Starcraft 2 isn't appealing?

[Jojo1378]

Okay, i'm a person who enjoys himself a good RTS game, but for some reason when I see all these adds for starcraft 2 I think,"That really doesn't look that fun..." I know many many fans of the series would disagree much with me, but really I don't see the appeal of a fast paced RTS game like Starcraft, I enjoy slower paced RTS's where you can make massive armies of like 500 soliders and completely decimate while looking like a starwars battle from a crane cam...if that makes any sense. So why is starcraft so appealing to everyone?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Here's a thought: Why not accept the fact that they have different opinions from you?

Just because you enjoy slower paced RTS' games doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[Radeonx]

You answered your own question. They want a fast paced game, that doesn't take 2 hours to complete. It's sheer preference, and just accept that. No one has to like the same things you do.
It also helps because the story is pretty interesting, with good, badass, and interesting characters.

 

[MisterShine]

So why is starcraft so appealing to everyone?

It's a little more explosion-oriented than necessarily long term thinking strategies, and it is made by Blizzard, and lots of people seem to love their work.

Plus, the story for the first game was surprisingly good..

I don't plan on getting it myself til' the main game and the exapansions are all out and together in some kind of battle chest, so I can get the full story rather than piece-meal, and I don't care about the multiplayer at all.

 

[Baby Tea]

Well why is your slower, 500 unit RTS more appealing to you?
Why do both Mario Galaxy 2 and Modern Warfare 2 sell so well, when they are so very different?

It's just what people like. People enjoy the faster-pace of Star craft, as well as the unit balance, and differences, of the 3 'factions'. I prefer RTS games like Total War, but that doesn't mean I can't see the appeal of Star Craft. It's balanced, it's fast paced, and it's pretty accessible while still being strategically deep.

 

[shansta619]

for me the biggest thing is the differences in the races. take most RTS's most of the races or factions or whatever are about the same with maybe a special unit or two, but for the most part there is no difference. In starcraft all three races play completly differently. so if you "master" one race you might still be terrible at another race so you have learn three different times. you also must learn how to counter other races to ensure a victory. thats my opinion anyways.

 

[megs1120]

I'm assuming you can slow the game down like you could in the first game.

At full speed, yeah, I agree with you, it's not fun, it's just stress. Slowed down, I very much enjoyed Starcraft. Overall, I prefer turn-based strategy, and C&C and Starcraft seem to be the only exceptions.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I prefer games with detail, non-cartoony graphics, and gameplay past 1998, so I play Men of War. It's all a matter of opinion

Spoiler

I guess

 

[Jojo1378]

You answered your own question. They want a fast paced game, that doesn't take 2 hours to complete. It's sheer preference, but, as for myself, I absolutely love Starcraft, and find it to be the greatest RTS, maybe game, ever made.
It also helps because the story is pretty interesting, with good, badass, and interesting characters.

good point, much better than the second post. I never really get into RTS stories, never really saw the idea of them, except Hero's of Might and Magic 4 that had some cool stories.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

Well seeing as how people learned over the past 12 years how to win in a few minutes it kinda needs to be fast paced.

 

[rileyrulesu]

I've noticed i have lost all interest in the games advertised on the site. i see the ad like 400 times and just dont care. except starcraft 2 it just gets me more pumped up

 

[jackknife402]

aye, and you've gotta be crafty in those first few minutes still...I've last games in the first five before when I first started the beta.

 

[rockingnic]

I love SC1 (haven't played the beta because I got a code for windows instead of mac OSX lol). The point of SC is you can make your own strategies that are also unquie to SC rather than the relatively simple strategies other games use. I'm not saying other games are easier but SC has the most interesting variations of gameplay that people can use.

 

[Woodsey]

Now, this is just a thought, BUT do you think it might be because they like fast-paced RTS games?

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Now, this is just a thought, BUT do you think it might be because they like fast-paced RTS games?

There are far better fast-paced games out there, but this is kinda it.

 

[Woodsey]

Now, this is just a thought, BUT do you think it might be because they like fast-paced RTS games?

There are far better fast-paced games out there, but this is kinda it.

Better fast-paced RTSs than Starcraft? I think half of Korea may have a bone to pick with you there.

 

[squirrelman42]

we can just make every "why is _____ so appealing" thread one answer long: because people are different and have different tastes.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Better fast-paced RTSs than Starcraft? I think half of Korea may have a bone to pick with you there.

Better ultra-realistic shooter than Modern Warefare 2? I think most 360 owners may have a bone to pick with you there.

Spoiler

Not a fan of MW2, but my point is that just because many like it, it doesn't mean that it's a good game. And it isn't realistic, but people say it is. I hate it when people make this argument - anyone else?

 

[ThePirateMan]

I agree with the OP.

Fast paced Tactic games can be fun if done right.
Loosing my BC to 5-6 Marines wasn't fun thanks to Blizzards wannabe "Balancing".

Oh yeah, let's send in a lonely BC unit that is supposed to have support against a bunch of anti-airish units, that'll work out just fine!

 

[snow]

All a matter of opinion my friend. The other day my nephew was telling me about an RTS game that he played, I forget which one exactly, but I recall finding the demo of it on Steam. So I downloaded that and played it as he explained it to me.

It was incredibly slow paced. I recall stating out loud that that current mission I was doing would have taken me at least 10 minutes to complete in Starcraft. It was a really small map with a very simple objective, but the game moved at such a slow pace that it was mind numbingly dull.

You can say that "Oh well this guy just likes things fast and flashy," but the way I see it, is I have extraordinary reaction time in both the real world and in games, and I like to use that to my advantage where ever possible. I also solve problems very quickly as well, which is part of what makes an RTS an RTS game.

An opponent creates a certain problem and you must quickly solve it to gain the upper hand. In fact this goes back and forth constantly. Opponent creates a problem, you solve it, and thus cause a problem for your opponent to solve.

When a game doesn't move at the speed of which I am able too, then I feel like I am being held back. Like back in that game I was talking about, it took me a matter of seconds to figure out the solution for that map, but it took the game a very long time to get me to that point. In fact I recall completing the map in a half hour, and that entire half hour was practically me sitting there waiting for my units to get from point A to point B and destroy the things I wanted destroyed so I could move on.

There was no "long-term strategy" involved... I had my strategy in the first moments of starting the level. There was no need to change it. So I ended up just sitting there playing the waiting game.