Why would they like it if it wasn't a good game?The Amazing Tea Alligator said:
If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.
Starcraft 2 isn't appealing?
- Thread starter Jojo1378
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If a game appeals to a larger amount of people, it has done something right, no matter how wrong it is.
If a game is liked by a large amount of people, all that proves is that it did marketing right. That's not something I like to judge a game upon, but perhaps I'm unique in this aspect. I hope not.ThePirateMan said:
Sorry, perhaps metaphors are too abstract. Let me explain:Woodsey said:
...nevermind. I thought about how to explain it, but I can't. Anybody a little better-versed in the fine arts of lanuage and logic than I want to help me out?
If you like slower paced RTS games, create a map with your preferences on the Galaxy Editor 
or even just play on a bigger map, no ones forcing you to play it in super-hyper-korean-nine-million-clicks-a-second mode
or even just play on a bigger map, no ones forcing you to play it in super-hyper-korean-nine-million-clicks-a-second mode
If you are actually decent at managing Starcraft's pace, there's nothing more exhilarating than a victory against a similarly skilled opponent. It's exhausting but really satisfying. That's why people like it. If you prefer to relax and drink your coffee while playing, then Starcraft is just not the game for you.
Marketing only affects how many people buy it and mostly just the initial sale, it doesn't have any effects on how people like it, just how many have it. More people will buy it as good talk about it spreads and critics give it good reviews or the opposite, fewer people buy it because people talk badly about it and it has low review scores based on the game itself.The Amazing Tea Alligator said:
Critics. I just want to mention that on, say... IGN 'Halo Wars' got 84, while 'MoW' got an 8. This makes less sense that a moose dunked in maple syrup. Critics seem to judge less the game and more the presentation, thereby making it so that only big name studios can get good ratings. There are certainly exceptions to this rule, but this seems to be generaly true. Also, even if a game is mildly good, as in the case of MW2 or Starcraft, people will talk about it in a good tone, therby encouraging others to buy it.ThePirateMan said:
The problem is that if a game isn't talked about at all, no matter how brilliant, it gets left behind and forgotten. This is sad.
Yeah I kind of forget that most people go to the more popular "revieweres" that give everything popular a gold star. But you seem to be a bit like the OP with the "I don't like it, how come they like it?" about (espicialy popular) games, MW2 and Starcraft in your examples.The Amazing Tea Alligator said:
And that problem is indeed sad.
(Just as a side note, I have not played MW 2 so I can't really say if it's good or not)
The single player game can be as slow as you want. In original SC I remember spending upwards of 3 or 4 hours in any given single player level... just harvesting as much as I can and building as many units as possible. I'd go slow and take my time and then completely and utterly destroy the PC. Now tho, I much prefer a quicker game. Especially playing online, I find it's great fun to be able to play 2 or 3 matches in an hour.
Different people prefer different things. Not a difficult concept to grasp.
Sorry if I sound rude, but there are so many of these threads questioning other people's tastes, and I find them silly.
Sorry if I sound rude, but there are so many of these threads questioning other people's tastes, and I find them silly.
Yeah I supose I share a bit with OP, but I think where our differences lie is that he is decouncing the fast-paced RTS genre (if I understand him correctly, and I can certainly understand his position), whereas I appreciate the fast-paced RTS genre. My point is that there are many FAR better fast-paced RTS games than Starcraft II, yet Starcraft 2 will be getting all the reviews because of it's presentation, despite the fact that it's back in 1998.ThePirateMan said:
Could you name some of these supposedly better fast-paced RTSes?The Amazing Tea Alligator said:
And the "1998" formula works and is fun, so I see nothing wrong with it.
ThePirateMan said:
Get Men of War. It is one the VERY few unique RTS games out there. It is absolutely brilliant, game-changing, and you are not a responsible RTS gamer if you have not at least TRIED IT. There is a demo on steam. Try it. You won't regret it. Chances are, all other games mention (Age of Empires, Starcraft, DOW 1, Starcraft II, Starcraft II, MY GOT WHY WON'T BLIZZARD INNOVATE, Starcraft II) Will all be the same basic gameplay. Men of War doesn't follow that shit. It is unique and brilliant.Carnagath said:
It is incredibly realistic in terms of health and all that, and has very challenging and fun missions. The voice acting is hilariously bad. The level of detail in this game is absurd:
- Every unit has an inventory
- You can Isometrically control each and every unit (Diablo style)
- Every unit needs to reload
- You can take an empty flamethrower pack, walk up to a tiger tank, and if you're quiet enough, EMPTY THE TANK"S FUEL INTO THE FLAMETHROWER
That should sound awesome. If it doesn't contact your doctor. If you liked Company of Heroes, you will LOVE this game.
From this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.215194-I-need-a-new-RTS?page=1 thread
Gameplay - Awesome
Presentation - Not the Best
It's sad.
Personally, I haven't had the slightest interest in Starcraft 2 ever since I realized that it would feature no new mechanics or ground-breaking changes to the RTS formula (which is what I normally require to take an interest in an RTS), and basically just be a graphical upgrade, with units balancing, online play improvements, and limited amounts of new content...
...until I read about the three single player campaigns. The actual matches themselves might not feature anything even the slightest bit revolutionary (or even inventive), but one free-roaming mercenary campaign with in-between mission upgrades and purchases, one RPG-inspired Kerrigan-focused campaign, and one with diplomacy and large-scale strategic choices, with 26-30 missions per campaign, has actually captured my interest for the first time since the game was announced.
...until I read about the three single player campaigns. The actual matches themselves might not feature anything even the slightest bit revolutionary (or even inventive), but one free-roaming mercenary campaign with in-between mission upgrades and purchases, one RPG-inspired Kerrigan-focused campaign, and one with diplomacy and large-scale strategic choices, with 26-30 missions per campaign, has actually captured my interest for the first time since the game was announced.
Because decision making needs weight. Waiting for your grand scheme to come into effect 2 hours in doesn't add anything for me. Its why i like fighters. Every decision means something, and the consequences are immediate.
Starcraft has both Big decisions (build order, econ, and unit composition.) and small (micro). You have to have to skills of reading your opponent, have a good strategy, and have good execution in fighting and building your army. You also have to keep scouting, deny scouting, establish map control, create units, and react to any battle, fight or create harassment, and make sure you don't fall behind in econ with your opponent. Hell 30 minutes of being at 150+ apm is fucking exhausting. Basically, Starcraft is like being the General, Sergeant, and Private at the same time. And your the consequences of your actions come within minutes or seconds. With the rts that you mention, it feels like its as engaging as setting up dominoes and watching them fall into place.
But, w/e. I'm hyped. Everyone i know is hyped. And i fucking loved the first one and the beta. So at least I'm going to have some company when it comes out.
Starcraft has both Big decisions (build order, econ, and unit composition.) and small (micro). You have to have to skills of reading your opponent, have a good strategy, and have good execution in fighting and building your army. You also have to keep scouting, deny scouting, establish map control, create units, and react to any battle, fight or create harassment, and make sure you don't fall behind in econ with your opponent. Hell 30 minutes of being at 150+ apm is fucking exhausting. Basically, Starcraft is like being the General, Sergeant, and Private at the same time. And your the consequences of your actions come within minutes or seconds. With the rts that you mention, it feels like its as engaging as setting up dominoes and watching them fall into place.
But, w/e. I'm hyped. Everyone i know is hyped. And i fucking loved the first one and the beta. So at least I'm going to have some company when it comes out.
I'm sort of bored of RTS in general. So it's like, hey, there's a new RTS coming out. It's the sequel of Starcraft. It's been polished so hard that if it catches sunlight it blinds half the planet. I'd be excited, but, well, it's still an RTS.
I'll probably still get it if I can afford it. The game is an epic blip on the PC gaming radar. I just don't anticipate I'll play much of it.
I'll probably still get it if I can afford it. The game is an epic blip on the PC gaming radar. I just don't anticipate I'll play much of it.
I did play Men of War actually. It is so vastly different to Starcraft that I'm not even sure it belongs in the same genre. I don't want to bash it, I understand why people like it, but it's not my cup of tea. It's too tactical and too slow for my tastes. My main strong point as an RTS gamer is multitasking, and tactical RTS's don't really have any of that. Again, I can imagine why people like it, but bashing the extreme refinement and polish of SC2's gameplay and claiming that it's "stuck in 1998" is like bashing Doom 4 because it's not like Rainbow Six. Different philosophies, different games.The Amazing Tea Alligator said: