I don't know how you can rate gear of wars storyline higher than starcraft. Some monsters who live underground want to kill all humans doesn't really go that far.

Uranium 238 - PLEASE STOP SWEARING !!!! Its offensive

Umm i meant Sins of a SOlar empire has no campaign... and the characters in starcraft were a bit sketchy. It made every character turn on each other so you pretty much hate everyone. Protoss turns on itself and dies away... terran has a civil war AGAIN and dies away... and zerg kills everything and hides for 2 years (A.K.A dies away).

You hated characters != all other gamers hate sc characters. I rather enjoy the the predictable backstabbing and story development

Strange, it doesn't offend me.

Yes, the characters were so great in Starcraft, like the GENERAL who is your 'enemy' for about two missions before he surrenders his entire command to you at the drop of a hat. Get real.

You happen to have the wrong isotope

Haha uranium 235 is as potent as a water pistol. Or am i wrong... anyways! CHaracters in starcraft 2 anger me. Jim Rayner is a hapless drunk!?!? I thought he was the good guy... *sniffle*

Mabye so but it offends me and others, you'll notice a distinct lack of it in the forums here compared to other places, of course we all swear but it was getting so often in your earlier posts i kept noticing it again and again, so, please turn it down uranium 235

I was 14 years old when i first played Starcraft, and I liked the story very much. I still like the characters and general storyline. Few decisions of some characters are kind of stupid, but storyline in the big picture is great, every unit have some importance, role and personality (unlike most of the strategies where there is few good units and a ton of crappy units that you never build).

p.s.
1.1. I don't mind when someone is saying that he doesn't like Starcraft because there is too much micromanagement and he doesn't like that kind of play.
1.2. I don't like Supreme Commander for many reasons, from economy to D-gun and more.


2.1. I hate when someone say that Starcraft is a bad game because there is too much micromanagement and that blizzard should cut the micromanagement down in Starcraft2.
2.2. I never said when they were developing Supreme Commander "It will suck because economy in TA sucked and it will suck in SC also" and I didn't call people that disagreed with me "fanboys" or other such names!

Actually, Blizzard is trying to cut down micromanagement in SCII...they say something about for the games to appeal to both casual and hardcore gamer...make sense to me...

After reading over this thread in general (although I'm sure I've missed some if it) I can't help but bite, and seeing as this is my first post here, it also serves -- for me at least -- a lot of irony; namely for the fact that my first post here should be about the first game I truly "fell in love with", obviously being Starcraft. And to think that this isn't even a Starcraft forum! *shock*

What I just can't seem to understand is all the hate-on for SC that I've read in this thread and even seen in other forums, as people talk about, dream about or simply just contemplate SC and its new upcoming offspring. Mind you a lot of this boils down to the "different strokes for different folks" camp and is ultimately opinion based on age, personality and background. I'm admittedly biased toward the older more classic titles like Diablo, SC, WC(2/3 - never played 1, Icewind Dale/Baldur's Gate and so forth. Not just because I still play them today, but also because they serve to remind me of a time when gaming was classic, fun and full of nostalgia. Yes, there are many great games today too (seeing as I'm hopelessly addicted to SoaSE, and now ToTA) that can breed the same kinds of memories and nostalgia, but that's the whole point. Nostalgia of the countless hours of time you lost to these games, and the memories brought back to life again. How many of you have re-installed that same old game sitting in a closet after playing a newer title? Even now, after playing ToTA, I've started to play Alpha Centauri again, and just like SC is another game that I will always consider among the top games of all time. By today's standards, these games may be pixelated and blocky, but I don't care -- nor do I see them that way anyway, but that's beside the point -- as that's not why I play them. I play them because they're fun.

Gee, wait, there's a novel thought... play a game because it's fun. I'm sorry to say that there are a lot of people that seem to have lost the appreciation that brings, for whatever the reason may be. Granted, I don't really blame them for it, I blame the companies that continue to push out tripe these days and lure people in. The companies that don't care about gameplay or story, that only care about what new shiny graphics they can pile on to entice the masses and make a buck. The companies that release buggy and unstable games onto the public, many of which are sequels to games that were themselves buggy and should have been fixed long before, yet turn around and blame piracy or hardware for their problems. The companies that take classic franchises and completely ruin them under their new corporate umbrella (I'm looking at you EA). I could go on and on, the point is, I'm tired of all the games that are all flash, no substance. Even more so I'm tired of companies that don't care about gaming, and what it means, namely as I stated before... fun.

So is SC perfect? Absolutely not, but ultimately and honestly, what game ever can be? Humans are imperfect creatures, and it doesn't take a master philosopher or metaphysics expert to interpolate that imperfect people will create by definition, imperfect games. There were parts of SC that I thought could have been done better, but that by no means equates the game being crap. It means those are things that can be improved upon, which I'm sure Blizzard will do in spades with SC2. People have said that SC2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, or innovate. Why should it? Innovation is not the key to a good game, since if that were the case I'd say 98% of the games these days are crap. What matters is gameplay, and ultimately... yep, it's that word again, that they're fun. So what if Blizzard isn't bringing anything "new" to the table with SC2? (which I disagree with anyway, seeing as I'm a Protoss player, and am eyeing up the Zerg with a LOT of interest at this point) They don't have to. They are taking (IMO) the greatest game of its genre of all time, and bringing it back to life, including the memories and nostalgia along with it. What matters more than that? Will it have any bugs? Probably, but nothing show-stopping, and you know Blizzard won't release the game until it's ready. Will it have any unseen balance issues? Probably, and again, Blizzard will patch them as they crop up, just like they always did (and still do to this day) for their other RTS titles.

Sure, SC2 won't be perfect either, but it will be entertaining, it will be sweepingly nostalgic, and it will be fun beyond words. And in the end, call me crazy, but that is all that matters most.

Amen to that!

Oh, where do I start? Micromanagement and strategy. This is a matter of race preference in StarCraft. As my nom-de-plume implies, I play Zerg, which is the most micro-management intensive of the StarCraft races. I find there are those who get "lazy" playing the Protoss, and just make an army and send it (carriers...). It is actually fun to show, often creating shear surprise, that due to some slick micromanagement with the Zerg, a lazily sent (and usually invincible) army will fall to the "hard to control" Zerg. It takes "skill" to manage some racial attacks/defenses, and does not detract from the strategy of the game. StarCraft - as a STRATEGY game - derives its variety of play by the differences in the races (including the amount of micromanagement needed for each race). The race differences allow the game to appeal to many levels of players, and allow players to be competitive (using race units that do not require much micromanagement) that otherwise would have bad experiences while ramping up their game play versus other, more experienced, players. Blizzard North does an excellent job of play balancing, and in using the rock/scissors/paper type of design in how combat units compare to one another. Nearly infinite possibilities arise, and also the ability to create new and unique and evolving strategies for tactical combat. After years of play, there are STILL new twists that amaze (and if you are a StarCraft fan - you might even scoff at my mention of some of them unless you saw it with your own eyes). The real time strategy genre is a mix of Strategy and Tactics. To remove tactics would lessen the game.

I wonder if SC2 will stand next to other recent RTS games, such as Relic's Warhammer 40k Dawn of War, or even better, Relic's Company of Heroes. I will likely get SC2 because the first one is so close to my gaming heart, but everything I've seen... just seems like updated graphics for SC. Will they implement cover, destructible environments, squad tactics, etc. that appear in other games out there (such as the aforementioned Relic games)? Will their air vehicles float like in SC or have to land like in Rise of Nations? I hope they will do all of these and more. But I have my doubts...

StarCraft will always hold a special place in my mind!

Eh... what I heard in an interview, was that they definitely have to make it appeal to the Korean hardcore gamers, because they are a huge market. That doesn't sound very good at all.

Koreans, and hardcore Starcraft multiplayer gamers speak of APM - Actions Per Minute. This basically translates to clicking speed. Someone who has greater manual dexterity has an advantage. In my Starcrafter days, I had heard of tournament players with over 400 APM.

The plot of Starcraft was excellently crafted -- no debate there AT ALL. But the gameplay side of it, especially multiplayer, has a adrenaline rush, "twitch" aspect to it that I don't like.