I'm no coolaid drinker... I enjoyed blizzards games not because they were hyped up but because I tried them and thought "Hey this is new and fun"

So shoot me but i'd rather pay for SC2(over Total Annihilation??? seriously what the hell is that) just cause i love the whole story and races and its just awesome....

It's so common nowadays for people to constantly bash blizzard, but is anyone really surprised? It is obviously the most popular game developer around; they have more money than everyone else because their games were more successful.

Also Sins was really fun and I hope demigod blows DoTA's sox off.

RTS's I've liked:

the myth series
the total war series, especially since they added the TBS grand strategic mode.

that's pretty much it for rts's I've *really* liked.

I *pretty much* liked the kohan and dow series' because they stepped away from some of the things I don't like about all the zillions of warcraft clones, making unit strategy a bit more important, focusing the action more on the battlefront and managing units in battle and less on the making of buildings and units while employing 1 of 3 pre-thought out strategies. I hear that company of heroes I think its called is similar in design to the dow series, so I'd probably like it too. Still, however, I liked the myth paradigm even better, but no one's tried to bring it back that I'm aware of, ever, while its developers went off to spend their lives working on halo and its descendants.

I did also like majesty. I might like this DOTA people talk about as well, but haven't tried it yet.

I do like sins, single player, but I almost don't even think of that as an rts, and I really ought to play it some more, I keep forgetting I have it until the weekend is almost over. Not this time! I will play you this weekend sins!

For the most part, its TBS for me. Eagerly awaiting disgea 3 to be released. My whole reason for finally getting one of these newer console systems. I'll probably spend a year playing through it.

I agree with the OP:

There's no way Starcraft II will measure up to Company of Heroes.



Or we could make a game where each unit has a "shoot" button. Every time you want the unit to fire, it must be clicked on.

MEH, thats what i think of when i play Starcraft. wheather its little 12 yeAR OLDS SPAMMING ZERGLINGS BEFORE YOU EVEN BUILD A BARRACKS (i wonder if anyone gets this reference)or those protoss players that literally make an impregnable definisive spot or evet the terrans that continnualy spam wraiths,marines,or nukes. Meh, that is my attitude toward "The greatest RTS in the past decade" MEH!!!

SC2 will be riding off the hype of its predecessor as well as the fame of its developers.

if theres anything to talk about it has to be Halo Wars or Tom Clancy's End War. at least those try to challenge the status quo. End War promises to be exactly what cscoles might want, which is actual command rather than micromanagement on the scale of other games through the X-box 360 mic set.

Halo Wars promise a cool and smooth flow of battle (reminicent of Rise of Nations:ROL)which focuses more on epic battles than base building, allowing players to raise armies faster than you can say Beans and Beef!

Star Craft II will be noting compared to Red Alert 3.

There is a difference between bashing blizzard, and bashing a stupid decision (twitch/reflex/micro based "RTS" game for SC2, instead of taking advantage of the new ideas floating around to make a newer, better game).

I'm not buying SC2 until it goes down in price -- and then *only* because I want the storyline.

I agree with what you're saying.

you people want an epic RTS? just wait untill the Dawn of Victory mod comes out

I hate Blizzard.

No single game is for everyone. Starcraft seems to not be for you. If you get spammed by zerglings before you build a barrack, you suck at playing terrans and need to improve. There is no such thing as a impregnable defense line in Starcraft, just some are harder than others to break. Wraiths, marines and nukes have counters, learn to use them. Its really is the greatest RTS of the past decade. You just dont like RTS games.



What sequel doesn't do that?



You complain about spamming zerglings in SC and yet you think that raising armies faster than you can say Beans and Beef is a good idea for a fun game?

And really, RTS for consoles are a joke. They are infants compared to the men on PCs.

There are only two things that worries me about SC2.

First is that they are making SC2 and Diablo3 at the same time, I fear they might rush a few thing or not give both games the kind of polish they deserve. Really, making two of the most anticipated games sequels at the same time, thats enourmous pressure

Second, I hate Korean games. Just hearing SC2's devs talking about taking into account the korean market frightens me. I sincerly hope they do what was done with Metal Gear Solid 2 many years ago, the japanese devs said "screw you" to the asian market and designed the game specifically for the US market. We all know how awesome that game was.

-WyvernRyder

No, no, and no. Just because the rules are different (upkeeps) doesn't mean the genre changes. The hero is linking to RPGs. Yes. But is the game real time? Does it involve army management with tactics
..What's the answer to that?

Please the bold part loudly and clearly: Just because I am not fond of a game's gameplay does not change its genre


RTS games will have micro involved in a lesser or larger scale, unless the developer fails to see the massive possibilities RT brings to gameplay. And yes, those "massive possibilities" include micro-management.

Some people are moaning and groaning about how some games including Blizz Games are bought just due to the hype fans create about them:

NO. Just because a game is hyped up this DOES NOT mean it will succeed.
If something is hyped up, initial (week1 and 2) sales are increased. Nothing more. If it lives up to what it is expected, like most if not all Blizzard's games, then the hype just helped make a huge success. If not, the game fails to succeed.

The OP bought WC3 because he liked SC:

Most gamers check out reviews before buying the game. Just because I liked Dungeon Siege, doesn't mean I will also like Supreme Commander. Heck it doesn't even mean I will like DS II.

Now, frixion isn't being bashy or mean, think about it with a calmer head, and you will see I'm right.

Starcraft was a good game, I don't like RTS too much because they pretty much revolve around 'Hey watch me learn a better build list then you and build S**T loads of stuff faster than you.' The RTS games I really like are the ones without base building like World in conflict and The Total War games(my favorite gaming series their like the old table top games without having hundreds of minitures all over the floor or complex rule books to memorise)

Of course RTS games are good to pass the time and I'm a sucker for RTS single player campaigns. I didn't even like the storyline for Starcraft -it was too predictable- but i still played it through several times.

But the reason, I think, it was such a big success was that it but lots of differnt elements together and did them all to a decent standard. That beign said i personally thought that Dark Reign(DR) and Total Annihaltion (TA) where released a year before Starcraft where IMO better games and it always suprised me that NOBODY ELSE seemed to argree with me.

Almost nothing that was in starcraft that was totally new. So there where three unqiue faction. Great yeah nobody else had THREE unqiue factiion but PRETTY MUCH EVERY GAME HAD UNQUIE AND BALANCED FACTIONS. Even the old C&C had unquie factions.

And people who say that the Blizzard logo doesn't help it sell know nothing of business. Ask your self why anyone would buy a £60 white nike top instead of the same white top without the logo for £5?

I do think that the game will be a let down for a lot of people because it looks to me to be a carbon copy of starcraft with better graphics and a few gameplay changes, which is OK but its hardly going to rock the RTS world. "Yes another rock,paper, scissor click fest with big explosions and prettty stuff to look at"

Though I think Blizzard won't meet expectation, there not EA(have you seen what they did to C&C multiplayer?) so the game should be at the very least reasonable.

I will be getting a copy of it(whens its a bit cheaper then £40!!!) and I hope i'm entirely wrong, but I don't think i will be.

 

SC didn't just do it to a decent standard, they did it to an excellent (at the time) standard. Granted, you can take any one single element of SC an bash it as being simple, but take the game as a whole, with all its features, and it becomes an excellent game.

No, C&C did not have unique factions, each faction just had different abilities. But SC factions did not only have different abilities, they also had completely different buildings requirements, buildings themselves were different from each race, and also each race had nothing alike to one another in terms of appearance. About the only thing they have in common in SC is that all three requires minerals and vespine gas. Each have completely different strategies to them and yet the balance in the game is perfect.

C&C just have humans with rifles and tanks with different abilities and some unique support units. They build bases the same way, the buildings are basicly the same, just with different names and looks. Barracks, Factories, etc.

But in SC Terrans buildings have nothing in common with Zerg's or with Protoss'. The Terrans build in a certain way and have barracks and factories and SCVs, Zerg build atop of the purple thing (i forgot the name) and zerlging pools and hydralisk dens and larvae, protoss must build within pylon range and have gateways and probes. That level of diversity between races is found in few games.

One thing that most haters forget about SC is one of the reason they hate it. SC is extremely simple to learn to play. But is extremely difficult to master. Some people hate SC because they find it childish compared to TA or the Total War series (which they themselves are in a league completely different from SC). Yet its that simplicity why SC is considered the greatest RTS of its time.

You know...

No matter where you go, you find more people who like Blizzard than dislike it. Even on EA Forums.

Funny, isn't it?

I myself, am a big Blizzard fan. But I only recently bought their games, I hate WoW and I think the online StarCraft platform sucks totally. But hey, it's seriously outdated, what do you expect?

There's one thing I don't like... speculation. Wait for the game to come out and either pirate it (for trial purposes only!) or get the demo. If you like it, buy it. End of.

Why for trial? Blizzard can more than afford the losses. For every blizzard game pirated, five more Koreans will start praying to blizzard, those faggots. If I pirate something, I keep it.