Forum Home | Login

Why Starcraft II will not live up to the greatest RTS of the past decade.

SplitPeaSoup

Join Date 03/2008

Why Starcraft II will not live up to the greatest RTS of the past decade.

Seabass put it straight. StarWARS additions were ridiculed, StarCRAFT additions will be ridiculed.

I bought Warcraft III on the first day it came out. I even got a cool action figure. But I really did not enjoy the game. It required far too much micromanagment, and I missed being able to amass knights and ultralisks. I built like 2 knights, and I reached "high upkeep" and "pop limit."

In my opinion, Stardock is the wave of the future. While Blizz wastes its time giving people something they don't want, fewer units and more chances to screw up for stupid I-clicked-it-wrong reasons, Stardock is giving people 4x. They are putting strategy back into the strategy game.

Starcraft was great back when sprite graphics looked cool, and Red Alert was the primary competition.

off-topic

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

honestly, i dont hate Starcraft as it may seem, it is a solid RTS, its just that over time as in all games you get assholes on it that totally kills the vibe of the game . Of course the fact is theres no stopping it, and that fact has finally shown its face in this game as well. I'm one for strategy (and intellegent forum posts ) but when you have Imbicles that like to spam craploads of lets say illuminators, Wraiths, or whatever in any game, it leaves you with that feeling of "Not this shit again" wheras you have to counter that spam. Even then Rarely does this course lead to a "Chess" sitituation, where you actually use your cognitive brain and find amusement on a grand level, rather as soon as i counter, i can take that same force and wipe the floor with everyone ! This may lead to victory, but it will leave you wanting more ( a sort of grind that only hardcore gamers or WoW players can stand for massive lengths of time talk about Grindtacular { whomever gets this reference gets a karma} )

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

Yeah, well the thing about RTS games vs Chess is that the RTS games are pretty much how the resources are handled.

In Chess, your "resources" are your pieces, and you have an extremely limited number of them.

In nealy all RTS games, the resources are separated from the pieces, and there is generally a large amount of resources.

This means that resource management is a large portion of nearly every RTS game out there. More often than not, the winner isn't really the person who plans the next move carefully, but rather the person who can collect and spend resources the fastest. Why waste your time with diversionary tactics and lateral thinking when you can outspend and overwhem your opponent with sheer force?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting CobraA1,

reply 2

Why waste your time with diversionary tactics and lateral thinking when you can outspend and overwhem your opponent with sheer force?

simple really, outthink your opponent. thats why i have over 100 victories

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Dark-Tide,

reply 5

So strategy to you is more units with less "micromangement"?

Please don't try and make the argument that clicking the fastest is considered strategy. After all, generals issue orders--they shouldn't have to baby-sit units. Especially when units are considered "trained" units.

I've played Warcraft III, and I got sick and tired of sending my units into battle and watching them fall apart like a poorly sewn piece of cloth.

Sins' AI is one of the greater aspects of the game. I want to build an army capable of managing itself, if I wish to pay attention to something elsewhere. In Warcraft III, you just can't do that. In a strategy guide for WIII, it says to shortcut you barracks, so you don't have to take your eyes off the battle. That. Isn't. Strategy.

Thank you for being smart, Dark-Tide. Some many idiots in this world, you just renewed my faith in humanity. I hate it when morons confuse tactics with strategy... Strategy is planning (which is rarely seen in SC 1 & 2) and tactics is the ability to make quick decisions (making such quick decisions for tactics does not require well thought out plans). Unfortunately, Starcraft 1 & 2 are Rock, Paper, Scissor games, period. For the record, there is nothing wrong with RPS games like Starcraft because RPS is fun. Professional RPS players (yes, surprisingly it is considered a Profession...) make thousands of dollars more than Major League gaming players and has a larger fan-base. If you want to play a real strategy game, then take up a game like Sins of a Solar Empire or Chess.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Starcraft 2 will not necessary die out completely. However, it is a huge disappointment, even to dedicated fans (well, the smarter dedicated fans anyway, the dumb ones could care less). Starcraft 2 lacks heavily in creativity, innovation and difficulty - Activision made Blizzard take a couple of steps backwards instead of forward =\. Even with the hard-counters and new units (which suck compared to most of the removed SC1 units...) it is still a RPS game like Starcraft 1.

I still like Starcraft, but it pains me to see my borderline retarded friends worship the game...it is like a religious thing to them, they cannot question or criticize Blizzard;s end products. Despite the fact that Activision and Vivendi successfully ruined Blizzard games with the new WoW and SC2. Needless to say, the single player campaign is your best bet to fully enjoy SC2 despite all of its short-comings.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've played both Sins and Starcraft extensively and enjoyed both for various reasons.

Starcraft is certainly the more tactically robust game, but it's difficult to say whether that makes it less strategic. It's possible to play Starcraft without planning, just as it's possible to play Sins without planning. It's not possible to play well in either case.

Successfully updated karma reason!

lol, just noticed how old this thread is

Anyways, I love Starcraft, and I'm sure I'll love Starcraft 2, but the one thing I hate about the game is what the game is most popular for, the multiplayer. More specifically, competitive multiplayer. Sins is the same way of course, but when I play multiplayer, I want to sit back and enjoy the game, not have to worry about perfecting my build orders, maximizing my apm, and trying to snuff out the opponent and end the game as quickly as possible.

No, I want to actually play the game, I want to build an empire, I want to amass an army, and I want to have some epic battles. I consider a game that doesn't last long enough for me to deploy a carrier fleet to be not worth playing. But the online environment isn't like that, and that holds true for most games. I despise it.

On the other hand, getting together with a couple friends with mutual interests for a LAN party is the multiplayer I love.

In any case, I love Starcrafts storyline, and I'm looking forward to having that carried on perhaps more than anything else, improved graphics and interface functionality is just icing on the cake.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: