Starcraft II

[pandango]

A topic about starcraft II, what do you think of it, do you have it or do you want it you can post it all up here!

I do have it, and i gotta say... I LOvE it!
I had no idea what to expect from the game because I never die starcraft I before, but I heard it was great, so i just thought "lets get starcraft II" and I have to say... One of the Best ideas ever!

[MCJJ]

A topic about starcraft II, what do you think of it, do you have it or do you want it you can post it all up here!

I do have it, and i gotta say... I LOvE it!
I had no idea what to expect from the game because I never die starcraft I before, but I heard it was great, so i just thought "lets get starcraft II" and I have to say... One of the Best ideas ever!

Lucky you. You downloaded Starcraft II for free from the Internet. Unlucky me for I have tried to get it, and I have failed in my quest to download the Holy Game from the Evil Clutches of Blizzard Entertainment...

Enough with the Medieval-Style talking, what I'm trying to say is I'm...Jealous. OH NOES!!

PS: I BOTH LOVE STARCRAFT I AND II!! MWAHAHAHAH!! They're the best second best RTS Games to come to us...
PSS: THE BEST RTS GAME IS HL2 WARS!! MWAHAHAHAH!!

[Sao]

not impressed with sc2 at all. it's basically sc with newer graphics and +3 units to each faction. to be fair tho, you are only as good as your micromanagement skills and i can't stand micromanaging(kinda why i don't like dow2 or sc all that much either). also removing lan infuriates me to no end. i suppose i should also credit my hate of blizzard as well.

it looks as tho sc2 will become the highest rated game on metacritic. video game reviews should be taken with a grain of salt but still, kinda impressive at the very least.

[Discrate]

I havent played SC1 but i decided to give SC2 a try. It was nothing special, just another generic RTS game with a boring campaign which focused more on cut scenes then on gameplay.

[Sandern]

I havent played SC1 but i decided to give SC2 a try. It was nothing special, just another generic RTS game with a boring campaign which focused more on cut scenes then on gameplay.

The campaign is brilliant. You are boring. It's a while ago that I've seen a rts game with an actually interesting and fun to play single player. Name me an other recent rts game with good single player. The last one I enjoyed was company of heroes I think.

[Discrate]

I havent played SC1 but i decided to give SC2 a try. It was nothing special, just another generic RTS game with a boring campaign which focused more on cut scenes then on gameplay.

The campaign is brilliant. You are boring. It's a while ago that I've seen a rts game with an actually interesting and fun to play single player. Name me an other recent rts game with good single player. The last one I enjoyed was company of heroes I think.

The game play in the campaign is boring, the cut scenes etc are interesting though.

The last RTS campaign i enjoyed was COH.

But yeh, SC2 is nothing special. They have made it to fit in with what South koreans etc like.

[The Joker]

StarCraft II is a fantastic, well-rounded RTS, and I can't say the same for many other games.

1.Dawn of War 1+ expansions and Dawn of War 2+expansions - On a very small scale, not as large as StarCraft II. Simple squads with upgrades and and objective/goal, DoW 1 did have basebuilding, but it the most simplest tech tree ever, it wasn't interesting

2.Company of Heroes - On a rather large scale, but no real basebuilding or resource management, just tactics and strategies, it did have the "control point" system for resources, but so many games have that now, its nothing special.

3.Supreme Commander 1 and 2 - They both sucked, on a WAY too large scale with poor management and control, its just overwhelming to the player, and the story was ridiculous.

4.Demigod - Do I have to say it? No, no basebuilding, resources, or intense variety of units. It was more of a tug-of-war sort of game.

5. Spore - Even if it did have many key elements of an RTS, it was spread very thin. It turned from an action game to an RTS to a Civilization game.

Those are the five closest RTS games that could live up to the standard StarCraft II and even StarCraft 1 has set for the world of Real-Time Strategy, though they all never fully got there. Almost, but not quite. A large tech tree, variety of units, upgrades, many different strategies, completely distinct factions, on a relatively large scale for the most part, fun-as-hell to play.

FTW StarCraft II

[Sao]

3.Supreme Commander 1 and 2 - They both sucked, on a WAY too large scale with poor management and control, its just overwhelming to the player, and the story was ridiculous.

anybody who can't handle supcom in my eyes, sucks at rts. and to say supcom2 has too large of a scale is completely wrong. it has been toned down to be a generic worthless rts that appeals to the dumb rts players that make up most of the market.

[16:16] <@Sander> Sao, go: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1079
[16:16] <@Sander> he needs to die

i agree sander

[The Joker]

It isn't that Supreme Commander is manageable, its just frustrating and utterly ridiculous to manage all that is going on at any one time. They expect you to be able to effectively command thousands of automatons soldiers while also handling millions of power generators and mass extractors, plus you've got air units buzzing around, units at sea bombarding your army, its so much, it could frustrate the player, not make it so they have to think. It isn't strategy, its a demanding job. Gaming shouldn't be like that, you know?

[pandango]

2.Company of Heroes - , it did have the "control point" system for resources, but so many games have that now, its nothing special.

Well, you said it right there, Many games have it 'now'!
At the time it was like the only game i know off, and also it might be me but i can't of Any game that has the same system.


But that last Part could be a mistake, becouse i haven't played all rts's.

[JeCa]

3.Supreme Commander 1 and 2 - They both sucked, on a WAY too large scale with poor management and control, its just overwhelming to the player, and the story was ridiculous.
...
It isn't that Supreme Commander is manageable, its just frustrating and utterly ridiculous to manage all that is going on at any one time. They expect you to be able to effectively command thousands of automatons soldiers while also handling millions of power generators and mass extractors, plus you've got air units buzzing around, units at sea bombarding your army, its so much, it could frustrate the player, not make it so they have to think. It isn't strategy, its a demanding job. Gaming shouldn't be like that, you know?

While I can agree on that the campaigns in both games suck, the scale is really difficult to get around and the games lack some functionality (like proper hotkeying) they - or at least the first one - is still way better than you give it credit for. Yes, the size doesn't always make for quick and exciting multiplayer matches, but playing against a friend and building an artillery piece that can bombard his base from a distance that takes a full few minutes to walk, while he's constructing a city-sized flying saucer/hangar is still one of the most entertaining RTS experiences I've had. It is also fully playable and quite deep at a low-tech level on small 1v1 maps where games can be over almost as quickly as SC1 once you learn the tricks.

I still think SC2 is better though, while not innovative in any way it's still so intensely challenging/fun that it's a real shame I barely have time to play it now that university started again.

[Sandern]

It isn't that Supreme Commander is manageable, its just frustrating and utterly ridiculous to manage all that is going on at any one time. They expect you to be able to effectively command thousands of automatons soldiers while also handling millions of power generators and mass extractors, plus you've got air units buzzing around, units at sea bombarding your army, its so much, it could frustrate the player, not make it so they have to think. It isn't strategy, its a demanding job. Gaming shouldn't be like that, you know?

Haha, Starcraft is so much more demanding. Why do you think it's popular in tournaments? You need to baby sit every single unit and building. In supreme commander you can automate about everything and focus on the strategy part. Maybe you are playing Starcraft 2 in the plastic league?

[The*Joker]

It isn't that Supreme Commander is manageable, its just frustrating and utterly ridiculous to manage all that is going on at any one time. They expect you to be able to effectively command thousands of automatons soldiers while also handling millions of power generators and mass extractors, plus you've got air units buzzing around, units at sea bombarding your army, its so much, it could frustrate the player, not make it so they have to think. It isn't strategy, its a demanding job. Gaming shouldn't be like that, you know?

Haha, Starcraft is so much more demanding. Why do you think it's popular in tournaments? You need to baby sit every single unit and building. In supreme commander you can automate about everything and focus on the strategy part. Maybe you are playing Starcraft 2 in the plastic league?

Yes true, but its so much more interesting, its more in depth to the point you have fun with it, unlike Supreme Commander where it was a chore. And I'm in Platinum league, and it is definitely more entertaining to micro-manage troops and buildings in SC2 then it is in SupCom. That's the way it is. And the strategy part in SupCom was fairly innovative, but you never had fun with it. It never got to the point where, "Dude, I have this huge ass army with thousands of troops, and I am ready to destroy this guy!" It was always like, "OK, I finally built up this many troops, time to go kill him." Now, in SC2, your almost always like, "OK, move that guy here, these guys here, YES, I totally flanked him, he is so screwed!" I believe my point has been made.

[JeCa]

Yes true, but its so much more interesting, its more in depth to the point you have fun with it, unlike Supreme Commander where it was a chore. And I'm in Platinum league, and it is definitely more entertaining to micro-manage troops and buildings in SC2 then it is in SupCom. That's the way it is. And the strategy part in SupCom was fairly innovative, but you never had fun with it. It never got to the point where, "Dude, I have this huge ass army with thousands of troops, and I am ready to destroy this guy!" It was always like, "OK, I finally built up this many troops, time to go kill him." Now, in SC2, your almost always like, "OK, move that guy here, these guys here, YES, I totally flanked him, he is so screwed!" I believe my point has been made.

Heeey, Platinum League, I recognise that place You don't by chance happen to be looking for a 2v2 teammate?
I'm definitely not a hardcore player atm (just started university and all, don't have that much time) but if you're interested in a zerg ally I'd love to try out a few games

[The*Joker]

That'd be awesome, but I currently don't have SC2 installed, I am taking a break after playing +5 hours each day.