Should I buy Starcraft 2?

[NinjaTigerXIII]

Starcraft 2 is the best, most balanced, and all around most entertaining RTS ever created. From its surprising, gripping, and innovative Single Player Campaign to the highly competitive multiplayer Starcraft 2 shines in every aspect. Not only is it the best RTS ever made it is one of the best games ever made.

 

[GraveeKing]

I'd say god for it - even if it's just for the custom games, they're damn fun. Playing it with friends is also good and if you're hardcore and are very good at RTSs then you should.
With that said I'd probably say, look for a.... 'alternate way' of getting the campaign - and if you like that then I'd say wait until the next part comes out (which is the Zerg campaign) then you'll get the newer campaign and the multilayer together (i think)

 

[The Funslinger]

So basically, I'm okay at RTS games. I bought Battle for Middle Earth 2, but after I completed the campaigns, it became apparent that the multiplayer was dead, down to a few people only looking to play with specific people.

Starcraft is essentially a nerd sport at this point, I always hear praise of it being such a fantastic RTS, and then there are the tournaments. All in all, it looks fairly attractive, but I've had my experiences with disappointing RTS games. So I'd like a few more opinions.

Yes you should, cause wen you look at it, you're buying thousands of games at once (see: custom maps)

and don't call it a "nerd sport" that's what the brain dead idiots at my school call it... you know, those idiots that beat nerds up and make them do their homework so that they can stay on the football team, while they sit at home and play WoW while insulting StarCraft not knowing they're by the same company...

but yeah- if you like GAMES, then YES you should get it
if you want alternatives but don't care about multiplayer... get Earth 2160 off steam for $5

if you want well played custom maps that you don't mind filtering through
get WarCraft 3

but if you want one of the best RTS games made

GET
STARCRAFT 2

Meh, I wear the tag "nerd" with a source of pride. Football, basketball and cricket etc all started out as mere games. I'm glad we're getting our own "sports" big, powerful RTSs are the inevitable first step, because there's so much you can do with an army.

Nerd sports (although so far, we only have the one, with FPSs also starting to bud through) are way better than regular sports, because we get sheer, unadulterated violence!

OT: I'm downloading the trial, if it's good I might have a look around Cex (pronounced see-ex!) for it when I soon go into the city with my friend again. You get some unbelievable deals there.

 

[Slenn]

Wait for a price drop is what I say. I had fun with the game, and the campaign (while not on par with the previous campaigns of the original Starcraft) was pretty decent and it had a good conclusion with suspense. Although the game still feels like it is easier to play than the original, which is kind of a drag. The original price tag for this game is still $60, and I'd say that this game more likely worth $20.

 

[karloss01]

dispite being able to run the game on medium settings my memory pool craps out after an hour with only the game open (even with everything set to basic). i would recommend it but i would warn that this needs some serious hardware to run properly.

 

[Dyme]

yes, if you are insane and have nothing better to do
and mutiplayer sucks, especially in this game where people believe their rank defines their worth as a person. not a fun thing to get into.
also as far as RTS goes, it is no where near as good as the original, and i'd still put any Command and Conquer game ,generals and before, over this.
honestly, i'm not a fan boy, but a fan boys opinion is hardly objective.

Multiplayer is great. And no one gives a shit about rank or league. They are as important as "achievements".
And coincidentally, I installed Generals + expansion 2 days ago and played it again. It is really good, but the controls feel incredibly wonky and less polished compared to Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2 is better in every other way as well (except for story and "setting", space sucks compared to Terrorists/USA/China).


I never really played Starcraft 1, but it really seems "better" than SC2. But: It is infuckingcredible difficult to play multiplayer. It is more interesting to watch though.

 

[killcheese]

If you like rts games at all its pretty safe to say you would like starcraft. I am not what i would consider a rts fan, the only rts i ever played and not for competitive reasons just for fun, was age of empires. Dont worry to much about the hardcore pros, you will probably never play them, unless you are in their league.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

starcraft 2 is an amazing game that is for both the casual player and the competitive players. the map editor is so amazing for the game that you can play a shooter with sc2, a rpg, and dota with it. if you buy this game it is the equivalent to buying dozens of others

 

[RedDeadFred]

It's probably the most balanced RTS besides the original but in my honest opinion, there is only so many times you can build a base and try to kill your opponent before it starts to get boring.
And everyone who raved about the amazing story....I guess it was alright but nothing really special.
For a large chunk of the game the reason you were going to missions was to get money...
There are some pretty good custom games though.
If you like RTS games you should probably get it. Just prepare to be a bit disappointed in the amount of races. It's half that of BFME2.

You could say that about any game though, every multiplayer game has you going through the same motions in a different way over and over again, whether it be WoW, Call of Duty or Starcraft 2.

And the small amount of races is a good thing, it makes the game easier to balance. BFME 2 has some serious balance issues, with the Elves being massively over powered, EA just are not very good at making RTS balance it seems, C&C3 had the Scrin which where godly, and the elves were really powerful in the original BFME as well. In fact the elven custom heroes ran faster than everyone else, could attack at range and had the least amount of xp needed to level up, along with some of the most powerful skills. EA even admitted the Scrin and Elves were overpowerd but had no intention of fixing it.

You are absolutely right. I know why only three races is a good thing but if he is not really into competitive RTS he might prefer more races.
lol I forgot how insanely OP the Scrin's air units were.
And the OP of the Elves. Silverthorn arrows plus Mirkwood archers equals win against anything. Hell the only thing that would be able to even get close to them would be the Rohirim.

 

[UnusualStranger]

Personally, I am quite torn on Starcraft 2. I enjoyed the campaign despite how horribly cheesy and foolish it got at times. It is not "TEH GREATEST THING EVA!" But it gets the job done. Upgrading units and stuff with cooler stuff beforehand, and choosing missions? Good times.

However, I really don't like the multiplayer, largely because its popularity has made it a "Win or lose" game. So much is done in multiplayer, and while many say it is a "Micro and macro" game, I find it horribly pointed on micro. Having to constantly check structures to make units, having to keep track of the army all the time, check harvesters, buildings, add ons, upgrades....all by yourself, even though there is a 5 unit que, you will never use it, because you NEED those resources elsewhere.

However, that doesn't mean it can't be fun. Having huge armies duke it out (Even though I find battles last a total of 10 seconds to be too fast) is something that will not get old. There are different strategies that you can try which can be fun to execute (Even though Blizzard seems to hate things like the Archon hole of death. PSH!)

However, again, the professionalism is always there. People just trying to end the game quickly, and do stuff like that. But, that can be ignored, and you can get a pretty good experience out of everything overall.

At best, I would suggest you to wait till the game is on sale. Its good, but with the new "Expansion" coming out, and the new units that still need to be added in, and all the balance issues that will come with it, it might be best to wait it out till the price tag is more reasonable for the DRM and other messes that come along.

 

[Zer_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpFuJsG5-F4

That is all.

The custom maps alone are worth it.

 

[Joccaren]

Lol you have no need to defend yourself against someone who sites using "60 voidrays to kill anything"

He clearly doens't play 1s, and as such has no right to comment on your rank or your builds.

I challenge you then, lets go back to before the multiple void ray nerfs, and I'll pit my 60 voids against whatever army you decide to make.

The voids win. There was a reason that their damage was greatly reduced, their speed upgrade was removed, and a number of patches came out addressing this issue. Let me get my voids that move as fast (or barely slower) than a viking, or maybe mutas, hit 48 dps or so and will kill most units in seconds. Personally, your best bets are pheonixes. Marines have too little hp (they die in 1.2 seconds or so), Vikings are armoured and thus take extra damage, Thors are armoured and take extra damage and hydras don't have a lot of hp, and die slightly slower than a marine.

With the patches, void rays have become a niche unit, used only in certain situations, or as an anti-heavy part of an army.

Then I can definitely recommend DotA. It's one awesome and hard as hell game with a steep learning curve, you can really see yourself improving. Pick up Warcraft 3, its a really nice RTS, though a little old, It's personally my favorite RTS, and not that hard to get into.
Yeah, you should get WC3 if you want the best strategy experience, its two games in one, because DotA is a custom map for the game. Not to mention the many other awesome custom maps it has. WC3 is still the most-worth-it's-money game I've ever played, buying it online for a few tens of bucks is in my opinion like robbing Blizzard. Great campaign with fun gameplay, nice story and good characters and great multiplayer, both the multiplayer of the game itself and the custom maps. You'll have to buy the expansion too though, but seeing as the game is pretty old, it'll be cheap by now.

I personally hated DotA. I never actually got why it was so popular. It ends up being balanced, due to the number of heroes, not the fact that the heroes themselves are balanced. It also is incredibly difficult to play WC3 skirmishes and DotA games online unless you have friends, as the people on there have usually been playing for years and there is no matchmaking system to place you with players of equal skill. And if there is, it doesn't work very well.
The story in WC3 is better than SC2, in SC2 the story is horrid, and the campaigns in both are quite good. SC2 is very easy to start into multiplayer, though I would suggest skipping the practise league and vsing AI instead (practise league matches place you against other practise league players, seemingly regardless of skill or experience. It could be your first match, and you may be vsing someone who has played 49 matches and has learned how to play.

I also quite like the difference in difficulties for the campaign. On easy and normal, it is a cakewalk to complete for even a new player. Hard is difficult if your new, but as you gain experience with the game, it too becomes a cakewalk. The hardest difficulty would be nigh on impossible for someone who found hard difficult. It too, however, eventually becomes a cakewalk, especially if you use exploits in some missions (Stealthing 4 banshees and a medivac with marines and an scv next to the artifact at the start of Supernova, picking just the right spot to ODST 4 ghosts in then nuke the bunker on the Worldship mission), which are fun, but take a lot of the challenge out of the game.

 

[The Madman]

I challenge you then, lets go back to before the multiple void ray nerfs, and I'll pit my 60 voids against whatever army you decide to make.

The voids win. There was a reason that their damage was greatly reduced, their speed upgrade was removed, and a number of patches came out addressing this issue. Let me get my voids that move as fast (or barely slower) than a viking, or maybe mutas, hit 48 dps or so and will kill most units in seconds. Personally, your best bets are pheonixes. Marines have too little hp (they die in 1.2 seconds or so), Vikings are armoured and thus take extra damage, Thors are armoured and take extra damage and hydras don't have a lot of hp, and die slightly slower than a marine.

With the patches, void rays have become a niche unit, used only in certain situations, or as an anti-heavy part of an army.

Void Ray then and now both were easily countered *if*, and that's important, if you knew they were coming. Marines were easily the most effective at taking them our as well since the main mechanic of the Void Ray is that in order to be able to deal its full damage it needs to charge up hitting a target. If they got charged up they were hard to kill, but sending a wave of marines, stalkers, or hydralisk at em would stop em dead in their tracks simply because none of the low-tier ranged units have health enough to allow them to charge up. Meaning the Void Ray is dealing minimal damage. And while certainly there are enemies dying, the thing is all three of those I just mentioned are dirt cheap, easily replaced, and quickly reproduced. Void Ray are not! They're fragile as paper to boot, the proverbial glass cannon of the Protoss army. Viking Mutas and Phoenix also worked well against them for the very same reasons, though those options are also slightly more expensive than their ground unit companions.

That's why even at their 'peak' Void Ray were extremely rarely used in high-tier competitive games. Too risky when if the opponent knows they're coming, they can be so easily countered leaving the player completely vulnerable.

Reason they were nerfed is because, bluntly put, in low tier games almost no one scouts to see what their enemy is doing as so too many newbie players were getting their asses handed to them by the Void Ray rush. Which makes sense, despite mostly playing Protoss myself it was a needed change. Now if only Blizzard would make Carriers actually useful we'd be in business!

...

Yes, yes I have been playing a lot of Starcraft 2 lately.

 

[CowboyfromHell666]

I highly recommend Starcraft 2. Yeah you need to take the time to get good if you want to stand a chance in the multiplayer aspect, but that is why there is vs. AI either alone or co-op and the challenge scenarios. Also the custom maps are pretty nice. Some people bash the story, but I personally loved it. I find it hard to play C&C now because SC2 has a huge focus on economy, builds, counters, etc. It is also the most balanced RTS out there. I always hear other players bitching how something is overpowered or imbalanced. They say that because they are too idiotic to be able to counter whatever is thrown their way. For example, one guy said forcefields(a spell that makes a psionic wall to trap the enemy/block an area)is OP because it is "too good" for holding off early rushes. Yeah it holds off early attacks well, but the Protoss NEED that spell for the unit that casts it, the sentry. Protoss have little to no way to deal with early aggression other than FF.

Bottom line, it is well worth it.

 

[Rack]

If you want actual strategy go for Frozen Synapse.

Common mistake from a quick look at the game. Starcraft has plenty of Strategy, if you are willing to learn it. Why do you think Grandmaster league players devastate gold league players?

Starcraft does have a decent level of strategy in it at very high levels, the thing is that clicky click is absolutely dominant at low-mid level. If you want a strategy game Starcraft is an awful choice because you have to tolerate a ridiculous amount of speed-training before you get to the point where strategy is going to make the difference. If you want a game which calls on that level of click-speed then Starcraft is a fine choice, if it's something you're prepared to tolerate to get a strategy game it's a truly awful choice.

 

[Joccaren]

Starcraft does have a decent level of strategy in it at very high levels, the thing is that clicky click is absolutely dominant at low-mid level. If you want a strategy game Starcraft is an awful choice because you have to tolerate a ridiculous amount of speed-training before you get to the point where strategy is going to make the difference. If you want a game which calls on that level of click-speed then Starcraft is a fine choice, if it's something you're prepared to tolerate to get a strategy game it's a truly awful choice.

The fast clicking is the result of the game being fast paced. Any game that is slower is not going to require as much fast clicking. Though I will admit most people in lower leagues tend to click fest. It always amazed my allies and I when someone would just move their army, or even just attack move it, hoping it would manage itself. Not in Starcraft. You have to manage everything.

I play most types of RTS, though I must admit I have never actually played Frozen Synapse. I generally prefer the faster gameplay Starcraft offers as I am constantly doing something, in a number of games (Sins of a Solar Empire) I find myself waiting for my army to get somewhere, which at times takes 10 minutes, watching a battle take place that lasts anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour, all dependent on the sizes of each army, the makeup, and whether both sides continue to build units into the fight.
On the other hand, Starcraft is almost too fast paced, and you will need some practice to get some speed up. Battles last seconds, maybe a minute if your really lucky, and you constantly have to be doing something. It is the reason I usually limit myself to 5 or so matches in a row. I tend to concentrate too much on everything, and the strain ends up taking its toll. I probably should ease up a bit, but I'm just used to intensely concentrating on the game.

In the end, it all just comes down to preference, and what game style you prefer. Both have their charms, and their problems, but I personally need both kinds to balance each other out dependent on what mood I'm in. Both have pretty much the same amount of strategy, those strategies just sometimes require a different ways of thinking.

Eh, any game is worth a try if its got a demo, you only loose you time. If you like it, then good for you, if you don't, then no harm done.
Just more of my two cents worth.

 

[babinro]

I'd say yes if only for the single player campaign. Great campaign and fun replayable missions that are a challenge on brutal difficulty. Totally worth my $60.00.

If you're solely getting the game for multiplayer I have no recommendations. I've heard that the rule of thumb is that it is fun, but expect to lose about 9 out of 10 games you play. If you don't mind losing at games in the hope that you'll learn from your mistakes, than SC2 is probably a good buy for you multiplayer as well.

 

[rwege]

Lol you have no need to defend yourself against someone who sites using "60 voidrays to kill anything"

He clearly doens't play 1s, and as such has no right to comment on your rank or your builds.

I challenge you then, lets go back to before the multiple void ray nerfs, and I'll pit my 60 voids against whatever army you decide to make.

The voids win. There was a reason that their damage was greatly reduced, their speed upgrade was removed, and a number of patches came out addressing this issue. Let me get my voids that move as fast (or barely slower) than a viking, or maybe mutas, hit 48 dps or so and will kill most units in seconds. Personally, your best bets are pheonixes. Marines have too little hp (they die in 1.2 seconds or so), Vikings are armoured and thus take extra damage, Thors are armoured and take extra damage and hydras don't have a lot of hp, and die slightly slower than a marine.

I'm not saying 60 VR's are weak. I'm saying anyone using them as a metric is a broken argument. There are no viable situations in a 1s match where you would end up having that many VR's, beyond some massive techswitch in a game where you have 7 bases going, and you have the gas stocked to make 12 stargates, and by some act of god your cols+gateway units are getting crushed. ( not to mention they are 3 supply and that would leave you with 20 probes )

Oh and you never actually replied to what I said, just picked a meaningless part of the argument and dove-in on some giant explanation,

Bronze league mabye?