Starcraft 2 isn't appealing?

[Xiorell]

I've lost alot of interest in SC2 since I started feeling as if it was gonna be "Here's a bunch of multiplayer stuff... oh and we tacked on some single player stuff the weekend before release"

I hope it's not the case, but I won't be getting it tomorrow, not till I've seen reviews and whatnot showing me single player goodness.

Fucking sick of multiplayer everything.

 

[UnusualStranger]

Yes, only I said Starcraft - I think through the test of time it's proven itself. I can't imagine that in 12 years people will really look upon MW2 so kindly; look at GTA IV upon release, compared to what people think of it now for example.

However, it has only gotten itself there because
A) The fans carried it that far. Custom maps helped make it more than it was ever supposed to be, as well as the people playing them.

B) Because its a sport over there in Korea. Other games don't really have that advantage of being an E-Sport. If it wasn't turned into one, do you think it really would be as big as it is? I don't think it would be.

And I think you don't understand the circumstances. MW2 is damned popular, and would consistently be played.....until the next one comes out. The only difference between the two is time. Starcraft only has a 12 year record because they didn't release Starcraft 2 earlier. MW1 doesn't have a huge record because MW2 came out so quickly.

 

[Kurt Horsting]

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.

While I agree with you on the immediate consequences aspect, when did DELAYED results start to equal decisions not having weight, and not meaning something? In some of the more strategic 4X games, you might not see the consequences of your actions for hours, but once they come into play, they can be game-changing.

Immediate consequences are nice, for their direct availability. Delayed consequences are nice, both since they require more careful planning, and since they often have time to grow far more weighted and influential than the direct result of choices. You might not be fond of that kind of gaming, but saying that decisions loose their weight and have no meaning if their repercussions are not immediate is a very peculiar opinion...

Ya, they did that without arbitrarily wasting your time. There are delayed results, like expanding, or teching. Things that take 5-10 mins to come into effect, not HOURS. And you still have to have a general strategy on top of it.

Those decisions also have immediate effects, like if you expand your going to be vulnerable for a small window, but if you survive your economic boost will make your production overwhelm your opponent. It forces your opponent to attack or to catch up. But you you don't need to take a majority of someones day just to do something as simple as 'should I build up or attack?' or 'should i go for the kill and end the game here or minimize my risk and cement my lead further before the next battle?'.

Also if your unable to see a result from your decision making until HOURS into the game, wouldn't it be easier to just guess at that point?

 

[Nifarious]

[/quote]
Most RTSs are easy to learn, hard to master. Some, like Men of War, are also hard to learn
Have you ever played MoW? Because, um, SC units don't die fast enough. In MoW, you need exeptional control over your units and the battlefield (because it's dynamic and stuff) to succeed. I daresay it does set a new standard of fun, I'm not convinced that you've tried it (or even seen it), due to that SC units die fast bit.

The campaign definetly does look interesting. No longer (from what I understand) is it a bunch of scenarios tied together, but rather it's tied together with a meta, and I like that. I would call Starcraft's formula successful, but special implies that there aren't many games using it. Whenever I think 'generic RTS', I think of Starcraft's formula. Other games don't get it down as well of course, but they're all trying to do the same thing. I understand why it's successful: it's simple, it's clean, and mildly fun. My problem is that it isn't involved enough. It would have been nive if, instead of fundamentally altering gameplay, Blizzard had simply delved another level of detail into Starcraft.[/quote]

Heh, no, afraid I don't know MoW, though I promise to check it out once I need a break from SC2, which admittedly won't be happening anytime soon, but in sooth, I will look into it. Really, I haven't even tried a lot of other RTSs, but I do know SC quite well.

'Special' is partially subjective, sure. You have to have already embraced something to call it that. But innovation's a funny thing. Again, using chess, if you added a piece that, say, leaps over 1 piece to take the piece next in line (as in Chinese Chess), that one change innovates the game play immensely. That's the sort of innovation that SC2 has on top of its fantastic mechanics (eg. getting rid of dark swarm and lurkers which lead to boring lulls in the action). The type of innovation that you'd like to see, I think, does have its place, but not in SC. SC2 maintains the spirit of the original. Again, its the simplicity that makes it great. But I'm surprised that you don't find the game to be involved enough when the play is all about doing as much as is humanly possible all at once. I feel no desire for that sort of variation just as I wouldn't in chess or whatnot. Of course, I'm still very much looking forward to how the release is different from Beta and what new units will be in the expansions, ect.
As for the game being fun, well, I won't bother trying to explain its fun...because doing that's not!

 

[swolf]

Where are these Starcraft 2 ads? All I see the Escapist advertising are their own shows!

Simple: business. Selling ad space brings in $. On the topic of the SC2 ads, why are they so close up and action-packed when the game is an RTS? Now, I didn't play much of the first one (just a short while at a friend's house) but the game doesn't seem...well, what I'm trying to say is that the ads seem to be more suitable to an FPS. That's not an insult towards SC2, I'm really intrigued but the ads don't seem to suit the gameplay.

 

[Calatar]

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!

Well, you can pretty much understand how you would be upset if you built a top-tier unit, and had it get eliminated by a handful of dirt-cheap tier one units.
Or how you might expect a floating spaceship with twin frikking laser cannons might be able to take out a handful of dudes with rifles.

Lets see some math here to see how likely this is:
BC: 3 armor, 10 damage vs ground, .225 cooldown on weapon, range 6, hp: 550
Cost: 400 Min, 300 Gas
Marine: 0 armor, 6 damage, .8608 cooldown, range 5, hp: 45
Cost: 50 Min.
So it's pretty clear that the BC should be able to take down ordinary marines with ease. At its rate of fire, the BC would be dealing 44 dps, or ~1 marine/second dead. All 6 marines would die within 7 seconds. Whereas the marines, with their 6 damage, reduced to 3 by armor, would be doing 3.5 dps/marine. It would thus take 6 un-upgraded marines 26 seconds to kill a BC, if uninterrupted by the BC killing them first.
Now suppose those marines have upgrades; stimpack, combat shields, 3/3 attack/armor upgrades, and the BC has nothing. Marines using stimpack now shoot 1.5 times faster, and with damage upgrade deal 6 damage per shot. Marines now deal 10.5 dps each to the BC. 6 uninterrupted stimming marines would kill a BC in 9 seconds. Now the BC deals 31 dps to the armored marines, or one marine per 1.5 seconds. 6 fully upgraded marines dead in 9 seconds. So they would be about equal, except the marine dps is falling because they're dying as the BC is shooting them. So the un-upgraded BC still wins against 6 fully upgraded marines in a one-on-six fight.

In other words, BC>handful of marines, unless your hp on the BC is already low, or you misclick it and send it flying over a group of marines for a few seconds.

But still, that does drive the point that the game is fast-paced. If you misclick your BC and ignore it for a couple seconds, a handful of marines could kill it pretty easily.