StarCraft 2?

[TheBrew]

but I guess in the end most of us are here for the multiplayer.

I've had access to the multiplayer for a couple of months on the beta. Tried a few matches-----so outmatched it's not even fun. You *really* have to have a firm grasp of the unit counters to be effective, and there's no way to gradually learn what all the units can do with only MP available.

Singleplayer is of much more interest to me for now.

Me too, but I have no interest in paying $60 for only half a game. I will play it eventually, but MP was sooo... unfun and such steep learning curve that it took all of the fun out of it. I will probably get it when Blizzard reduces the price to $50 in 4 years.

 

[Kelthaz]

but I guess in the end most of us are here for the multiplayer.

I've had access to the multiplayer for a couple of months on the beta. Tried a few matches-----so outmatched it's not even fun. You *really* have to have a firm grasp of the unit counters to be effective, and there's no way to gradually learn what all the units can do with only MP available.

Singleplayer is of much more interest to me for now.

I imagine Multiplayer will be much more balanced for lower skill levels after release. I have no proof of this, but I imagine the Beta was populated by the more die hard SC2 players who already knew how to play at a high level. You should find plenty of newbies post release.

 

[Corran Horn]

By the time I have enough free time to play it it'll probably be $20 cheaper so I'll wait.

I have no interest in Internet or LAN play so I ignore that argument.

 

[Yoda]

Multiplayer in Warcraft 3 was a complete riot, which is why I picked up Starcraft 2. I never really got into the first one. I was mad that it just looked like reskinned Warcraft. I wanted it to be about... you know... battles in space. Not aliens duking it out on planets.

I'm over that now... I tried out a couple of 'novice' online games last night and it was pretty rough. I think I'll check out the single player next to help learn the units.

So far I'm pretty unimpressed with the graphics. The game didn't look great in youtube videos, so I kind of expected it, but considering that it's what... 7+ years since Warcraft 3 hit? I expected a little more. The poly count is of course higher, and there are some nice animations... just with everything cranked to ultra I'm not blown away.

I miss the heroes and upkeep from Warcraft already... then again maybe upkeep exists once you click the 'skip newb games' button, since it was talking about having simplified rules.

I'm at the stage where I can't really tell what building is what, or what unit is what, which is a bit frustrating. I think it doesn't help that I didn't play the original. I think here is where the single player will make itself useful.

I'm still not expecting much from the storyline. Let's face it, stories in RTS games don't work that well. It just doesn't integrate with the gameplay. War3 had these goofy little zoom in cut-scenes that didn't do much for me. The heroes added some personality... but it's just too detached. If anything I think the over the top cheesiness angle that C&C went with makes more sense. The opening cut-scene for Starcraft 2 didn't come off well to me at all. The dude they were releasing had muscles that made the guys from Gears of War look like they hang out on TrekBBS all day.

Single-player also suffers because AI sucks. So AI needs to cheat to pose any sort of challenge whatsoever. Maybe it's true that most people who buy these games never touch multiplayer, but that really seems like it's missing the point.

Warcraft 3 had a lot of depth to its strategy, you could be successful without being a huge actions per minute junky. I don't know if that's the case here, I'm hoping it is, and I can't wait to find out.

 

[Lindley]

Multiplayer in Warcraft 3 was a complete riot, which is why I picked up Starcraft 2. I never really got into the first one. I was mad that it just looked like reskinned Warcraft. I wanted it to be about... you know... battles in space. Not aliens duking it out on planets.

StarCraft 1 was much more complex than WarCraft 2. For starters, it was one of the first RTS games in which the units on different sides were not just re-skinned versions of each other, but actually required a different strategy for each faction.

It also did far more with the Hero concept than WC2 did, although not to the extent than WC3 took heroes. Mostly, the heroes in SC1 were souped-up but otherwise normal units, and were mainly present as a storytelling tool.

What really elevated SC1 for me was the focus on the characters' motives and loyalties, and the real sense that you were fighting at their side for an ongoing purpose. Plus, Jim Raynor is pretty much the man.

 

[Yoda]

Multiplayer in Warcraft 3 was a complete riot, which is why I picked up Starcraft 2. I never really got into the first one. I was mad that it just looked like reskinned Warcraft. I wanted it to be about... you know... battles in space. Not aliens duking it out on planets.

StarCraft 1 was much more complex than WarCraft 2. For starters, it was one of the first RTS games in which the units on different sides were not just re-skinned versions of each other, but actually required a different strategy for each faction.

The original C&C did that around the same time Warcraft 2 came out. So that advance didn't impress me.

It also did far more with the Hero concept than WC2 did, although not to the extent than WC3 took heroes. Mostly, the heroes in SC1 were souped-up but otherwise normal units, and were mainly present as a storytelling tool.

Right, but that's in single player. It takes quite a bit of work for a game to really draw me into a story, and RTS as a genre has always pretty much failed. RPGs and FPSes seem like infinitely better vehicles to move a story along.

What really elevated SC1 for me was the focus on the characters' motives and loyalties, and the real sense that you were fighting at their side for an ongoing purpose. Plus, Jim Raynor is pretty much the man.

Why the hell am I on here talking, time to load up the single player of SC2 and actually give it a chance

 

[jake_16_smith]

I played both before and I both love them, they are both RTS but the simplicity of SC2 make it more fun to use and lots of strategy can make. Well its just my opinion..

 

[Lindley]

The original C&C did that around the same time Warcraft 2 came out. So that advance didn't impress me.

Not to nearly the same extent.

 

[Rii]

Ugh, my first sour note with the game: that 'clear the Zerg infestation' level was fucking interminable. Nice concept of attacking by day and defending by night, but just way too many buildings to clear.

Love the 'Lost Vikings' arcade game in the Cantina. Also the Night Elf pole dancer.

 

[firehawk12]

I wasn't going to buy the game but got caught up in the hype. It's very familiar, but then again, I know I will never play a real online match.

I'm hoping all the fun custom games come up and that most people decide to not charge for makes. I really do miss Zerg tower defense and all the RPGs.

 

[Commander Vaughn]

This wait for a damn registration email is pretty insufferable. I tried registering the product this morning, and battle.net was down. Then it comes back up, and I can't get a registration email to "confirm" my account. Almost four hours later, I still can't play. So I can't play a game I shelled out $60 for.

It's bullshit. This is how a paying customer is treated? I thought Blizzard was above this kind of garbage. I guess I have Activision to blame...

 

[firehawk12]

I guess you can't blame them for trying to stop piracy - although it's apparently already been pirated, so what can ya do?

But yeah, they probably should have anticipated that their registration server would get hammered. I'm lucky I registered my old copy of Starcraft 1 a year or so ago so I had my account ready to go.

 

[Commander Vaughn]

I don't really blame anyone for trying to stop piracy, but the people who really want to pirate the game will get around this. In the end you just piss off the people who actually give you money.

Not sure it's a sustainable strategy. Sure Activision-Blizzard is big, but pull too much stuff like this and your sales will inevitably suffer. Hoops are a bad thing to make people jump through, make your customers jump through too many and you won't keep them for long. And it doesn't make it any less frustrating. I'm still sitting here on a day off with a $60 coaster.

 

[Yoda]

The original C&C did that around the same time Warcraft 2 came out. So that advance didn't impress me.

Not to nearly the same extent.

Because they had some units in common? Big whoop, that makes sense considering they're both human factions. They were definitely different enough to where you needed to alter your tactics playing either side. NOD benefited from hit and run tactics (especially with those fucking rocket bikes), whereas GDI had big deadly tanks... the game wasn't balanced that well, but Starcraft's three faction system is evolutionary at best, and hardly praise-worthy.

 

[Lindley]

The original C&C did that around the same time Warcraft 2 came out. So that advance didn't impress me.

Not to nearly the same extent.

Because they had some units in common? Big whoop, that makes sense considering they're both human factions. They were definitely different enough to where you needed to alter your tactics playing either side. NOD benefited from hit and run tactics (especially with those fucking rocket bikes), whereas GDI had big deadly tanks... the game wasn't balanced that well, but Starcraft's three faction system is evolutionary at best, and hardly praise-worthy.

Evolutionary, yes, but a significant step. The three sides don't even have similar base-building strategies, never mind combat.

As much as I loved C&C1, there's a reason that game didn't become the Korean national sport.

 

[Yoda]

Not to nearly the same extent.

Because they had some units in common? Big whoop, that makes sense considering they're both human factions. They were definitely different enough to where you needed to alter your tactics playing either side. NOD benefited from hit and run tactics (especially with those fucking rocket bikes), whereas GDI had big deadly tanks... the game wasn't balanced that well, but Starcraft's three faction system is evolutionary at best, and hardly praise-worthy.

Evolutionary, yes, but a significant step. The three sides don't even have similar base-building strategies, never mind combat.

As much as I loved C&C1, there's a reason that game didn't become the Korean national sport.

Because you had to emulate it a LAN over the internet in order to play it online? Because it was 1995?

 

[Lindley]

Since I've recently been re-playing C&C1 and The Covert Operations, plus Red Alert 1 as well as its two expansions, I think I'm qualified to say: fun games, not as good as Starcraft 1 by a ways.

 

[firehawk12]

Well, really, you can only compare C&C to WC2. That said, by far the closest that C&C has come to at least matching the 3 team balance of SC was Generals.

Of course, I wish that SC2 borrowed from the new Relic tradition of RTS, but it's understandable why they wouldn't want to make too many waves.

 

[Destructor]

There's no cover. I am never going to play this game.

 

[Jono]

Wasn't really into the first game, was more into WC2 around that time as a mate and I use to play over dial up and he was really into making custom maps, which added a lot.

For this I'll wait for the reviews and if they are good I might get the game in 6 - 12 months when it is being sold at 1/2 price, which is what I did recent for Dragon Age and will do in several months with Mass Effect 2...I do what I can to avoid paying full price for games from a store here in Oz, too expensive.