The place to go to pout about the universe in a rational way. No intelligence required.
Seabass put it straight. StarWARS additions were ridiculed, StarCRAFT additions will be ridiculed.
Published on April 21, 2008 By SplitPeaSoup In Everything Else

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.


Comments (Page 1)
16 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Apr 21, 2008
SC2 is going to be made to cater to the Korean market. (And why shouldn't they its there largest market for the game.) So yeah I will agree with the assessment you give. I will probably buy it though to play with friends and to play the single player game.
on Apr 21, 2008
lol at least sc2 wont crash.

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

on Apr 21, 2008
So strategy to you is more units with less "micromangement"?


Exactly. Micromanagement is tactics. Or fleet of hand (pun intended, i think).
on Apr 21, 2008
Honestly, who cares if it lives up to the greatest RTS of all time? Those who love Starcraft, like myself, will play it and enjoy it for what it is. Those who don't like Starcraft, probably won't like numero dos. To each his own gentlemen.
on Apr 21, 2008
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.
on Apr 21, 2008
It's all a matter of taste of course... I loved starcraft and warcraft III.. Very good unit balance, cool graphics (for the time, though wc 3 still looks really good).. Excellent plot and great single player campaigns, and for me thats a big one.. Having prince Arthas fall to evil, watching Kerrigan transformed into a slimy, spikey Zerg..
Although i love sins im not sure the game lends itself well to such involving single player, the upcoming single player campaign will probably just be a linked load of skirmishes against the pc..
Still i love both kinds of game, long live rts i say
on Apr 21, 2008
So strategy to you is more units with less "micromangement"?


Go research and find the difference between tactics and strategy. You seriously need the knowledge.
on Apr 21, 2008
Starcraft will wipe the floor. The sales will be massive, once again. A alot of sins people will just migrate to starcraft, so will alot of other people from game like dawn of war etc. They all will enjoy the great game created by the current number one in games development aka Blizzard.

SINS could do it for me for one MAJOR REASON: Game Crashes. No matter what you will say, a game that crashes like this, a game designed for LONG multiplayer games where player investing hours to play. NONONO thats the worst and thus this game has no chance until its fixed. Warcraft/Starcraft never crashed on me like this game.
on Apr 21, 2008
Edit: Silly speller:

"SINS could'nt do it for me for one MAJOR REASON:"
--------
on Apr 21, 2008
Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 are very much not alike. Starcraft 2 is meant to be more like Starcraft 1, Warcraft 3 is... well, I'm a major Blizzard fan and I didn't care for it either. Having to basically play Diablo by running my hero around getting items and levels was pretty silly in an RTS.

I don't think Starcraft 2 is going to suffer from that problem.
on Apr 21, 2008
We are talking blizzard here.... They will do an impressive game
on Apr 21, 2008
We are talking blizzard here.... They will do an impressive game


That would be a first

The problem I've always had with Blizzard's RTS's is that they're too much like going back to the early nineties and playing Dune 2 again. The basic gameplay has been pretty much unaltered since then. I was disappointed with Warcraft III because playing games like Kohan and Warrior Kings had led me to expect a little more complexity from an RTS title. Starcraft II will be up against games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War and the like, and I just don't think the same rock-paper-scissors gameplay of Starcraft will cut it in terms of strategy and depth.
on Apr 21, 2008
Maybe because many people would not agree with the first Starcraft being the "greatest RTS" of any decade.

We are talking blizzard here.... They will do an impressive game


That would be a first...

Seriously, I have never seen what people love about Blizzard so much. While I wouldn't say they make crappy games, they've never made one that could hold my interest... and I am more of an OCD person than an ADD one.

playing games like ... Warrior Kings


Yes, I loved Warrior Kings, I just wished they hadn't abandoned it full of bugs that made it unplayable past the 3rd or 4th mission.

on Apr 21, 2008
I agree... it will not crash.
on Apr 21, 2008
I loved starcraft and warcraft III.. Very good unit balance, cool graphics (for the time, though wc 3 still looks really good).. Excellent plot and great single player campaigns, and for me thats a big one.. Having prince Arthas fall to evil, watching Kerrigan transformed into a slimy, spikey Zerg..


The problem I've always had with Blizzard's RTS's is that they're too much like going back to the early nineties and playing Dune 2 again. The basic gameplay has been pretty much unaltered since then.I was disappointed with Warcraft III because playing games like Kohan and Warrior Kings had led me to expect a little more complexity from an RTS title.


Seriously, I have never seen what people love about Blizzard so much. While I wouldn't say they make crappy games, they've never made one that could hold my interest...


It's all a matter of taste of course...


Indeed, it's all about individual taste.

All that I have heard about SC2 scares me to be honest, hearing the devs saying how much success they had in Korea (with SC1) and they are hoping to make SC2 have that same success. I love Starcraft, it was the first RTS that made me spent a whole night in front of my computer playing it. But I hate most games that are "great" in Korea.

So for me, Starcraft + Korea = Irracional
16 Pages1 2 3  Last