the lines of Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat might apply, whereas something like DotA or a tower defence game would not since such games rely a lot on already existing game content). This is important, since a lot of people use mapmaking and modding as a stepping stone to obtaining a career in the gaming industry. Indeed, many successful mapmakers and modders have subsequently found jobs in various game companies. But if they are impressed by a successful map or mod, they will be even more impressed with a successful map or mod that sells.

Plus, the ability to provide payable content will allow mapmakers/modders to form small-scale development teams, which in turn will allow them to create content that previously could not be created due to time and financial constraints. Many grand projects, like total conversions, tend to fail precisely beacuse the amount of work they require is too much for mapmakers/modders to do in their spare time purely out of the love for the activitiy. However, if they can do it as a sort of a side-job, then it makes far more likely that such projects will come to fruition.

Instead of re-posting the same info, I'll just quote you. This!

I barely play WC3 Proper, but I do spend lots of time making maps with my friends and playing the custom game times made by other people, like the Risk games or DotA. The age of the SC2 custom map will be an amazing one indeed.

Your tl;dr post was made of win and fairy dust, by the way. Well, I mean, I'm assuming the rest of it was. It was too long, and I didn't read all of it.

 

[Wicky_42]

The Galaxy editor included with StarCraft II promises to be even more powerful and robust then the editors in previous games, allowing for even more flexibility. Blizzard itself already demonstrated it's power by showcasing three games their employees made in their spare time with the editor during BlizzCon:

1) Holy Crap, that validates my pre-purchase in itself. I loved WC3's editor, but always wished it were more powerful. Now it is. Yay.

2) I absolutely despise the guy presenting that video - second most annoying tech presenter I know of