hence posted in the off topic area

Sacrilege! Burn the infidel! Torches and tridents all around!

Oooh, boy. There are too many Blizzard fans on the great big Internet for your point to go through, I'm afraid. Blizzard is like the pope and the king all at the same time.

*lowering voice*
The problem is...that I agree with you. Blizzard's games are fun, but really and truly overrated. Warcraft was cartoonish and cute, and I even use Starcraft's Overmind voices for my cell phone ("SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!" ahhh, an SMS message has arrived ), but I have to agree that gameplay wise, these games are more action-oriented than strategy, and their time is a bit up. In fact, even at their prime they weren't really to my liking. I would rather play any 4X game (turn-based or Sins) than fumble with keyboard shortcuts and horrific pathfinding anytime of the day.

But shhhhh, don't say anything!

*raising voice*
Hurray Blizzard! Long live Blizzard! Huzzah! Honestly, Blizzard, your new clothes look just GREAT!

I find SoaSE to be more strategy-involving than every RTS I have played. I have never played SC, and will likely not play SC2 (but I might give it a try), nor have I ever played any Warcraft game (and I don't intend to WoW and W3 aren't my thing).

But, I have played plenty of RTS games, from SWGB and its expansion, to EE and its expansion, to CCG and its expansion, to HW2, to EaW, and the demos of both CC3 and WiC. Oddly I never played any AoE game (but SWBG was based off the same engine). That's a lot of acronyms.

Anyways, I feel that this game really utilizes actual strategy. Here's why: thinking is more necessary. Tactics matter. It isn't mindless "oh, he sent a soldier, so I'll send the described counter, the anti-infantry tank, and then send the super MBT once he sends a MBT to crush my anti-infantry tank. That's ping-pong, and you could get a computer to do it for you (which is essentially what AI players do). In SoaSE, you get to really make use of research, and it you a strong and more oriented in one area (defense for example, as I am), you can still succeed. If you're a researcher or an economist, you can succeed by playing your cards well. Blatant blitzkrieg-style aggression might work sometimes, but doesn't work too well in this (especially against fortifiers like myself). You have to actually think.

This is what puts SoaSE above other RTS games.

Now if they'd only make a freakin' good SW RTS. LA and Stardock working together would be unstoppable.

- PR-0927

Your probably right, Starcraft 2 will probably not live up to expectations. Why? Well its pretty simple, gamers nowadays expect, scratch that, demand perfection. Lets face it gamers are probably some of the most demanding people on the planet. Quite frankly while I would like "The Perfect Game" I am fine with having numerous flawed games spanning several genres and story's over one game. Too be honest every game has its flaws, the people who created them are only human and are bound to make some mistakes. But that also means that people can learn from said mistakes and adapt.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, granted Blizzard is a great game developer but personally I thought Warcraft 3 was a pile of crap and merely a stepping stone towards World of Warcraft, aka the Hero System.

I would like to point out that I as well as many others enjoyed Starcraft to some degree, I personally really enjoyed the campaign and story, however the re-playability was quite poor. Sure there were the 'Use Map Settings' but I'm talking about the core game play.

When you make games via the rock-paper-scissors method it almost always turns into a few key strategies to win, granted there are 3 seperate races in Starcraft but in the end the results are still the same. Ex. At some point people will realize that using Tactic A is really good against Tactic B, so they create Tactic C to counter A and so on. Somewhere along the way certain tactics will be good enough against each other that the only thing between a win and a loss will be how fast you manage to put off said Tactic flawlessly. This is extremely evident in Starcraft and since the key elements of gameplay are going to be the same so ergo it will happen in Starcraft 2, or so I surmise. Yes there will be new and old units and some new functions/abilities but that just means its a matter of time before the above happens.

I personally enjoy games more like Supreme Commander in which you have to constantly adapt to your surroundings to stay on top, such as being required to use more than 1 or 2 unit types the entire game to bludgeon your opponent into the ground, again which is very popular in Starcraft. Ex. Mass Dragoons, BattleCrusiers, Hydras, etc. Perhaps I'm wrong and blizzard has found away in which you will NEED to diversify, only time will tell.

Personally I await this game with interest but I've learned that getting my hopes up for a game just because its a sequel or the next in a series or even a new concept is just a waste of time and thought that could be for better use. Sure a game your waiting for may be the best ever in your opinion but I for one will settle for just be pleasantly surprised when playing such a game.

I'm a gamer at heart as such I will continue to enjoy my time spent and support developers in their endeavors. If I have any enjoyment at all from a game I spent money on it was money well spent, and you never know, just because you don't like a certain game now doesn't mean you wont at sometime down the road when your tastes is games may change. I would also like to point out that I am a Fanboy, a Fanboy of the gaming industry and thats not about to change.

I disagree. There is nothing 'mindless' in Starcarft. It's fast and micromanagement-heavy, but it is not mindless in any shape or form. In fact, you can fortify your base in Starcraft to counter many rushers just as well, you just need to do that MUCH faster.

That's the whole problem - it's way too fast for us 4Xers. That's all.

Sins is finally a sort of RTS we can master and enjoy, as it moves at our pace and incorporates our style of gameplay, only more fluent and streamlined.

That's right. I'd also like to add that before people criticize SC for having less strat/tactics than Sins, they watch replays of very high level games. Aside from the enormous APM, there's a lot of deliberation and method to their strategies. In fact, as much as I like sins, SC definitely has it beat when it comes to strategic options.

Don't let the huge maps and snail pace of Sins fool you. Sins is an awesome game and I really enjoy playing it, but it needs some more depth before it can rise to the strategic level of SC.

I agree. SC and WoW are games that have withstood the test of time; they're
successful by just about any impersonal definition. Calling them bad games really
isn't rational any more. While it's true that Blizzard isn't a very innovative
company, they're great at refining and polishing concepts. Their games have flair and personality. Their support is unrivalled too - no other company bothers to fine-tune their games 10 years after the game's release.

TA was a great game also, but eventually found its niche in the more casual crowd.
It's easy to see why; TA was arguably more accessible (and less micro-intensive) with its more advanced interface, the scale was larger, resources were infinite (making overall gameplay more forgiving), turtling was more viable and so on. SC was more suitable for competitive play with a matchmaking service that actually worked, better balance and focus on multitasking.

Given Blizzard's track record, SC2 will undoubtedly be a finely polished game. It will, however, have some problems gaining a casual playerbase and becoming a viable competitive RTS at the same time. These days people (and reviewers, who can be classified as mostly casual players) want accessibility and convenience, but getting enough distinction between players in a competitive environment also requires emphasis on manual dexterity and multitasking ability. Blizzard will likely take the predictable route of including all modern conveniences in the interface (such as autocasting of abilities) but making it more effective to micromanage stuff manually.

A lot of people here seem to be saying that Sins or other recent RTS games are the future of the genre. Perhaps in the singleplayer market, but Sins for example is currently not very well suited for multiplayer and especially not for competitive play. The team-based RTS gameplay of World in Conflict has potential, but cutting down on micro and multitasking likely won't work in competitive circles.

Memento didn't make as much money as Spiderman 3, so I guess Spiderman 3 is the better movie.

Popularity does not, has not, and never will equate quality. Popularity is a TREND, and Starcraft's success in Korea is exactly that. Everyone has different tastes, so why would one rather small country with a relatively small population have such a high percentage obsessed with a mediocre game made 10 years ago? Why would Koreans like a game more than Azerbaijanians, Georgians, Australians, Americans, English, French, or anyone else?

No really, tell me. What, is it something in the water? No, it's because "well everyone else plays it". Why do people buy trendy clothes, when half of them look like they came from Goodwill? Because "everyone else is wearing them".

If popularity equated quality, then I guess Transformers and the Passion of the Christ were the greatest movies ever made- HAH.

Other things that were popular:

Carrot Top
Britney Spears
N'Sync
Mullets
Lava Lamps
Gallagher
Halo

I dont understand why u hate starcraft and Blizzard so much!
If u dont like them dont buy their game.

And if gamers demand perfection they will get perfection, from Blizzard...

unlike most others or maybe all here, I played SC2 already (@ Games Convention) and I can assure you that it will live up to SC1 easily.
Yes Starcraft is an fast Action-RTS and so is Starcraft II but Blizzard never tried to hide that, Starcraft II isn't revolutionary either when it comes to new game features but all the new (compared to SC1) features it had felt "right" (remember we are speaking about pre-alpha here): MBS, Automining and Ulimited Unit Selection removes most of the repetitive tasks you have to do in SC1 and allows you to spend more time on more fun tasks.
The Point that Starcraft is about fast-clicking/button-mashing is complete fail too, every RTS on high level needs it, both micro and macro focused RTS, because in every RTS there are more things to do than you can actually do (else it could be turn-based as well). The Main Difference between Starcraft/Warcraft and other RTS is that you use the keyboard more than in other RTS and the mouse a bit less than in Supreme Commander for example.
That being said, you can win with 100 APM vs 300 APM in both Starcraft and SupCom and I guess Sins too, because in the end you need strategy and there is lots of strategy in Starcraft as well.

to those guys demanding autocasting in starcraft II, with very few exceptions ((healing and rebuilding interceptors for example) starcraft spells are not suited for autocast as they are just too precious to be potentially wasted by your unit AI, however Starcraft II will have smart cast (if you have multiple caster selected and use a spell only one of the casters will actually cast it not all of them)

@Uranium - 235




Way to go with your straw man argument. At this point, I'm completely convinced you're just a troll trying to incite some flame wars.

The argument hasn't been that SC sold a lot and is therefore making it a great game.

People are saying that SC
a) is well designed game, this is reinforced by the positive critical reviews on major sites.
stood the test of time - people still play it to this day and age. You're also being incredibly asinine to think that ONLY Koreans play it. Newsflash: it's still popular around the globe.
c) sold incredibly well

I should also add that the whole Korean CRAZE for SC didn't take place when the game was immediately released. Nonetheless, it was still immensely successful at all stages of its life.

If you don't like a game, that's fine. However, call a spade a spade. SC is a fantastic game. It's a milestone in RTS history and stands out as one of the greatest games ever made. This is evident by its legacy, its sales, and its reviews.

To fight these facts at this point is basically saying millions and millions of people are wrong. Hype can make a movie a blockbuster, but it can't make a game stay alive for over 10 years. If it stands the test of time, it's a good game. End of story.

@trackiet
no one's saying Sins sucks. The "Blizz" fanboys aren't saying Sins is a bad game. Some people are complaining that it's not deep enough or it doesn't cater to their taste. This is radically different from the Stardock fanboys claiming that SC is a steaming pile, completely ignoring all the reverence it's gotten from the rest of the gaming community. Instead, they like to think that their niche tastes somehow represent what the vast majority wants or that they somehow "know better".

Like we've been saying, if you don't like SC, that's fine. But to call it a terrible game is just stupid.

More ridiculous movie analogies ensue:

The original Night of the Living Dead and The Rocky Horror Picture Show have stood the test of time as well....

Nah, what matters most is that each game has its place. Starcraft is all fine and good, but I'm just happy I have an alternative in gameplay with Sins and Supreme Commander.

Oblivion? I already mentioned Halo or I'd use that.

Again, way to go selectively choosing things you think you have an argument for. Try combining all the points I listed.

Oh wait, you probably can't.

Seriously, you have your head so far up your ass, you're licking your tonsils.

Furthermore, I will say that Halo IS a good game. I hate it. I hate those instant-gratification-frat-boy games. None-the-less, it's very polished, has a lot of modes, and is a great user experience for those who enjoy console fps.

Oblivion was also a good game, but a very different step from the rest of the Elder Scroll Series (again, I didn't enjoy Oblivion nearly as much as the other games, but it succeeded in what it set out to be and people still play it now.).

We get your point already, you don't like SC, Oblivion, Halo, etc.

Unfortunately for you, your tastes and ideas of what constitute a good game are simply niche. Enjoy being bitter for the rest of your life.

Who cares!? There both fun!