Review: StarCraft II

[Arisato-kun]

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.

But isn't he the producer of an RTS that you've both been arguing is superior to Starcraft 2?

And arguing that it's sad that someone is talented at a game is just pure bullshit. Players are recognized for what they do and they make money by doing what they love and are good at. if that's not success then I don't know what is.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

"If a game so relatively straightforward as chess can hold peoples"
So straight forward that all these years no one is even close to perfecting it and that actually computers will always be infinitely better at it then people? Yeah, really straight forward....
StarCraft is impossibly easier then chess. Any computer game is easier then chess. To argue otherwise shows how little you understand the concepts of chess and what makes something difficult.

And how is " It brings nothing to new to the genre " objective? It does not. It has been done before and only people who like grinding the same game will enjoy this.

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]

No it does not.
Just because " John Funk" said it, it means nothing. You may as well argue that C&C and MW2 have moral in it, or any game for that matter.
And what was the relationship between Raynor and Kerrigan again from the first game? Go and install it, then come back.

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.

And now everyone who likes SC2 is the producer for SupCom according to you. You and everyone else have proven me right by not saying the other RTS's you have played and to what level. Of course some people RTS fans will like SC2, but from what I have seen on other forums, most do not for numerous reasons.

 

[John Funk]

"If a game so relatively straightforward as chess can hold peoples"
So straight forward that all these years no one is even close to perfecting it and that actually computers will always be infinitely better at it then people? Yeah, really straight forward....
StarCraft is impossibly easier then chess. Any computer game is easier then chess. To argue otherwise shows how little you understand the concepts of chess and what makes something difficult.

And how is " It brings nothing to new to the genre " objective? It does not. It has been done before and only people who like grinding the same game will enjoy this.

Yes, actually. It's straight forward. You have six different units, each of which is only defined by their ability to move. There is no morale, there is no fog of war, there is no flanking bonus, there is no terrain, there is no anything other than the units and their movement (well, other than one or two special moves like castling).

It's practically impossible to get any more straightforward than that without making, like, checkers. Chess is a game of staggering complexity that comes out of very simple and straightforward concepts that a literal child could grasp (I started playing chess when I was 4. I wasn't very GOOD at it, but I was playing.)

Simplicity does not belie depth. StarCraft and StarCraft 2 are relatively simple compared to some of their competitors because they do not have morale/whatever we're whining about now. As we see with chess, though, this in no way makes them any less strategic or tactical; it just makes them different.

"It has been done before and only people who like grinding the same game will enjoy this."

It has been done before, yes. But this is the best it's been done, and if you think that only people who like grinding the same game over and over again will like StarCraft 2, you are a fool and there is no helping your ignorance.

Stay there in your little security blanket dream world where nobody who knows anything about RTS games likes StarCraft. I'm sure it's very comforting. We'll be having fun with a great game in the real world, thanks

Your arguments have simply devolved into ad hominem attacks against people who don't agree with you at this point. That is not welcome here. Learn to debate like a grownup and then we can disagree all you want.

(Oh, and for the record I played DoW1/2, a bit of Supreme Commander but never got into it too much, Shogun and Rome Total War, and the C&C series through Generals. Oh, and Battle for Middle Earth. And a bit of Homeworld.)

 

[Jimbo1212]

Yes, actually. It's straight forward. You have six different units, each of which is only defined by their ability to move. There is no morale, there is no fog of war, there is no flanking bonus, there is no terrain, there is no anything other than the units and their movement (well, other than one or two special moves like castling).

It's practically impossible to get any more straightforward than that without making, like, checkers. Chess is a game of staggering complexity that comes out of very simple and straightforward concepts that a literal child could grasp (I started playing chess when I was 4. I wasn't very GOOD at it, but I was playing.)

Simplicity does not belie depth. StarCraft and StarCraft 2 are relatively simple compared to some of their competitors because they do not have morale/whatever we're whining about now. As we see with chess, though, this in no way makes them any less strategic or tactical; it just makes them different.

"It has been done before and only people who like grinding the same game will enjoy this."

It has been done before, yes. But this is the best it's been done, and if you think that only people who like grinding the same game over and over again will like StarCraft 2, you are a fool and there is no helping your ignorance.

Stay there in your little security blanket dream world where nobody who knows anything about RTS games likes StarCraft. I'm sure it's very comforting. We'll be having fun with a great game in the real world, thanks

Your arguments have simply devolved into ad hominem attacks against people who don't agree with you at this point. That is not welcome here. Learn to debate like a grownup and then we can disagree all you want.

(Oh, and for the record I played DoW1/2, a bit of Supreme Commander but never got into it too much, Shogun and Rome Total War, and the C&C series through Generals. Oh, and Battle for Middle Earth. And a bit of Homeworld.)

Chess is solely about prediction to the n.th degree. StarCraft is infinitely less then that. The difference is in SC2 every unit has a specific counter unit. This is the polar opposite to chess.
Again, how is a rehash of the same game 5/5? Surely if this was the case, if you reviewed SC 6 moths ago you would have given it 5/5. Somehow I doubt that. DoW and many other RTS' were praised for their innovation, so why has SC2 been praised for none? This is a complete contradiction.

 

[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?

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.

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

 

[mike1921]

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.

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

HAHA, knew it

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.

"If a game so relatively straightforward as chess can hold peoples"
So straight forward that all these years no one is even close to perfecting it and that actually computers will always be infinitely better at it then people? Yeah, really straight forward....
StarCraft is impossibly easier then chess. Any computer game is easier then chess. To argue otherwise shows how little you understand the concepts of chess and what makes something difficult.

And how is " It brings nothing to new to the genre " objective? It does not. It has been done before and only people who like grinding the same game will enjoy this.

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]

No it does not.
Just because " John Funk" said it, it means nothing. You may as well argue that C&C and MW2 have moral in it, or any game for that matter.
And what was the relationship between Raynor and Kerrigan again from the first game? Go and install it, then come back.

I'm not going to repeat someone else's arguments when they were already said to you directly. If you really want I'll go find that post and quote him and you could just pretend they're my words

Given the mission where she gets abandoned and the one where she hatches, the relationship was exactly what it needs to be to justify this game's implications of closeness.

 

[acosn]

Except for the cliche's and the groan-worthy dialogue at times I happened to like SC2 story line.


I mean, if you actually followed the plot line Blizzard laid out in SC1 you'd have seen it all coming more or less.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Bless, learn to count the IP address. Same network, different address. Plus, I'm pretty sure you are not meant to leak things like that. I guess that is what you guys do when you get shown to be possible Blizzard sell outs.
You do not rate games on innovation? Wow, well then if that does not render the review to the stage of pointless and hollow, I do not know what does, because maybe, just maybe, some games are good because of innovation? You able to grasp that concept?

 

[Excludos]

Yes, actually. It's straight forward. You have six different units, each of which is only defined by their ability to move. There is no morale, there is no fog of war, there is no flanking bonus, there is no terrain, there is no anything other than the units and their movement (well, other than one or two special moves like castling).

It's practically impossible to get any more straightforward than that without making, like, checkers. Chess is a game of staggering complexity that comes out of very simple and straightforward concepts that a literal child could grasp (I started playing chess when I was 4. I wasn't very GOOD at it, but I was playing.)

Simplicity does not belie depth. StarCraft and StarCraft 2 are relatively simple compared to some of their competitors because they do not have morale/whatever we're whining about now. As we see with chess, though, this in no way makes them any less strategic or tactical; it just makes them different.

"It has been done before and only people who like grinding the same game will enjoy this."

It has been done before, yes. But this is the best it's been done, and if you think that only people who like grinding the same game over and over again will like StarCraft 2, you are a fool and there is no helping your ignorance.

Stay there in your little security blanket dream world where nobody who knows anything about RTS games likes StarCraft. I'm sure it's very comforting. We'll be having fun with a great game in the real world, thanks

Your arguments have simply devolved into ad hominem attacks against people who don't agree with you at this point. That is not welcome here. Learn to debate like a grownup and then we can disagree all you want.

(Oh, and for the record I played DoW1/2, a bit of Supreme Commander but never got into it too much, Shogun and Rome Total War, and the C&C series through Generals. Oh, and Battle for Middle Earth. And a bit of Homeworld.)

Chess is solely about prediction to the n.th degree. StarCraft is infinitely less then that. The difference is in SC2 every unit has a specific counter unit. This is the polar opposite to chess.
Again, how is a rehash of the same game 5/5? Surely if this was the case, if you reviewed SC 6 moths ago you would have given it 5/5. Somehow I doubt that. DoW and many other RTS' were praised for their innovation, so why has SC2 been praised for none? This is a complete contradiction.

Oh oh! I love this one! let me respond here!

I just love it every time people bring up "counters" in starcraft, because lets face it: THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

Firstly, something you need to understand: Mass counters counters. A very nice example here: Collosus counters zerglings. But 50 zerglings will raaaape 2 collosus. This because collosus is practicly useless on its own. So what do you do? You throw in zealots in the mix. But then the zerg players predicts this, and throws in roaches. Now, you suddenly have an armymix and possibly a great battle on your hands.

Secondly: if you see someones zerglings and go "hey, collosus counters that because it says so in the manual!" and then tech straight to collosus, you will die! The time and money invested into teching straight to a tier 3 unit without making anything else will get you killed 100 of 100 times. So what options are you left with if you really want that collosus? Theres about a million answers to that. You could go mass sentries. If you did, you could block of your ramp with forcefields until your collosus is up, and you would be relatively safe to Mutalisks.

You see what I'm doing here? I'm discussing strategy. I'm frankly not very good at it, but I could do this for hours, because there is SO much you can do in this game.

And thats why the game isn't repetitive, and thats why Starcraft 2 is fun.

 

[Excludos]

While I'm at it: you will never get any better than bronze league in this game if you're not going to predict what you're opponent is doing in one way or another.

If this game is as easy as you claim, why aren't you a professional gamer making millions and millions of juicy cash? I haven't heard a single professional gamer state this game as "easy", and they do it for a living. (With the exception of Idra, but he says that to mock his opponents in the fights he doesn't ragequit from..)

 

[mike1921]

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Bless, learn to count the IP address. Same network, different address. Plus, I'm pretty sure you are not meant to leak things like that. I guess that is what you guys do when you get shown to be possible Blizzard sell outs.
You do not rate games on innovation? Wow, well then if that does not render the review to the stage of pointless and hollow, I do not know what does, because maybe, just maybe, some games are good because of innovation? You able to grasp that concept?

Should he have just banned you instead?

Yes, some games are good because of innovation, because innovation made the game better. They don't get points just because they're being innovative, they get points if their innovation makes something better.

 

[John Funk]

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Bless, learn to count the IP address. Same network, different address. Plus, I'm pretty sure you are not meant to leak things like that. I guess that is what you guys do when you get shown to be possible Blizzard sell outs.
You do not rate games on innovation? Wow, well then if that does not render the review to the stage of pointless and hollow, I do not know what does, because maybe, just maybe, some games are good because of innovation? You able to grasp that concept?

No, it's identical. As in, an IP check on either one of your accounts returns the other one. And "not meant to leak things like that"? I wasn't leaking anything; I was calling you out on trolling on multiple accounts, both of which are against our terms of use, though one carries with it the weight of a ban. (And really, this is just a fun fact that our IT staff informed me of.) And please, I WISH I was a sellout. Sleeping on a pile of money would be nice, don't you think?

Really, I'm being nice here. Would you rather have a simple ban without so much of an explanation? Which one of your accounts would you rather get nuked?

Oh, and now you're adding "Directly insulting staff" to the list of offenses piling up against you. You really ought to quit while you're not so far behind, you know. But I'll humor you one more time: Innovation does not make for a good game. It CAN make for a good game (see Super Mario Galaxy 1), but then you also get games like Mirror's Edge. Great new concept, awesome ideas, wonderful art style, but it was a pain to play and had serious flaws. In the end, we need to judge a game on how good it is - and while we can forgive some roughness for a cool new idea, that's the bottom line.

But the inverse is also true. Just because a game isn't innovative doesn't mean it isn't great. SMG1 did all the innovation; SMG2 was the same game, but used the freedom of not having to innovate to just do absolutely spectacular level design and rock-solid gameplay. That's a game that I would whole-heartedly recommend to anyone (aka a five-star game), as is StarCraft 2.

But really, this is pointless and this "argument" is at an end. You are willfully refusing to even acknowledge that you are considering any of the many, many points made against you, and have crossed the line to blatantly breaking our forum guidelines with alternate accounts, flame-baiting, and insulting staff.

It's up to you how you want this to end.

 

[Excludos]

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Bless, learn to count the IP address. Same network, different address. Plus, I'm pretty sure you are not meant to leak things like that. I guess that is what you guys do when you get shown to be possible Blizzard sell outs.
You do not rate games on innovation? Wow, well then if that does not render the review to the stage of pointless and hollow, I do not know what does, because maybe, just maybe, some games are good because of innovation? You able to grasp that concept?

Should he have just banned you instead?

Yes, some games are good because of innovation, because innovation made the game better. They don't get points just because they're being innovative, they get points if their innovation makes something better.

And maybe, just maybe, some games are BAD because of innovation. You able to grasp that concept?

 

[Excludos]

But really, this is pointless and this "argument" is at an end. You are willfully refusing to even acknowledge that you are considering any of the many, many points made against you, and have crossed the line to blatantly breaking our forum guidelines with alternate accounts, flame-baiting, and insulting staff.

It's up to you how you want this to end.

Oh no, please don't. Reading through this thread is the second most fun thing I've done all week. Let him continue just a bit more..like to page 20 perhaps?

 

[mike1921]

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Bless, learn to count the IP address. Same network, different address. Plus, I'm pretty sure you are not meant to leak things like that. I guess that is what you guys do when you get shown to be possible Blizzard sell outs.
You do not rate games on innovation? Wow, well then if that does not render the review to the stage of pointless and hollow, I do not know what does, because maybe, just maybe, some games are good because of innovation? You able to grasp that concept?

Should he have just banned you instead?

Yes, some games are good because of innovation, because innovation made the game better. They don't get points just because they're being innovative, they get points if their innovation makes something better.

And maybe, just maybe, some games are BAD because of innovation. You able to grasp that concept?

umm...yes? Ofcourse I do.

 

[Excludos]

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Bless, learn to count the IP address. Same network, different address. Plus, I'm pretty sure you are not meant to leak things like that. I guess that is what you guys do when you get shown to be possible Blizzard sell outs.
You do not rate games on innovation? Wow, well then if that does not render the review to the stage of pointless and hollow, I do not know what does, because maybe, just maybe, some games are good because of innovation? You able to grasp that concept?

Should he have just banned you instead?

Yes, some games are good because of innovation, because innovation made the game better. They don't get points just because they're being innovative, they get points if their innovation makes something better.

And maybe, just maybe, some games are BAD because of innovation. You able to grasp that concept?

umm...yes? Ofcourse I do.

Oh sorry, was meant to answer Infidel's post. I was just too lazy to find it myself..besides you had a good point so I thought I'd just add to it

 

[Jimbo1212]

Oh oh! I love this one! let me respond here!

I just love it every time people bring up "counters" in starcraft, because lets face it: THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

Firstly, something you need to understand: Mass counters counters. A very nice example here: Collosus counters zerglings. But 50 zerglings will raaaape 2 collosus. This because collosus is practicly useless on its own. So what do you do? You throw in zealots in the mix. But then the zerg players predicts this, and throws in roaches. Now, you suddenly have an armymix and possibly a great battle on your hands.

Secondly: if you see someones zerglings and go "hey, collosus counters that because it says so in the manual!" and then tech straight to collosus, you will die! The time and money invested into teching straight to a tier 3 unit without making anything else will get you killed 100 of 100 times. So what options are you left with if you really want that collosus? Theres about a million answers to that. You could go mass sentries. If you did, you could block of your ramp with forcefields until your collosus is up, and you would be relatively safe to Mutalisks.

You see what I'm doing here? I'm discussing strategy. I'm frankly not very good at it, but I could do this for hours, because there is SO much you can do in this game.

And thats why the game isn't repetitive, and thats why Starcraft 2 is fun.

So what is the purpose of the phoenix? Counter AA. Siege tank? Counter large numbers of light armour. In a game with air, light armour and heavy armour, counter units are very apparent.
And you say mass counter counters, but work out the price equivalent and this theory is very flawed. I also have never advocated ignoring troops and expansion for pure teching as that would be nothing but suicidal.
If you want to discuss or learn strategy, go to SC2 forums or go to youtube and look and the almost set tactics eg there is only one way to defend from an early Terran marine/Marauder if you are Protoss.

No, it's identical. As in, an IP check on either one of your accounts returns the other one. And "not meant to leak things like that"? I wasn't leaking anything; I was calling you out on trolling on multiple accounts, both of which are against our terms of use, though one carries with it the weight of a ban. (And really, this is just a fun fact that our IT staff informed me of.) And please, I WISH I was a sellout. Sleeping on a pile of money would be nice, don't you think?

Really, I'm being nice here. Would you rather have a simple ban without so much of an explanation? Which one of your accounts would you rather get nuked?

Oh, and now you're adding "Directly insulting staff" to the list of offenses piling up against you. You really ought to quit while you're not so far behind, you know. But I'll humor you one more time: Innovation does not make for a good game. It CAN make for a good game (see Super Mario Galaxy 1), but then you also get games like Mirror's Edge. Great new concept, awesome ideas, wonderful art style, but it was a pain to play and had serious flaws. In the end, we need to judge a game on how good it is - and while we can forgive some roughness for a cool new idea, that's the bottom line.

But the inverse is also true. Just because a game isn't innovative doesn't mean it isn't great. SMG1 did all the innovation; SMG2 was the same game, but used the freedom of not having to innovate to just do absolutely spectacular level design and rock-solid gameplay. That's a game that I would whole-heartedly recommend to anyone (aka a five-star game), as is StarCraft 2.

But really, this is pointless and this "argument" is at an end. You are willfully refusing to even acknowledge that you are considering any of the many, many points made against you, and have crossed the line to blatantly breaking our forum guidelines with alternate accounts, flame-baiting, and insulting staff.

It's up to you how you want this to end.

It is a network IP address, I'm surprised your IT dept. did not realise this. If you want to really be sure then check the MAC address'.

The thing with innovation is that it leads to progression eg Mirror's Edge. The only thing it had going for it was that it was different and not yet another fps, RPG, or RTS clone. With how SC2 is I wonder what else they will do in the next 2 games to come bar throw in some more, yet unneeded units. Without innovation games would not progress, and if everyone stuck to praising games for staying the same then we would be on Pong 3000.
What I do not understand is how you claim that a game which is a refined version of the original is not tedious and repetitive as you have done this all before because even though you claim it is very tactical, it would not take long to get extremely good at it, and not much sooner after that to get bored of playing the same game. You said previously that I was a fool for thinking that playing the same computer game for 10 years was grinding. How is it not? If you spent your time equally spread across other games, then you would actually have a basis to form an opinion on, where as most people on this thread have just played demo's or a few minutes of other RTS' (never giving them a chance), and just stuck to what they knew and loved from their childhood.

 

[Excludos]

Oh oh! I love this one! let me respond here!

I just love it every time people bring up "counters" in starcraft, because lets face it: THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

Firstly, something you need to understand: Mass counters counters. A very nice example here: Collosus counters zerglings. But 50 zerglings will raaaape 2 collosus. This because collosus is practicly useless on its own. So what do you do? You throw in zealots in the mix. But then the zerg players predicts this, and throws in roaches. Now, you suddenly have an armymix and possibly a great battle on your hands.

Secondly: if you see someones zerglings and go "hey, collosus counters that because it says so in the manual!" and then tech straight to collosus, you will die! The time and money invested into teching straight to a tier 3 unit without making anything else will get you killed 100 of 100 times. So what options are you left with if you really want that collosus? Theres about a million answers to that. You could go mass sentries. If you did, you could block of your ramp with forcefields until your collosus is up, and you would be relatively safe to Mutalisks.

You see what I'm doing here? I'm discussing strategy. I'm frankly not very good at it, but I could do this for hours, because there is SO much you can do in this game.

And thats why the game isn't repetitive, and thats why Starcraft 2 is fun.

So what is the purpose of the phoenix? Counter AA. Siege tank? Counter large numbers of light armour. In a game with air, light armour and heavy armour, counter units are very apparent.
And you say mass counter counters, but work out the price equivalent and this theory is very flawed. I also have never advocated ignoring troops and expansion for pure teching as that would be nothing but suicidal.
If you want to discuss or learn strategy, go to SC2 forums or go to youtube and look and the almost set tactics eg there is only one way to defend from an early Terran marine/Marauder if you are Protoss.

I'm a top level Diamond player..I think I might know my strategies by now. Those examples I pulled up was just that, examples.

Phoenixes are AA, but are also widely used for harass and helping your army out by lifting key enemy units. Siege tanks are good against bunches of light units, but are immobile and thus can only be used for defending or spesific pushes where you know you'll have time to put them up before the enemy engages.

No, Price equivalent and my examples are still not flawed. A gateway costs 150 minerals, a cybernethics core costs another 150 minerals, a robotics facility costs 200 minerals and 100 gas, Robotics bay costs 200 minerals and 200 gas, and a colossus costs 300 minerals + 200 gas + the time needed for all those things. Zerglings costs 25 minerals each (or rather 2 for 50), minus the spawning pool for 200 minerals, and you have 32 zerglings for the cost of one single colossus + 500 extra gas. 32 zerglings will kill a collosus with ease.

This is why there is no such thing as "counters" in this game, no matter what your strategy guide might tell you. You can't just go "Hmm, I see unit A, thus I need to make unit B because unit B counters unit A", that will, again, get you killed 100 of 100 times.

If you want to learn more of this by someone whos a million times better at explaining it than I am, check out episode 153 of day9 daily: http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/3873603/

This guy is in a class of his own when it comes to analyzing Starcraft 2, and I can honestly say I would still be a silver player at best if I hadn't been following his episodes.

(Oh, and while I'm at it: theres a million ways to defend against a terran early. My personal favorite is 3-warpgate into voidrays. Because a single voidray next to the enemy's base forces him to leave his troops at home. If he pushes out, I straight up kill him with that one void ray. It also forces him to waste money on turrets and possibly create more marines, which my speedzealots love to pick apart. Who said this game has no strategy? )

 

[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.

Also, by the way:

Pick an account to troll with, Mazty/TB_infidel. It's good to see that you've stopped posted on Mazty for the time being, but pretending to be different people doesn't help your point, it just makes you more obnoxious.

But I suppose it's just a coincidence that you two have the same IP and the same arguments

Meanwhile, we don't rate games on how innovative they are. We rate them on how good they are. SC2 is very, very good.

Oh come on. You surely can check the IP address (it's a networked IP and I'm sure you can see that/other sites are able to) and considering no one is flamming etc, I hardly think having a disagreement on a game constitutes trolling...
Plus just checking, why would I have two Steam accounts and two PSN accounts, each with a sizeable amount of trophies....Seems a bit/ridiculously elaborate.
So if innovation isn't worth anything, then why has gaming changed? The review of Perfect Dark XBL didn't give it 5/5 even though it was a updated rehash of a game that was near on perfect for it's time because it didn't do anything new and is known to be just a tool for nostalgia. Hell, even SC2 fans admit the game is just fan service through and through.
As other people have said, if it wasn't for the Blizzard logo, any RTS that was SC2 in every way other than races, it'd have been slated for being archaic.

Yes, actually, I'd say that your arguments on TB_infidel are borderline flaming. In what world is "You able to grasp that concept?" not insulting someone else's intelligence?

You're either the same person or living in the same place - considering that only your two accounts come up under this IP it's not like you can argue it's an ISP thing - and considering your arguments and spelling (particularly in this last post) are very similar, I know which bet my money's on.

Perfect Dark didn't get a 5/5 because it wasn't very good. Maybe they were lazy with the port. Maybe there wasn't enough content there. Goldeneye was considered brilliant back in the day; it's practically unplayable now. But the StarCraft mechanics (updated to the modern age with improved pathing/multiple selection, of course) are still as solid as ever.

Greg Tito reviewed this game. His first time playing SC1 was a few weeks ago in preparing for this review so he'd understand the story. There was absolutely no fanservice/nostalgia in that review; he gave it that score because he genuinely loved the game. Because it's a genuinely great game in a classic style. Again, Chess is one of the most "archaic" games of all time by your standards, and yet it still manages to be beloved, widely played, and incredibly complex.

Do not confuse simplicity in mechanics with lack of depth or being "archaic." If all you're looking out of a game is a feature list, then I question why you're gaming. Or why you weren't complaining when we gave five stars to God of War III, which was basically God of War I and II with some modern improvements and better graphics.