Review: StarCraft II

[ecoho]

I am quite calm. However, all your examples on tactics and game play have come from AI skirmishes. I'm simply telling you it's not nearly the same thing, and that you need to stop discussing aspects of it because you've proven time and time again you don't understand how the game works.

I am going to step in and disagree with you on this point.
The AI is nothing but retarded, and most players are not much better, or sometimes worse then the AI. A problem from beta was Terran players turtling and then proceeding to BC gank. If the player expands at an expectable rate, then most units can not stop a BC rush seeing that most of the AA units are not cost effective against the BC, especially seeing that the yamato cannon can cripple most units in one shot.
But then what do we expect when an entire campaign has been made for just one race? Oh that is right, 5/5 or 100% ratings for having a broken multiplayer...

Wait what? A BC rush? I'm not quote sure you grasp how expensive BCs and their upgrades are. You need a barracks, a factory, a starport with a tech lab, and a fusion core before you can even start building the things, and you will need more than one starport and tech lab if you plan to go straight air. They are one of the most expensive units in the game. They have a huge build time, and require two upgrades to both be able to Yamato and do so as soon as they are built, otherwise they have to wait a while. If you seriously think you can BC rush somehow, I doubt you played past the placement matches, if at all. Any semi-competent player would have scouted it out well in advance, and harassed the living crap out of you, if not beaten you entirely. Turtling and straight teching does NOT work. The fact that you called the multi "broken" invalidates any other post on strategy you make from here on out.

actualy you can turrtle and tech and still win i have done so its a ***** to pull off and not near as good as a more attack orianted strat but it can be done of corse it takes more then 30 mins to pull it off right and youll mostly be makeing better faster units then the BC ie the vikings with reactors.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

In the post I did before, which you quoted, I gave examples of a few strats that people will pull out that the AI won't, or not as well. And we've repeatedly said why we like the game, you are simply ignoring it. But I'll humor you: because the first one is still solid today, and the second improved on it's UI and mechanics. This is a game for the fans, and we got everything we wanted. Again, answer one simple question: why are you still here? You are asking us to convince of something you clearly don't want to be convinced of.

Scare yourself and say specifically why you like SC2 above, or on par with the other RTS' out.
Saying it's a game for fans just means people would have liked it if it was an unbalanced piece of cr*p that looked like it came fresh of an etch-a-sketch...Not quite sure how that's meant to give any sort of substance to your view other than squash it entirely.
I'm here because I disagree with all the praise it's getting, but seem to be up against people who will love it regardless of the actual quality of the game, or those who haven't touched a RTS in the last decade. Frankly I think the former and the latter are why game innovation has almost died a death and why gaming is going to become worse & worse year after year, and eventually die because it won't attract anyone who isn't willing to blindly follow a faceless corporation for some literally unknown reason.

Dare I wade into the fight? For background- I came from turn-based strategy, into Warcraft II and mostly Age of Empires II. Only in the last 3 years did I pick up Starcraft Broodwar and found it to be the best RTS I had come across.

However, I have in fact played RTS in this decade, but not perhaps the ones that are mentioned. The RTS people compare SCII seem to be DoW 2004, World in Conflict 2007, and Company of Heroes 2006. The RTS's I have bought/ played- Age of Empires 3 2005, Empire At War 2006, and Battle for Middle Earth 2006. So I feel like I'm in the same era of RTS.

In my opinion none of the 3 I have played compare to SCII or even SCBW (though graphically some are better .) All of them have different methods of resources- planets owned or farms auto generating money, or traditional resource collection. I don't feel like any of these are 'better' simply different. Empire At War has a much different method of production, but I don't think it's better, just different.

One of the most tangible reasons I think both SCBW and SC2 are better than all these games (and I have a lot of reasons) is unit control. Both Empire At War and Battle for Middle Earth utilizes these modern units in formations stuff. You can tell your units to take certain positions or take cover. However, I felt like I had nothing to do. After playing SCBW, I could macro like crazy in Battle for Middleearth, get all the upgrades and max out my supply cap and I'm left with this giant, unwieldy army that fights on its own. I missed the spells to cast, the tanks to seige and unseige, the hit and run micro tactics of vultures, the storm drops and doom drops, the mass army recalls, and stasising armies, or scanning for that ninja dark templar.

And I think this is where I and many naysayers part company- any of the negative reviews on SCII seem to be that the player has to control too much of their army, unlike modern RTS's. However, this is precisely what I dislike about modern RTS. The army doesn't need my help and I might as well watch it fight- my brother just turns on the cinematics for the ground battle in Empire At War, the battles are too onerously slow and uninteresting to fight. (You end up watching them fight anyways.)

In Battle for Middle Earth I could kind of move my riders around to run down the archers, but the movement was so slow and there were no micro tricks to use. I just clicked and watched as units took forever to die. In SC II, I absolutely enjoy trying to beat my cousin's bio push, by pulling back my zealots, force-fielding off a third of his army on my ramp, throwing up a guardian shield and rushing my troops in- trying to save my immortal at the last minute and later trying to squeeze in the charge upgrade before the third wave comes with cloaked ghosts- (forcing me to separate my sentries to avoid a devastating emp.)

I cannot speak to DoW, because I have not played it. However, I have played modern RTS of the same era and even later and none of them compare. (Actually going back to Age of Empire was surprisingly not fun- again not much to do except 1a). Starcraft has always sat in the middle of macro vs micro. The modern RTS that I have played have taken away unit control. Battles are painfully slow as you wait for units to die- the stakes are not very high because no quick reflexes are required to save an important unit. Starcraft has an element of speed that I found sorely lacking in the modern RTS's I played. (I should say, I enjoyed the space battles more in Empire At War- it's the ground combat in particular that was painfully slow to even move across the map or to see anything die.)

 

[Comic Sans]

Hey Falling, can I hug you?

 

[Dys]

I'm just saying how it's not worth all the praise. If I couldn't fault it, then sure, it should be 10/10 etc, but it's far from flawless, unlike what some fans and reviewers would have you believe. Not saying it's bad, but it is the most hyped up game since MW2.

I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but here's the problem. Just because you find fault in the game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the praise it's getting. Reviews are and always have been subjective personal opinions so if the game is being highly praised by most of the reviews, then most of the reviewers genuinely love the game.

Funny how big budget games from big publishers are always loved. I have no intention of argue the redundant "starcraft 2 is teh greatest" vs "CoH is better therefore it's shit" argument. I'm rather enjoying stubborn faboys aimlessly argue with each other. Because starcraft 2 is so incredibly similar to the first, it would be stupid for reveiwers to give it higher scores than they gave the original, and I personally don't understand how any RTS game that lacks a LAN feature could even come close to a perfect score (needing all LAN tournements to have an internet connection is a pain in the ass, not to mention unecissary).

I suppose I also will, as I always do, point out that "good" graphics do not mean high pixel count. Some of the most universaly praised film graphics are dated, they are good if they effectively draw the user/veiwer into the atmosphere. You didn't specficially charge the stupid stick with the "MOAR PIXELS" argument, so it's not in any way a counter to anything you said (though somewhat inspired by your comment about the graphics being dated).

 

[Lucifron]

OMG realy your still bitching about LAN?! trust me man all the bitching in the world wont make them add lan to the game, and by saying the game sucks just because it doesnt have LAN officaly makes you worse then infidel witch is realy sad........

No, he's not even nearly as bad as infidel, as complaining about the lack of LAN-support is actually a factual point.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

Hey Falling, can I hug you?

Dunno, e-hugging could be a little awkward...

 

[John Funk]

I thought that simple LAN was a very simple addition to a multiplayer game, Worms has it, BF2 has it, many online games do. I don't use it very often myself, I have a fast internet connection, but it's VERY nice to have when your internet goes tits up, or for example if you live somewhere that has a very poor internet conection or even none at all.

It deprives people who have limited resources, by limiting them even further, and it seems unfair to me. I would say it's unfair to troll on people who don't like the fact that it doesn't have LAN, and accuse them of approaching the "trolling" personality themselves, comments like these should be allowed.

From my own perspective it seems a shame that they couldn't add the simple function to the game, many other companys add it in, but in this game they do not, sometimes at the cost of not gaining achievments for obvious reasons.

It does suck. So when someone says so, get over it.

OMG realy your still bitching about LAN?! trust me man all the bitching in the world wont make them add lan to the game, and by saying the game sucks just because it doesnt have LAN officaly makes you worse then infidel witch is realy sad........

Actually, they're adding lan This is not a trollpost. Blizzard has stated that they will be adding lan at a later time (they have not stated how or when). They also stated that they will implement crossrealm gaming and chatrooms (which is the two other things people ***** about)

Source for this? This is the first I've heard of it.

 

[Excludos]

I thought that simple LAN was a very simple addition to a multiplayer game, Worms has it, BF2 has it, many online games do. I don't use it very often myself, I have a fast internet connection, but it's VERY nice to have when your internet goes tits up, or for example if you live somewhere that has a very poor internet conection or even none at all.

It deprives people who have limited resources, by limiting them even further, and it seems unfair to me. I would say it's unfair to troll on people who don't like the fact that it doesn't have LAN, and accuse them of approaching the "trolling" personality themselves, comments like these should be allowed.

From my own perspective it seems a shame that they couldn't add the simple function to the game, many other companys add it in, but in this game they do not, sometimes at the cost of not gaining achievments for obvious reasons.

It does suck. So when someone says so, get over it.

OMG realy your still bitching about LAN?! trust me man all the bitching in the world wont make them add lan to the game, and by saying the game sucks just because it doesnt have LAN officaly makes you worse then infidel witch is realy sad........

Actually, they're adding lan This is not a trollpost. Blizzard has stated that they will be adding lan at a later time (they have not stated how or when). They also stated that they will implement crossrealm gaming and chatrooms (which is the two other things people ***** about)

Source for this? This is the first I've heard of it.

It was in a post on TLnet, I believe they talked about it in the Korean media event, and there was a long Q&A on Irc a month ago where they confirmed all of it. (and naturally, I can't find any of it. I'll look around and get back to you if I do)

 

[Jimbo1212]

how are you still posting while banned? As to your latest post you have proven yourself to be an idiot if you think any RTS game thats came out in the last 3 years is any better then starcraft 2 your easily blinded by shiny things. Most of the games you have used as comparesons have no skill to playing them (save SOSE but come on that game takes hours to play right) were as starcraft 2 does and dont you make one more comparison to the AI try playing a person for once. OH but wait then youed actualy have to think instead of mass army crush! you sir are a troll and an idiot and as such you dont deserve your copy of starcraft 2 if you even own the game and not just a demo.

3 years? Sup Com, Empire and Napoleon : Total War?
You played them at all? The TW series is solely about tactics on the battlefield so how is StarCraft 2 with its simple tactics of 'They make this, you make this counter unit' harder then flanking, moral, terrain advantages, mass scale etc. ???
And a lot of players are easier then the AI so claiming that the AI is always easy is a little odd.
Also, it is a game, not a religious text - "you dont deserve your copy of starcraft 2". To say something like that about a game shows a weird dogmatic loyalty.

Yes. Yes I was.

I don't need all those bells and whistles and shit. Starcraft has a formula that isn't broken, so why try to change it? All it would do is upset those that love the first game. Starcraft 2 takes the core formula and refines it so it works exceedingly well.

The fact that Blizzard chose to stick to this formula and that so many people that have played other RTS's still find Starcraft 2 incredible is a testament to that. You can find it as tedious and annoying as you want but just because something tries to innovate doesn't make it automatically better. Starcraft 2 is a refined experience that both hardcore RTS fans and those new to the genre can enjoy. That's what makes it a great game. Blizzard tried to both cater to the fans and create an easy to play yet hard to master game. They succeeded at what they were trying to do.

We get it. You don't like it. So why play it? Play all those other games you find so much better and leave those of us that are genuinely having fun alone. All you're doing is making yourself sound like an elitist prick. Then again maybe you're trying to do that and have succeeded as well.

Why rehash a game which can not be improved then?
What other RTS's have you played? I'm guessing it is none if you were playing StarCraft 6 months ago.
Also, if you have been playing StarCraft for 10 years :
a) how are you not bored of doing the same thing again and again. Try something new maybe?
b) How are you not bored of StarCraft 2 as it is almost identical to StarCraft ?
c) Hardcore RTS fans and StarCraft fans hate the game because it does nothing new and destroys the storyline of the original. By killing the storyline this pushed away the real fans of the game, but kept the fans of the Blizzard logo.
d) If the game is so great then why are you not playing it and why do you also feel it is your sole responsibility to defend it to the hilt? Maybe because you know it is not great are are trying to convince yourself that it is?

 

[Arisato-kun]

Yes. Yes I was.

I don't need all those bells and whistles and shit. Starcraft has a formula that isn't broken, so why try to change it? All it would do is upset those that love the first game. Starcraft 2 takes the core formula and refines it so it works exceedingly well.

The fact that Blizzard chose to stick to this formula and that so many people that have played other RTS's still find Starcraft 2 incredible is a testament to that. You can find it as tedious and annoying as you want but just because something tries to innovate doesn't make it automatically better. Starcraft 2 is a refined experience that both hardcore RTS fans and those new to the genre can enjoy. That's what makes it a great game. Blizzard tried to both cater to the fans and create an easy to play yet hard to master game. They succeeded at what they were trying to do.

We get it. You don't like it. So why play it? Play all those other games you find so much better and leave those of us that are genuinely having fun alone. All you're doing is making yourself sound like an elitist prick. Then again maybe you're trying to do that and have succeeded as well.

Why rehash a game which can not be improved then?
What other RTS's have you played? I'm guessing it is none if you were playing StarCraft 6 months ago.
Also, if you have been playing StarCraft for 10 years :
a) how are you not bored of doing the same thing again and again. Try something new maybe?
b) How are you not bored of StarCraft 2 as it is almost identical to StarCraft ?
c) Hardcore RTS fans and StarCraft fans hate the game because it does nothing new and destroys the storyline of the original. By killing the storyline this pushed away the real fans of the game, but kept the fans of the Blizzard logo.
d) If the game is so great then why are you not playing it and why do you also feel it is your sole responsibility to defend it to the hilt? Maybe because you know it is not great are are trying to convince yourself that it is?

Actually I've played both Dawn of Wars, both SupCom's, every Command and Conquer and Warcraft 3.

As to your response of why rehash a game which cannot be improved I ask you this. Why fix what isn't broken? The changes Blizzard did implement were more than enough.

A) Why get bored of something that is genuinely fun? I've played a lot of games and SC kept bringing me back for more because it was fun and varied every single time I played it, not to mention all of the friends I made in the community.

B) Why should I be bored of a game with a brand new campaign with unique missions, a new story, new units, challenge missions and awesome custom games?

C) At this point you're talking out your ass because people that have played many RTS's and were Starcraft fans have already defended SC2 in this thread. Yet again you choose to ignore it though.

D) I'm not playing it right now because I do other things besides play games? Regardless of how awesome a game is I'm not going to play it 24/7. I'm defending it because I genuinely like it, like how anyone else will defend a game they like.

But it's pretty obvious at this point that you and Matzy are just enjoying being trolls so I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the rest of the community's responses.

 

[ecoho]

how are you still posting while banned? As to your latest post you have proven yourself to be an idiot if you think any RTS game thats came out in the last 3 years is any better then starcraft 2 your easily blinded by shiny things. Most of the games you have used as comparesons have no skill to playing them (save SOSE but come on that game takes hours to play right) were as starcraft 2 does and dont you make one more comparison to the AI try playing a person for once. OH but wait then youed actualy have to think instead of mass army crush! you sir are a troll and an idiot and as such you dont deserve your copy of starcraft 2 if you even own the game and not just a demo.

3 years? Sup Com, Empire and Napoleon : Total War?
You played them at all? The TW series is solely about tactics on the battlefield so how is StarCraft 2 with its simple tactics of 'They make this, you make this counter unit' harder then flanking, moral, terrain advantages, mass scale etc. ???
And a lot of players are easier then the AI so claiming that the AI is always easy is a little odd.
Also, it is a game, not a religious text - "you dont deserve your copy of starcraft 2". To say something like that about a game shows a weird dogmatic loyalty.

ok man i played every total war game that has come out owned rome but it still wasnt as fun as starcraft 2 as to suprem comander it was a hack job in sigle player with shiny graphics I CANT SEE so all thos graphics you so love me shit to me if the game play is poor. Now understnad this cause i only want to say this once the tW games are very good realy they are they just dont make me feel like im playing an RTS more like playing a history channel show.

To the guy i went a little nuts on for the lan post im truly sorry i was just tired of the whole lan argument so i kinda took it out on you.

Yes. Yes I was.

I don't need all those bells and whistles and shit. Starcraft has a formula that isn't broken, so why try to change it? All it would do is upset those that love the first game. Starcraft 2 takes the core formula and refines it so it works exceedingly well.

The fact that Blizzard chose to stick to this formula and that so many people that have played other RTS's still find Starcraft 2 incredible is a testament to that. You can find it as tedious and annoying as you want but just because something tries to innovate doesn't make it automatically better. Starcraft 2 is a refined experience that both hardcore RTS fans and those new to the genre can enjoy. That's what makes it a great game. Blizzard tried to both cater to the fans and create an easy to play yet hard to master game. They succeeded at what they were trying to do.

We get it. You don't like it. So why play it? Play all those other games you find so much better and leave those of us that are genuinely having fun alone. All you're doing is making yourself sound like an elitist prick. Then again maybe you're trying to do that and have succeeded as well.

Why rehash a game which can not be improved then?
What other RTS's have you played? I'm guessing it is none if you were playing StarCraft 6 months ago.
Also, if you have been playing StarCraft for 10 years :
a) how are you not bored of doing the same thing again and again. Try something new maybe?
b) How are you not bored of StarCraft 2 as it is almost identical to StarCraft ?
c) Hardcore RTS fans and StarCraft fans hate the game because it does nothing new and destroys the storyline of the original. By killing the storyline this pushed away the real fans of the game, but kept the fans of the Blizzard logo.
d) If the game is so great then why are you not playing it and why do you also feel it is your sole responsibility to defend it to the hilt? Maybe because you know it is not great are are trying to convince yourself that it is?

A)its only repetitive if it isnt fun look at any good fps its all repeditive
B)its not the storys better the upgrades add fun and well the multi is just better
C)it didnt distroy the story line the story line was hard to follow in the first game now its stream lined people are just mad they cant play the ending first in this one.
D)its called multitasking try it and were here to make sure idiots like you dont turn away people who would otherwise try the game and like it we are defending those who have yet had the chance to play there for take your baised opions as the only real reveiw of the game.

 

[mike1921]

how are you still posting while banned? As to your latest post you have proven yourself to be an idiot if you think any RTS game thats came out in the last 3 years is any better then starcraft 2 your easily blinded by shiny things. Most of the games you have used as comparesons have no skill to playing them (save SOSE but come on that game takes hours to play right) were as starcraft 2 does and dont you make one more comparison to the AI try playing a person for once. OH but wait then youed actualy have to think instead of mass army crush! you sir are a troll and an idiot and as such you dont deserve your copy of starcraft 2 if you even own the game and not just a demo.

3 years? Sup Com, Empire and Napoleon : Total War?
You played them at all? The TW series is solely about tactics on the battlefield so how is StarCraft 2 with its simple tactics of 'They make this, you make this counter unit' harder then flanking, moral, terrain advantages, mass scale etc. ???

You are the densest person I have ever seen on this forum. STARCRAFT DOES HAVE FLANKING, TERRAIN ADVANTAGES, MORALE, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by mass scale.

There is no way in hell you can beat a higher level player with such simple tactics. You'll get your ass kicked.

c) Hardcore RTS fans and StarCraft fans hate the game because it does nothing new and destroys the storyline of the original. By killing the storyline this pushed away the real fans of the game, but kept the fans of the Blizzard logo.
d) If the game is so great then why are you not playing it and why do you also feel it is your sole responsibility to defend it to the hilt? Maybe because you know it is not great are are trying to convince yourself that it is?

C) Citation needed
D) I like destroying people in arguments. I find that enjoyable. Your arguments are weak and flimsy

 

[Jimbo1212]

You are the densest person I have ever seen on this forum. STARCRAFT DOES HAVE FLANKING, TERRAIN ADVANTAGES, MORALE, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by mass scale.

There is no way in hell you can beat a higher level player with such simple tactics. You'll get your ass kicked.
C) Citation needed
D) I like destroying people in arguments. I find that enjoyable. Your arguments are weak and flimsy

StarCraft 2 does not have morale.
I think you need to think before you type....
And if arguing is more fun then StarCraft 2, then enough said on the quality of the game or the player base it attracts.

A)its only repetitive if it isnt fun look at any good fps its all repeditive
B)its not the storys better the upgrades add fun and well the multi is just better
C)it didnt distroy the story line the story line was hard to follow in the first game now its stream lined people are just mad they cant play the ending first in this one.
D)its called multitasking try it and were here to make sure idiots like you dont turn away people who would otherwise try the game and like it we are defending those who have yet had the chance to play there for take your baised opions as the only real reveiw of the game.

Even if it is fun, it is repetitive - look up the definition. FPS's are repetitive, that is why new ones are brought out every week or so, RTS's are no exception unless it attracts people who are happy to grind away.
The game does not add anything new to the RTS genre as it is a "remake for the fans", ergo Blizzard have capitalised on a player base that like doing the same thing again and again. Those guys really have a skill at attracting those types of people for their games.
The storyline was gutted. Raynor and Kerrigan were never that close, ever.
If the game is a good as you say, then people will find it out by playing the demo....oh wait.

Actually I've played both Dawn of Wars, both SupCom's, every Command and Conquer and Warcraft 3.

As to your response of why rehash a game which cannot be improved I ask you this. Why fix what isn't broken? The changes Blizzard did implement were more than enough.

A) Why get bored of something that is genuinely fun? I've played a lot of games and SC kept bringing me back for more because it was fun and varied every single time I played it, not to mention all of the friends I made in the community.

B) Why should I be bored of a game with a brand new campaign with unique missions, a new story, new units, challenge missions and awesome custom games?

C) At this point you're talking out your ass because people that have played many RTS's and were Starcraft fans have already defended SC2 in this thread. Yet again you choose to ignore it though.

D) I'm not playing it right now because I do other things besides play games? Regardless of how awesome a game is I'm not going to play it 24/7. I'm defending it because I genuinely like it, like how anyone else will defend a game they like.

But it's pretty obvious at this point that you and Matzy are just enjoying being trolls so I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the rest of the community's responses.

You are aware that you only reworded my question rather then answering it?
Again, playing the same game for 10 years would grow tiresome fast unless you had a memory of a fish and a learning speed of a mongrel. The going on to play the sequel and claim that it too is also fun, yet so similar begs the question of have you played the games you claim you have? You say you have played them, but nothing else. You do not mention if you liked them etc. which is normally an indication of someone who played the demo/saw a video once.
Also no person on this thread who loves SC2 has also been good at or played for any length any other RTS, as well as true SC fans hate this new warped storyline.

 

[John Funk]

Again, playing the same game for 10 years would grow tiresome fast unless you had a memory of a fish and a learning speed of a mongrel.

Gary Kasparov would like to have a word with you. For that matter, every professional athlete in any competitive sport throughout history.

Also no person on this thread who loves SC2 has also been good at or played for any length any other RTS, as well as true SC fans hate this new warped storyline.

No True Scotsman fallacy, as well as blatantly false information. I talked to the producer of Supreme Commander at length about how much we both loved StarCraft 2. Are you going to say he isn't familiar (or doesn't like) the game he bloody made?

 

[Arisato-kun]

You are aware that you only reworded my question rather then answering it?
Again, playing the same game for 10 years would grow tiresome fast unless you had a memory of a fish and a learning speed of a mongrel. The going on to play the sequel and claim that it too is also fun, yet so similar begs the question of have you played the games you claim you have? You say you have played them, but nothing else. You do not mention if you liked them etc. which is normally an indication of someone who played the demo/saw a video once.
Also no person on this thread who loves SC2 has also been good at or played for any length any other RTS, as well as true SC fans hate this new warped storyline.

And you are aware that you've devolved to the point where you just insult everyone that doesn't agree with you right?

I liked Starcraft and still like it. Also I adore your logic that everyone that likes it must be bad at RTS's. Meh, Funk already mentioned that the producer of SupCom loves SC2 so I'm just gonna leave it at that. This is a waste of time.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Again, playing the same game for 10 years would grow tiresome fast unless you had a memory of a fish and a learning speed of a mongrel.

Gary Kasparov would like to have a word with you. For that matter, every professional athlete in any competitive sport throughout history.

Also no person on this thread who loves SC2 has also been good at or played for any length any other RTS, as well as true SC fans hate this new warped storyline.

No True Scotsman fallacy, as well as blatantly false information. I talked to the producer of Supreme Commander at length about how much we both loved StarCraft 2. Are you going to say he isn't familiar (or doesn't like) the game he bloody made?

That is a career and takes a lifetime to get good at, not some kid sitting in a basement. In 10 years do you really think anyone will be writing books on you because you played some game well? Trying to do the same with a computer game is just a little sad.
And wow, you talked to a producer of one RTS who also likes SC2. Of course his opinion means everyone else thinks the same and that no one else in this thread who likes SC2 has not played any other RTS at great length.

 

[ecoho]

[quote tb infidel]Even if it is fun, it is repetitive - look up the definition. FPS's are repetitive, that is why new ones are brought out every week or so, RTS's are no exception unless it attracts people who are happy to grind away.
The game does not add anything new to the RTS genre as it is a "remake for the fans", ergo Blizzard have capitalised on a player base that like doing the same thing again and again. Those guys really have a skill at attracting those types of people for their games.
The storyline was gutted. Raynor and Kerrigan were never that close, ever.
If the game is a good as you say, then people will find it out by playing the demo....oh wait.[/quote]

ok first off if the game is fun no one cares if it repetitive.
ill let someone else handle your hate for anything blizzerd
finaly raynor and kerrigan were very close the game hinted at it and if you "god forbid" read any of the books you would know this.
you have proven time and again that your blinded by your hate for blizzerd and shinny graphics witch you think make a game better but just make it look pretty with almost no good game play (see my last comment on supreime comander) do us all a favor dont go away ranting just GO AWAY!

 

[John Funk]

That is a career and takes a lifetime to get good at, not some kid sitting in a basement. In 10 years do you really think anyone will be writing books on you because you played some game well? Trying to do the same with a computer game is just a little sad.
And wow, you talked to a producer of one RTS who also likes SC2. Of course his opinion means everyone else thinks the same and that no one else in this thread who likes SC2 has not played any other RTS at great length.

Professional e-sports would disagree. But no, my argument still holds firm: If a game so relatively straightforward as chess can hold peoples' interest for entire lifetimes (and you don't need to be a chess pro to play it as a hobby; haven't you seen old people playing it together in a park?), then why can't a game like StarCraft? The only difference is that one is a turn-based board-game title, and that one is a real-time electronic title.

You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper. It is impossible to prove a negative - that is, while you can argue that some people who love SC2 have never played other, "superior" RTS titles, you cannot prove that everyone arguing in the favor of StarCraft 2 in this thread (or anywhere else) has "never played any RTS at great length." Particularly when it is so very easy to prove a positive: You have at least three people who are directly telling you otherwise, that they've been playing all sorts of RTS games for years. One of my best friends (and SC2 partner) actually made it into a PC Gamer "gamer of the week" article for dominating them competitively in DoW2 - and he loves SC2.

My point was, you cannot say that nobody who plays and loves SC2 is unfamiliar with other "better" RTS titles, because we have directly proved the opposite. There exists at least one person who is VERY familiar with Supreme Commander who loves StarCraft 2, ergo the idea that more can exist is more than plausible.

This is not a matter of opinion. You are objectively wrong.

 

[mike1921]

You are the densest person I have ever seen on this forum. STARCRAFT DOES HAVE FLANKING, TERRAIN ADVANTAGES, MORALE, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by mass scale.

There is no way in hell you can beat a higher level player with such simple tactics. You'll get your ass kicked.
C) Citation needed
D) I like destroying people in arguments. I find that enjoyable. Your arguments are weak and flimsy

StarCraft 2 does not have morale.
I think you need to think before you type....
And if arguing is more fun then StarCraft 2, then enough said on the quality of the game or the player base it attracts.

Yes, it does. It's just not hard-coded into the game, John Funk already explained this, to you I think.


Nothing is more fun than arguing. And the fact that you are ignoring the majority of what I say is a good indicator that I will win.

as well as true SC fans hate this new warped storyline.

[CITATION NEEDED]