Lets not forget that Blizzards IP was stol... i mean inspired by Games Workshop. They pretty much been ridding on there coat tail since day 1.



WARHAMMERONLYWILLOWNWOWWTFBBQPWNED

Inspired a great game that had nothing to do with GC. I play 40k, gothic and fantasy. I love GC, but you really can't credit them with anything, blizzard picked up starcraft when GC DROPPED THE GAME. They chose to, blizzard just took over after they gave up on it. They didn't steal it either btw. Go look it up.

No, They didn't steal it, Warhammer 40k online will own Wow tho (Yes you heard me, GC is making Warhammer 40k Online, FINALLY)

I will murder THQ if they fuck Warhammer 40k Online up.

I swear to god.

Then again, GC/GW Might not let them.

And Haeso. Hey Smart Guy, Who's your favorite warhammer 40k faction?

I have a suggestion for all Starcraft haters.
Make a game where you:
mine resources
build units and buildings
have buttons like "attack player 2", "harass enemy economy" and such strategic decisions...
The AI should play out everything so you don't have to destroy your mouse clicking so much. It should remove some of the micromanagement...

If that's sarcasm, it's not particularly effective. The exaggeration is pointless and ignores the point (pardon the expression) that some are trying to make (though I do agree, now, with Haeso )

If we're going by sheer awesome factor, I'd say space marines... Powered armor/exoskeletons are just incredibly badass. Shame the mech warrior games never had more to do with elementals... back on topic, fun to play though, it's got to be the WAAAAGH. I miss rules like "Transport holds however many you can get to stay on" however.

And yes, the wh40k is being made by THQ, so I have faith. WAR looks to be pretty bad unfortunately, but unlike WAR, if 40k is done even semi-decently. I'd just play to be a fucking space marine, because again, that's just too cool to pass up.

And 40k V WoW, I dunno which will be the better game, from lore V lore, it's a toss up for me as someone who has loved warcraft since the original, especially the characters, but you have some incredibly well done stuff for 40k as well, not as many characters imo, but the universe itself is just more vivid and detailed in my mind. Gameplay, sci-fi MMOs are traditionally harder to pull off, hopefully this one won't suffer, given the technological edge and that THQ is a solid company, I have faith that in the end 40k should be better. But I can't say if it will for certain. As far as if they were equal gameplay wise, which one would be cooler to play, I gotta go with THQ and GC on this one, 40k is just a better universe.

____________________________________________

Back on the real topic, scII. As I've seen no counter points much less an argument. I'm assuming no one can come up with anything, don't feel too bad though, I could debate for a living if I wanted But seriously, does no one have a single counter argument to continue this discussion, or have you all realized the err in your previous views? I won't let this die just because you're no longer responding. Have you all finally accepted the RTS genre is based on time and the strategy revolves around that time? Or are some of you still to stubborn to accept it but have nothing to refute?

You were all so convinced and self righteous before, not anymore, hmmm? Give starcraft the respect it deserves, as well as the genre itself. This isn't turn based strategy with turns at the same time people, these are RTS games. I'm done here, I've made my points and clearly no one can refute them, so last time, respect the games and the genre, stop trying to make it out to be something it's not just because you want it to. The majority don't, or we wouldn't buy it, but we do.

Not a counterpoint per se, and I do see your side of the argument better now; but I think the main problem main like myself have is not that we want RTS to be TBS, but that we want something in between. In most cases, RTS aren't really real time, they're greatly compressed time. (Technically even TBS are greatly compressed unless people only play one turn a day/week/month/year whatever a turn represents.) So currently, the choices out there boil down to Turn-Based or Real(Twitch)-Time.

The reason this desire for a happy medium turns into intense dislike of StarCraft (as I said earlier, I have no particular hate for it just feel it is overrated and not my "cup of tea") is that so many games that do have a pacing in between the two see speed increases soon after release to satisfy the rather vocal twitch audience. We see game after game that could've been the next big thing for us turned into the flavor of the month for the twitch audience.

The real time part of the RTS name comes from both sides playing at the same time and continously, as oppose to taking turns and during each giving all the orders which are later carried out. It doesn't mean the game is happening in real life time, like one second here is one second in the game universe, its not like that.

And something in between RTS and TBS......... something like Total War? But TW is mostly a hybrid, almost two games in one. I don't even think Sins have any elements of TBS, a slow RTS is nothing alike to a TBS. So please explain what you mean by something in between, and some examples also please.

An RTS/TBS game basically has two elements. One, it needs some sort of campaign map or overview. The other element is... well fighting. Gunshots, rayguns, whatever. The Total War series was one of the few games on God's green earth that seamlessly integrated TBS with RTS.

Starcraft 2 isin't going to be innovative WHATSOEVER. It will basically be the same thing as Starcraft 1 and I LOVE THEM FOR THAT. You guys aren't realizing that they are basically taking one of the greatest RTS of all time and slapping on new graphics and a campaign. You should be totally okay with that. Leave innovation to Stardock and, yes, even the tyrant company EA.

Oh, and if anyone dosen't like Starcraft 1 or even the Total War series and just want to mass units like an avid, ADD xbox 360 player then go back to AOE 3 and shoot yourself

Exactly! It will be different from Starcraft 1 because of new units and abilities, but the feeling will stay the same and that is what matters the most. It will be something like Starcraft 1.5, hehe
I just hope they don't F it up... but nobody is going to force Blizzard to throw it out unfinished, so the game should be awesome when it is released (when it's done)!

I simply meant something slower/larger than the standard RTS fare that allows for little more than twitch play. SupComm had it with the enormous maps that took minutes for ground units to cross unless transported by other units. I don't know if it still does because I haven't had the time to play it (and enjoy it a bit too much anyway), but last I checked there was pressure from a vocal part of the community that couldn't appreciate SupComm for what it was supposed to be and wanted more of the same "cross the map with your 5 unit rush in under 2 minute" kind of play that the majority of RTSes since Starcraft have displayed. (Wow, that was a long sentence). I simply meant a slower RTS where you have to plan more than a few minutes ahead because your units won't be there until then and you can't recall them at the drop of a hat if the enemy snuck by your patrols/scouts (or if you failed to patrol/scout altogether). I haven't played Total War since the Shogun demo, so I can't say if it is what I am talking about but I doubt it.

I haven't bothered reading this thread since my last post, but I suggest people take a look at this article.

http://www.destructoid.com/ten-golden-rules-of-videogame-fanboyism-83502.phtml

Although i prefer the gfx of sc1 over sc2 (from what i have seen so far)
I am sure blizzard will make a great game since they don't release bad games.
They dropped starcraft ghost after spending money on it since they don't like to release bad games is a good example of that. Its not it wouldn't have sold since there are so many fanatics (my self included) that would buy it on the release date since its blizzard.

Battlenet is also pretty good.
There are so many different varities of maps to play in starcraft (Risk, Lotr maps, golem madness, random movies, defense games, survival games, cat and mouse, etc..).
Same goes for Warcraft 3 (Dota, Hero wars, RPGS, etc..).
And Diablo 2 is just plain addictive (used to be).

Last but not least, single player is fun with a great storyline backing it up. I really want to see how the story progresses in Starcraft 2 *spoilers kinda* (cant wait to see how the zerg/protoss hybrid will look like)

Battle.net is the main reason why starcraft is so great. 50,000 people still play sc brood war and sc vanilla on battle.net just because you can create your own games by modding, triggers, and all that good stuff.

The only story line i'm fascinated with in video gaming is portal, gears of war, and half life. Sorry starcraft and sins, but one of you has crappy characters and the other has no campaign *obvious cough*.

the fact that you don't like sc's campaign is one thing, but it is in no way crappy. It has a solid storyline with solid characters that are remembered 10 years since its release.