Review: StarCraft II

[Jimbo1212]

And everyone that likes Starcraft 2 is dumb according to you.

I've played through the entire campaign for both DoW's, some of SupCom though I got bored with it, all of Starcraft 1 including Brood War, every Command and Conquer since Red Alert and WC3 and Frozen Throne. I play on the hardest difficulty because anything less is for pansies.

I like Starcraft 2. That's that. But I will continue to watch this thread to just chime in every once in a while and go "Loltroll."

This is my point. You played only the offline campaigns of those games, not the multiplayer, and I think everyone will agree that the multiplayer of most games is a whole different game.
How can you claim that SC2 is "the best" when you barely even played any other RTS? I have a feeling that most people in this thread are in the same boat as you.

Oh I was just mentioning campaigns. I thought it would be a given that if I played an RTS I played the multiplayer. Guess that concept kinda went over your head. :/

So what is your record for kasyr lutien 3 V 3 QS ?

 

[Arisato-kun]

And everyone that likes Starcraft 2 is dumb according to you.

I've played through the entire campaign for both DoW's, some of SupCom though I got bored with it, all of Starcraft 1 including Brood War, every Command and Conquer since Red Alert and WC3 and Frozen Throne. I play on the hardest difficulty because anything less is for pansies.

I like Starcraft 2. That's that. But I will continue to watch this thread to just chime in every once in a while and go "Loltroll."

This is my point. You played only the offline campaigns of those games, not the multiplayer, and I think everyone will agree that the multiplayer of most games is a whole different game.
How can you claim that SC2 is "the best" when you barely even played any other RTS? I have a feeling that most people in this thread are in the same boat as you.

Oh I was just mentioning campaigns. I thought it would be a given that if I played an RTS I played the multiplayer. Guess that concept kinda went over your head. :/

So what is your record for kasyr lutien 3 V 3 QS ?

Y'know I COULD give you my DoW records but since Matzy chose to not show video of his supposed amazing strats against the AI I'm gonna opt not to. I have a feeling that regardless of my record you'd somehow say you were better than me anyways.

Anyways like Funk said talking to you two is like talking to a wall, except the wall is more interesting.

I'm off to play my weeaboo Japanese games since clearly that's all I am if I like SC2. Later.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Y'know I COULD give you my DoW records but since Matzy chose to not show video of his supposed amazing strats against the AI I'm gonna opt not to. I have a feeling that regardless of my record you'd somehow say you were better than me anyways.

Anyways like Funk said talking to you two is like talking to a wall, except the wall is more interesting.

I'm off to play my weeaboo Japanese games since clearly that's all I am if I like SC2. Later.

AKA you played it once or not at all online. Try being good and playing more then one game before commenting on how awesome and life changing the sequel is.

@TB_infidel

Are you saying I should not get SC2 because it was like SC1?

This is really dumbing it down but when it comes to videogames and many other things in the end of the day it comes down to should I buy it or should I not.

If you are an RTS fan and have enjoyed the progression of RTS' in the last 10 years, then SC2 is nothing but more of the same. A case of been there, done that, want something new.
However if SC is the only RTS you have played then you will probably like SC2 and try to claim it is "the best game eV0r made 'cause lol".

 

[Relin]

Well, I bought it for 30Euros. Totally worth it.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

So it's against forum rules to have the same opinion as a flatmate? Thought not. And again, why would I use an account to simply repost my opinion? Considering the length of time I've been on this site and the very few warnings I've ever had, it just wouldn't make sense.
Well how is SC2 better than the others? Are the core mechanics exactly the same to a 12 year old game, and the only difference the introduction of a few new units and maps? Are you going to say directly how SC2 is better than the competition, or just claim it is as you have for the entire thread?

Was Perfect Dark not an excellently made game? Is Perfect Dark XBL not an old, simple game that works?
What you are saying is that FPS' date but RTS' don't....How does that work considering that both genres have had a phenomenal amount of innovation in the last decade?
Plus I hardly think anyone would say that claiming a game is "just that good" is a good point without actually going on to say why it's directly better than the other RTS'
But frankly with your comment about "Blizzards artstyle" many posts back, I have a feeling that you'd be praising this game regardless of actual quality and more because of the Blizzard logo and sheer anticipation.

You have got to be one of the most ridiculous trolls I've ever seen.

So. Half-life 2. The core mechanics were exactly the same as a 6-year-old game (aside from adding a few new weapons, maps, and units [*shock and awe* I didn't know they added things to sequels?!?]), and it is heralded as an incredibly great game. This tends to be a recurring trend; some sequels happen to be particularly good. The great thing about sequels is that the company that made the original can take the original idea and build upon it with the income they gained from their previous title. So naturally, the graphics, story, casting, gameplay, etc are all improved upon, while still falling under the basic gameplay mechanics of the game that came before it.

Blizzard is rich. They are the Dethklok of video games. I'm sure they could up and buy Norway if they wanted. Instead, they continue to make video games. In the case of Starcraft II, they added many units, performed a -huge- amount of balancing testing, expanded the storyline with great writing, got great performances from the voice actors, polished character models like nobody's business, and at the end of it all, managed to make it one of the most graphically demanding games on the market.

Chess is never going to date because of the complexities of it. Do you really think it'd take a supercomputer 3 days to beat a human player in SC2? Of course not. Chess has hundreds of millions of options, not a handful.

Like, are you serious? Like, actually serious? Not even entering the realm of the logical mathematical difference in probabilities of attack between a 2-army, 6 pieces in 16 positions game with constricted positional movement, and an up-to-6-army of three races with roughly 20 unit types in 200 cache with stationary defenses, You're completely ignoring the fact that people do not fall into a predictable pattern every game. Sure, the first 4 minutes are pretty canon usually, but for the normal person, Starcraft II is a varied multiplayer experience because of the vast amount of strategies that any person can bring to the table.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop bringing up Perfect Dark. Nobody is buying your argument.

 

[ecoho]

The game was great! but the ending felt so underwhelming for me

well it is the first game in a triligy. Think lord of the rings first movie was kinda boring cause it etablished to chariters then the second and third were progressively better. Lets face it though you can play the challenges and multi for a long time after youve completed the campain

 

[DSK-]

The game was great! but the ending felt so underwhelming for me

well it is the first game in a triligy. Think lord of the rings first movie was kinda boring cause it etablished to chariters then the second and third were progressively better. Lets face it though you can play the challenges and multi for a long time after youve completed the campain

That may be so, but there is no closure. I mean, what the hell happens after that? What are the consequences of what happens in the ending cinematic?

In previous Blizzard games like Warcraft 3 + FT and the original Starcraft there was a degree of closure given. If I recall, the original Starcraft handled this in end game text screens.

Like I said: The campaign itself is most enjoyable and look forward to re-playing the missions that have major decisions to see how it affects the story. I just want to know a little bit of what the hell happened afterwards.

 

[ecoho]

The game was great! but the ending felt so underwhelming for me

well it is the first game in a triligy. Think lord of the rings first movie was kinda boring cause it etablished to chariters then the second and third were progressively better. Lets face it though you can play the challenges and multi for a long time after youve completed the campain

That may be so, but there is no closure. I mean, what the hell happens after that? What are the consequences of what happens in the ending cinematic?

In previous Blizzard games like Warcraft 3 + FT and the original Starcraft there was a degree of closure given. If I recall, the original Starcraft handled this in end game text screens.

Like I said: The campaign itself is most enjoyable and look forward to re-playing the missions that have major decisions to see how it affects the story. I just want to know a little bit of what the hell happened afterwards.

lol wouldnt we all. The text after youve finished the campaign explains a little but in truth your in the same boat as all of us your gonna have to buy the other 2 to get closure

Oh and the reason the oths had closure and this didnt is because all of those had all 3 campiagns in the same game (not that im complaining that this didnt i realy liked the story

 

[DSK-]

The game was great! but the ending felt so underwhelming for me

well it is the first game in a triligy. Think lord of the rings first movie was kinda boring cause it etablished to chariters then the second and third were progressively better. Lets face it though you can play the challenges and multi for a long time after youve completed the campain

That may be so, but there is no closure. I mean, what the hell happens after that? What are the consequences of what happens in the ending cinematic?

In previous Blizzard games like Warcraft 3 + FT and the original Starcraft there was a degree of closure given. If I recall, the original Starcraft handled this in end game text screens.

Like I said: The campaign itself is most enjoyable and look forward to re-playing the missions that have major decisions to see how it affects the story. I just want to know a little bit of what the hell happened afterwards.

lol wouldnt we all. The text after youve finished the campaign explains a little but in truth your in the same boat as all of us your gonna have to buy the other 2 to get closure

Oh and the reason the oths had closure and this didnt is because all of those had all 3 campiagns in the same game (not that im complaining that this didnt i realy liked the story

That's true. Still, I'm gonna go find a nice corner to sulk in

 

[DSK-]

You have got to be one of the most ridiculous trolls I've ever seen.

So. Half-life 2. The core mechanics were exactly the same as a 6-year-old game (aside from adding a few new weapons, maps, and units [*shock and awe* I didn't know they added things to sequels?!?]), and it is heralded as an incredibly great game. This tends to be a recurring trend; some sequels happen to be particularly good. The great thing about sequels is that the company that made the original can take the original idea and build upon it with the income they gained from their previous title. So naturally, the graphics, story, casting, gameplay, etc are all improved upon, while still falling under the basic gameplay mechanics of the game that came before it.

Blizzard is rich. They are the Dethklok of video games. I'm sure they could up and buy Norway if they wanted. Instead, they continue to make video games. In the case of Starcraft II, they added many units, performed a -huge- amount of balancing testing, expanded the storyline with great writing, got great performances from the voice actors, polished character models like nobody's business, and at the end of it all, managed to make it one of the most graphically demanding games on the market.

Chess is never going to date because of the complexities of it. Do you really think it'd take a supercomputer 3 days to beat a human player in SC2? Of course not. Chess has hundreds of millions of options, not a handful.

Like, are you serious? Like, actually serious? Not even entering the realm of the logical mathematical difference in probabilities of attack between a 2-army, 6 pieces in 16 positions game with constricted positional movement, and an up-to-6-army of three races with roughly 20 unit types in 200 cache with stationary defenses, You're completely ignoring the fact that people do not fall into a predictable pattern every game. Sure, the first 4 minutes are pretty canon usually, but for the normal person, Starcraft II is a varied multiplayer experience because of the vast amount of strategies that any person can bring to the table.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop bringing up Perfect Dark. Nobody is buying your argument.

I hate Half Life 2 with a passion because I thought it was a dull uninspired corridor crawl. Go go fanboys. Halo came out 3 years earlier, as well as CoD, and have had far more of an impact on the FPS genre, yet were not given nearly as much a following as Half Life. Seems that fans will like sequels regardless of quality.
A good sequel builds on the first - it doesn't stagnate in it. Sadly fans will never admit the latter because the game has to be good as they have spend money on it.
Dethlok...?
SC2's storyline was butchered by adding some inane romance into it, while being filled with clichés.
If you really think SC2 is one of the most graphically demanding games on the market, wake up or stop trolling, because that is flat out crap.
So you are saying that you have to comprehend a battle cruiser rush at the beginning of a game? I think that comparison shows how much thought you put into that idea...Or how about that some units shouldn't fight others e.g. Zealot vs marauder...
And why is Perfect Dark a bad example? Or just going to brush it under the carpet for some arbitrary reason?

Regarding the romance thing - I find it ironic that the same VA for the romance I think you are talking about is also Mass Effect's Liara. The romance seemed to come from nothing at all in both games and needless to say I got shot of her rather quickly. If you get my meaning

 

[ecoho]

You have got to be one of the most ridiculous trolls I've ever seen.

So. Half-life 2. The core mechanics were exactly the same as a 6-year-old game (aside from adding a few new weapons, maps, and units [*shock and awe* I didn't know they added things to sequels?!?]), and it is heralded as an incredibly great game. This tends to be a recurring trend; some sequels happen to be particularly good. The great thing about sequels is that the company that made the original can take the original idea and build upon it with the income they gained from their previous title. So naturally, the graphics, story, casting, gameplay, etc are all improved upon, while still falling under the basic gameplay mechanics of the game that came before it.

Blizzard is rich. They are the Dethklok of video games. I'm sure they could up and buy Norway if they wanted. Instead, they continue to make video games. In the case of Starcraft II, they added many units, performed a -huge- amount of balancing testing, expanded the storyline with great writing, got great performances from the voice actors, polished character models like nobody's business, and at the end of it all, managed to make it one of the most graphically demanding games on the market.

Chess is never going to date because of the complexities of it. Do you really think it'd take a supercomputer 3 days to beat a human player in SC2? Of course not. Chess has hundreds of millions of options, not a handful.

Like, are you serious? Like, actually serious? Not even entering the realm of the logical mathematical difference in probabilities of attack between a 2-army, 6 pieces in 16 positions game with constricted positional movement, and an up-to-6-army of three races with roughly 20 unit types in 200 cache with stationary defenses, You're completely ignoring the fact that people do not fall into a predictable pattern every game. Sure, the first 4 minutes are pretty canon usually, but for the normal person, Starcraft II is a varied multiplayer experience because of the vast amount of strategies that any person can bring to the table.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop bringing up Perfect Dark. Nobody is buying your argument.

I hate Half Life 2 with a passion because I thought it was a dull uninspired corridor crawl. Go go fanboys. Halo came out 3 years earlier, as well as CoD, and have had far more of an impact on the FPS genre, yet were not given nearly as much a following as Half Life. Seems that fans will like sequels regardless of quality.
A good sequel builds on the first - it doesn't stagnate in it. Sadly fans will never admit the latter because the game has to be good as they have spend money on it.
Dethlok...?
SC2's storyline was butchered by adding some inane romance into it, while being filled with clichés.
If you really think SC2 is one of the most graphically demanding games on the market, wake up or stop trolling, because that is flat out crap.
So you are saying that you have to comprehend a battle cruiser rush at the beginning of a game? I think that comparison shows how much thought you put into that idea...Or how about that some units shouldn't fight others e.g. Zealot vs marauder...
And why is Perfect Dark a bad example? Or just going to brush it under the carpet for some arbitrary reason?

ug ok man im not gonna cover most of this just the romance with kerrigan. Id like you to replay the origenal and lison to the conversations they have, then you need to go read the book "Liberty's Crusade" and youll have a good idea how close they were with each other.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

I hate Half Life 2 with a passion because I thought it was a dull uninspired corridor crawl. Go go fanboys. Halo came out 3 years earlier, as well as CoD, and have had far more of an impact on the FPS genre, yet were not given nearly as much a following as Half Life. Seems that fans will like sequels regardless of quality.
A good sequel builds on the first - it doesn't stagnate in it. Sadly fans will never admit the latter because the game has to be good as they have spend money on it.
Dethlok...?
SC2's storyline was butchered by adding some inane romance into it, while being filled with clichés.
If you really think SC2 is one of the most graphically demanding games on the market, wake up or stop trolling, because that is flat out crap.
So you are saying that you have to comprehend a battle cruiser rush at the beginning of a game? I think that comparison shows how much thought you put into that idea...Or how about that some units shouldn't fight others e.g. Zealot vs marauder...
And why is Perfect Dark a bad example? Or just going to brush it under the carpet for some arbitrary reason?

So if you are arguing that Call of Duty or Halo build on their previous iterations...meh. They progressed less than Half-life did. Call of Duty and Halo both look fairly comparable to their predecessors, whereas Half-life 2 was a big graphical jump. Sure the stories were hashed out a little further, but again, that's where the income from making largely successful IP's go.

Your 'inane' romance between Raynor and Kerrigan was well-documented in SC and SC:BW. Just because you are ignoring the storyline, wearing earplugs, and yelling inanely to drown out the voices doesn't mean it wasn't there. Secondly, I've yet to find many romantic comedies that play on the "my girlfriend was turned into an alien hive queen" cliché.

Can you play SC2 on full-ultra settings? You need a video card with a dedicated Gb of memory and GPU over 750 GHz. Yes, it's not graphically demanding if you're playing the game on medium, but at full-ultra settings, it is incredibly demanding from a graphical standpoint.

By basic definition, some units shouldn't fight others, but that doesn't preclude you from finding tactics that allow you to make them work. Marauders can be highly effective against zealots if you can set them in a rear-facing line, have a medivac for backup, or gain high-ground advantage. Zealots can be highly effective against marauders if you can surround the marauders so they spread out their attack. Tactics sir. Tactics.

Perfect Dark isn't necessarily a bad example, but your persistence with it is annoying.

Oh, and this is Dethklok:


Do some research as to why the reference was relevant.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

snip

Your main mistake is not having played DoW and the Relic RTS'. They are nothing like the others you mentioned. Battle for Middle Earth was okay but not a patch on DoW.
My main criticism of the game is that the player has no options for real battlefield tactics because the fire fights are other in seconds & is entirely about unit composition.
Grab yourself a copy of the original DoW or Supreme Commander if you really want to push your skills as a general to the limit. SC2 is a game that is won just by knowing which unit counters which, nothing that excel couldn't teach you.

Both you and Infidel (whether you are one or two people) keep saying no-one has played any modern RTS and this was critical in the debate/trolling because modern RTS's had innovated beyond SCBW. I gave you examples of RTS's I have played that made innovations, but did not make the games (in my opinion) better. But it wasn't DoW or Supreme Commander (incidentally The Little One- a top SC2 player came from Supreme Commander). I also note you had nothing to say on my actual point of what made both SCBW and SC2 so great- the unit control/ speed of combat- except that you want slower combat.

I could go one better- CnC IV- that's as modern a game as you can get- released this year. My brother played it in Beta and I saw all sorts of wonderful innovations like no base building and you have to unlock units in multiplayer- maybe cool in concept, but horrendously unbalanced as the matching system places people that can only make soldiers and bunkers against people that have all their units unlocked. And talk about spamfest- CnC4, the build times are so fast it makes more sense to kill off your army and rebuild it, rather than move your army across the map. Innovation does not always mean good. CnC was a fairly solid franchise (I played the original way back when), but by innovating at the end, they missed bad and tanked their series. That's precisely what Blizzard could not afford to do if they wanted to push e-sports. They could not afford to alienate their own fans. They could afford to make one hell of a game that was amazingly balanced and ridiculously fun to play.

But I can see the counter argument. It's not DoW or Supreme Commander. But according to your original argument it fits as a counter-example. It's hot-off-the-press new, innovates the series, and it tanked.

But it's not DoW or Supreme Commander.

From your and Infidel's arguments, it seems you don't actually want SC2 innovate so much as make the sequel to DoW or Supreme Commander. In the end, they are the only modern RTS's that that you allow be used as examples.

How about you wait for your DoW/ Supreme Commander sequels- guarantee if they're trying to recapture their same crowd, they're going to try to recapture their original magic and be not nearly so innovative.

And while you're waiting for your sequels, we'll play our sequel. We've waited 12 years for ours. Hell, it was about time!

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

If I said Haze was a good example of how FPS' have improved, you'd be right to tell me to f**k off because it was never seen as a very good FPS by gamers. The same is true about the RTS' you have mentioned - they are not similar to SC2, nor revered as being particularly good.
What's your point about The Little One? I;d have said that shows Supreme Commander in a good light, no? Having just played it earlier today, it is significantly harder in every aspect then SC2 - scale, unit composition, micro and macro.
CnC IV was not seen to be a very good game so it's instantly a bad example. Plus what is your point...You should start with a point and build from that instead of avoiding being direct.
It doesn't fit the mould because it's not balanced from what you have said. Instantly that means it isn't similar to DoW or SupCom.
Eh? DOn't want SC2 to be innovative...? Er try the opposite. It's completely 'meh' because it's nothing new, done it all before *yawn*.
LOL clearly you have no idea about DoW 2 if you think Relic wouldn't want to be innovative. Again, another person who has no idea about the last decade of RTS'. Congratulations, all you've shown is your lack of knowledge. But seriously, pick up DoW - you may really enjoy it as it is just better than SC2 as it forces a balance in the gameplay that results in strategy that isn't purely based on unit composition.

And your closing statement proves my point. You've been waiting 12 years, and frankly they could have sold you a turd in a box but you'd warp that into "Bezt gaem evar" because you'd be damned to even think about the possibility that after 12 years, they've nothing to show but SC1 reboxed and you've wasted your money, hope & time.

Alright, you seem to be missing my point, so I'll try and be really and be clear.
You argued that SCII should innovate and used DoW as an example.
I'm arguing that innovation does not necessarily entail a good game and used 4 examples. You're right, I don't think they're very good games. That's entirely my point. They innovate and they suck (well that might be a little harsh, they have their fun elements). Innovation ≠ Good Game. That's precisely why I brought up those games. DoW innovated and made a great game (and a good sequel apparently) good for it. But a lot of games innovated in this last decade and sucked. And some games are not as innovative and are quality games nonetheless. That is SCII.

That's fine that you think my knowledge of RTS's in the last decade is dodgy, but the 4 games I mentioned are part of the last decade's attempt to innovate. It's looking more like confirmation bias as you continue to ignore information contrary to your own position.

My point with TLO is either you or Infidel (I sometimes get mixed up) is arguing that all the 'real' RTS players are avoiding SCII, I'm providing an anecdotal example to the contrary. Not statistics, but it's as valid as your own argument which is simply an assertion that RTS'ers are avoiding SC2. I could give another anecdote of RTSers who like SCII- Grubby a top WCIII player thinks SC2 is a really fun game, but won't switch over full time for now as he can make money as WCIII and it's often difficult for top players to find equal success in the next RTS. However in the mean time, he'll be having fun with his friends on SCII (source interview played during Day9's SCII countdown.)

re: 12 years- more of a collective 'we' as stated before, I've only started playing SCBW in the last 3 years. But no, I wouldn't have bought a piece of crap from Blizzard and thought it was the best game EVAR. I'm a pretty hardcore Lord of the Rings and Star Wars fan and neither games did it for me. Age of Empires II was THE game I played for years and years and Age of Empires III didn't do it for me. I have very nostalgic memories of CnC the original and I thought CnC4 sucked. However, I played SCII beta and absolutely loved it and thus bought the game. Apparently you didn't.

You seem to think that a game's sole purpose is to push a genre into new territory. But while I do think games should do this as often as is reasonable, I think the games primary purpose should be that it should be good/fun. I find SCII to be a good, fun game, you do not- I also find it significantly different from the original else I would just play SCBW- my computer handles the original better.

 

[ecoho]

I hate Half Life 2 with a passion because I thought it was a dull uninspired corridor crawl. Go go fanboys. Halo came out 3 years earlier, as well as CoD, and have had far more of an impact on the FPS genre, yet were not given nearly as much a following as Half Life. Seems that fans will like sequels regardless of quality.
A good sequel builds on the first - it doesn't stagnate in it. Sadly fans will never admit the latter because the game has to be good as they have spend money on it.
Dethlok...?
SC2's storyline was butchered by adding some inane romance into it, while being filled with clichés.
If you really think SC2 is one of the most graphically demanding games on the market, wake up or stop trolling, because that is flat out crap.
So you are saying that you have to comprehend a battle cruiser rush at the beginning of a game? I think that comparison shows how much thought you put into that idea...Or how about that some units shouldn't fight others e.g. Zealot vs marauder...
And why is Perfect Dark a bad example? Or just going to brush it under the carpet for some arbitrary reason?

ug ok man im not gonna cover most of this just the romance with kerrigan. Id like you to replay the origenal and lison to the conversations they have, then you need to go read the book "Liberty's Crusade" and youll have a good idea how close they were with each other.

Are you really saying that to fill in the blanks in the storyline of the romance, you have to buy a book? Why don't you just write a blank cheque to Blizzard while you're at it....

notice i said read not buy..... you can read the entire book in a few sittings go to a "gasp" library and check it out if they dont have it, request it theyll get it. BTW its spelled check

 

[ecoho]

Both you and Infidel (whether you are one or two people) keep saying no-one has played any modern RTS and this was critical in the debate/trolling because modern RTS's had innovated beyond SCBW. I gave you examples of RTS's I have played that made innovations, but did not make the games (in my opinion better.) But it wasn't DoW or Supreme Commander (incidentally The Little One- a top SC2 player came from Supreme Commander).

I could go one better- CnC IV- that's as modern a game as you can get- released this year. My brother played it in Beta and I saw all sorts of wonderful innovations like no base building and you have to unlock units in multiplayer- maybe cool in concept, but horrendously balanced as the matching system places people that can only make soldiers and bunkers against people that have all their units unlocked. And talk about spamfest- CnC4, the build times are so fast it makes more sense to kill off your army and rebuild it, rather than move your army across the map. Innovation does not always mean good. CnC was a fairly solid franchise (I played the original way back when), but by innovating at the end, they missed bad and tanked their series.

But I can see the counter argument. It's not DoW or Supreme Commander. But according to your original argument it fits as a counter-example. It's hot-off-the-press new, innovates the series, and it tanked.

But it's not DoW or Supreme Commander.

From your and Infidel's arguments, it seems you don't actually want SC2 innovate so much as make the sequel to DoW or Supreme Commander. In the end, they are the only modern RTS's that that you allow be used as examples.

How about you wait for your DoW/ Supreme Commander sequels- guarantee if they're trying to recapture their same crowd, they're going to try to recapture their original magic and be not nearly so innovative.

And while you're waiting for your sequels, we'll play our sequel. We've waited 12 years for ours. Hell, it was about time!

If I said Haze was a good example of how FPS' have improved, you'd be right to tell me to f**k off because it was never seen as a very good FPS by gamers. The same is true about the RTS' you have mentioned - they are not similar to SC2, nor revered as being particularly good.
What's your point about The Little One? I;d have said that shows Supreme Commander in a good light, no? Having just played it earlier today, it is significantly harder in every aspect then SC2 - scale, unit composition, micro and macro.
CnC IV was not seen to be a very good game so it's instantly a bad example. Plus what is your point...You should start with a point and build from that instead of avoiding being direct.
It doesn't fit the mould because it's not balanced from what you have said. Instantly that means it isn't similar to DoW or SupCom.
Eh? DOn't want SC2 to be innovative...? Er try the opposite. It's completely 'meh' because it's nothing new, done it all before *yawn*.
LOL clearly you have no idea about DoW 2 if you think Relic wouldn't want to be innovative. Again, another person who has no idea about the last decade of RTS'. Congratulations, all you've shown is your lack of knowledge. But seriously, pick up DoW - you may really enjoy it as it is just better than SC2 as it forces a balance in the gameplay that results in strategy that isn't purely based on unit composition.

And your closing statement proves my point. You've been waiting 12 years, and frankly they could have sold you a turd in a box but you'd warp that into "Bezt gaem evar" because you'd be damned to even think about the possibility that after 12 years, they've nothing to show but SC1 reboxed and you've wasted your money, hope & time.

im sorry but you are officaly the bigest biget ive ever met go back play the game at max volume so you can hear it kerrigan and reynor start calling each other sarah and jimmy they realy got close right before she was taken, and if he wasnt in love with her why the hell did her betral at the end of brood wars realy shock him? dont bother reasponding to this or any of my other posts ever again i just dont care what you think any more.