Starcraft 2 discussion thread

[Covenant]

Iosef, you're not wrong because your opinion is wrong, you're wrong because you're trying to say that an RTS is so heavily tied to the business of clicking units around that any degree of alteration is a step backwards.

WiC is probably the second best RTS to come out in a very long time. I'd say CoH is the best of the bunch because it accomplishes many of the same things WiC does, but within a more traditional setup, whereas WiC is hopefully the first of an entire sub-genre of RTS games that move us closer to wargames and actual strategic gameplay.

The reason for this high praise is that it doesn't remove the benefit of "micro" behavior (being focused on a soldier, giving them orders, accomplishing an objective with diminished assets through superior tactical planning) while it also provides a gameplay canvas more deep and elaborate than Starcraft has ever even attempted. The strategic gameplay portion, the thing you do AFTER your minerals have started rolling in, is far superior in a game like CoH or WiC. The only way you can achieve this depth of strategy is if you're freed from needing to focus on harvesters, peons or SCVs and can spend time with your attention out in the field.

The real commodity in a game like starcraft aren't minerals, it's time, and focus. You want to force someone to look elsewhere, to lose their attention on one area. This is why you can't zoom out--they want you to retain that aspect of incomplete overview, because THAT is the real battle. You can argue that it is a viable form of gameplay, but individual control is not unique to games like starcraft. Grabbing an infantry squad in CoH and moving them to take cover behind a set of hedges so that you can then grab your armored car to provide cover for their advance against a machinegun nest... that's all MANUAL control of individual soldiers. But the fact that they can respond on their own when you're not watching, or that you're freed to do this without having to worry about someone harassing your resourcers... that's exactly what it sounds like you SHOULD be supporting.

But I'm someone who feels like a RTS game full of military units should be about the military units clashing in the field. Making your 'resources' stem from success in the strategic objectives of taking territory, holding it against the enemy, and so forth... it seems more elegant and more conducive to deep gameplay. Compared to CoH, starcraft seems like an 'arcade' style RTS. This doesn't make it bad but... if you're a real RTS fan, I think you owe it to yourself to broaden your horizons and find some of the deeper, more nuanced products out there.

[Stark]

To a greater or lesser degree both CoH and WiC benefit from heavy micro too; CoH obviously and in WiC there is plenty of scope for micro and you're so focused on your 1-2 groups that it's easy to do.

I can do shit with helicopters that'd make Iosef's head fall off and put the results of battles way outside the DPS/DPS envelope, and Zak is captain armour. Actual skills? Battles shaped by terrain? Oh noes bad game.

Holy shit, SC2 doesn't even have fucking hills.

[Zixinus]

The real commodity in a game like starcraft aren't minerals, it's time, and focus

Yeah, I can attest to that. I was playing Starcraft 2 between sessions of Dwarf Fortress and I noticed that I always wanted to press Space to pause the game and properly order everyone around to do a job.

The "patrol" and "hold position" orders help a bit, but not much. In an unexpected twist during an attack or an incoming attack at defense, the main challenge is to select units fast enough for them to stop attacking defenseless structure XY and start dealing with AIRCRAFT_DEATHMAKER-type unit RIGHT NOW. This is especially annoying when you want some heavy-hitters to stop attacking a building and instead start hurting enemy units, meanwhile I have 4 other squads that I have to manage.

That's sort of the two things I wish there was: formations and selecting priority. I was actually thankful that they made a "hold fire" order for Ghosts, so they would go and launch nukes instead of pathetically trying to take an entire army on their own in open terrain.

I still enjoyed the game though. Just wish the AI could do more than throw semi-random hordes at you.

And yeah, the game sort of gone crazy with giving you unit types. Until you get to Char, I often feel most other maps are just there to introduce you to a new (and likely, mostly useless*) unit type. Towards the end of the game, I wasn't even bothering with infantry.

* Why do I get Vultures and Hellions when I already have a Diamondback? Why the hell do I need two flamer units anyway?

[Stark]

What's sad is a game years ago called Spellforce had a reverse-interface that worked extremely well for those rush scenarios - with units selected, you can click a list of relevant abilities to use on the target, rather than having to track down each unit with a cooldowned special power from a seething mass of units.

[adam_grif]

The real commodity in a game like starcraft aren't minerals, it's time, and focus. You want to force someone to look elsewhere, to lose their attention on one area. This is why you can't zoom out--they want you to retain that aspect of incomplete overview, because THAT is the real battle. You can argue that it is a viable form of gameplay, but individual control is not unique to games like starcraft. Grabbing an infantry squad in CoH and moving them to take cover behind a set of hedges so that you can then grab your armored car to provide cover for their advance against a machinegun nest... that's all MANUAL control of individual soldiers. But the fact that they can respond on their own when you're not watching, or that you're freed to do this without having to worry about someone harassing your resourcers... that's exactly what it sounds like you SHOULD be supporting.

It's definately a viable form of gameplay, because people still enjoy it all the time. There's obviously no reason why there can't be games that continue both things into the future to cater to individual preferences here. I just wish the hardcore SC gamers would quit whining about how other things aren't "real rts" and require "no skill" because APM isn't the arbiter of professional matches. One of the top players on the CoH rankings started uploading videos of him playing via Fraps, and people on the message boards were shocked when they noticed that he rarely used hotkeys.

Also, as a note, you absolutely still do have to worry about resource harassment in CoH in the form of map control, which is what wins and loses matches. They just got rid of the SCVs.

[wautd]

whereas WiC is hopefully the first of an entire sub-genre of RTS games that move us closer to wargames and actual strategic gameplay.

I wouldn't call WiC the first one that does it (Sudden Strike did it years before and I'm pretty sure there's an even older title before that). WiC is the first one that does got a strong commercial breaktrough though.

It's a pity games like CoH, WiC and MoW still get overshadowed by games like Starcraft 1.5 or Command & Conquer 9, but who knows what the future will hold. Not that I'd call the latest SC bad, but it just doesn't cut it for me anymore.

[Stark]

Do you mean Sudden Strike, the game with no actual enemy AI at all? It's -nothing- like WiC; it's more like a tower defence game.

Ground Control is the obvious predecessor, and it's made by the same guys.

It's just sad WiC is still the best looking RTS like three years later.

[adam_grif]

It's just sad WiC is still the best looking RTS like three years later.

Incidentally, 2007 was also when SupCom and Crysis came out. We can now pinpoint the exact year when people stopped giving a shit about pushing hardware

[wautd]

Do you mean Sudden Strike, the game with no actual enemy AI at all? It's -nothing- like WiC; it's more like a tower defence game.

Yup. I'll be the first one to say that singleplayer sucked in sudden strike. That's why I only played it for the multiplayer which was excellent (if you could muster enough patience to find a decent game - oh the horrors of sadistic gamespy support).

[wautd]

double

[ZGundam]

I have the game and am loving the SP campaign.

I would like to try the multiplayer, but as totalbiscut says, I suck at Starcraft 2 in that department.

How would you suggest a novice get started? Play against the AI? Start right into placement? Or do the 5 tries before going to placement?

[AniThyng]

Do you mean Sudden Strike, the game with no actual enemy AI at all? It's -nothing- like WiC; it's more like a tower defence game.

Yup. I'll be the first one to say that singleplayer sucked in sudden strike. That's why I only played it for the multiplayer which was excellent (if you could muster enough patience to find a decent game - oh the horrors of sadistic gamespy support).

Isn't this the game where infantry literally just died in huge swatches when confronted with machinegun fire?

Kohan and its sequel hit the sweet spot for me in terms of what I want in an RTS. It's a shame more games don't follow in its footsteps.

[CaptHawkeye]

Starcraft II is likely to just convince developers that leaving the genre for the outside world is dangerous and horrible and they're better off doing what they did for 10 years. IE: Make Starcraft again. I bet their are still people out there who really think the game even needs its 3D graphics just to reiterate that the whole game is basically decided in the first 10 seconds with some strategically placed clicks on the tech tree.

Oops, turns out some of us don't care about a bog standard RTS just reaffirming how easy it is to rope huge swaths of conservative gamers back into their "safe zone" of game design. I can't wait for the next RTS game to come out and claim it invented Tactical Aid lolololol.

Holy shit, SC2 doesn't even have fucking hills.

Wow, it really is the bloated, rotting corpse of 1998 rising from the fucking grave.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I could have sworn that I did park a tank on a fucking hill today.

*inserts obligatory stupid lol*

[CaptHawkeye]

I could have sworn that I did park a tank on a fucking hill today.

*inserts obligatory stupid lol*

LOL. Snide remark #1!

Yeah the terrain in the game is SOOO GREAT once you realize that unit line of sight is totally irrelevant. Hey, I played command and conquer too, and it's got hills! But guess what? It's totally useless because units can shoot at anything even on the other side of terrain because the game uses obsolete unit range mechanics and bases the game play totally on them. Guess what other game is just like this?

Every screenshot i've seen of the game just disgusts me. The maps look so incredibly boring that I can't even stand to look at them.

Sorry if I'm here to rain on your parade. Don't worry, i'm sure if this game was HALO we'd all be able to recognize its faults. But nah, Starcraft is so holy a nerd cross that we can ignore the most blatant laziness on the developers part and it's ok because it's "nostalgic" or something.

[Covenant]

I have the game and am loving the SP campaign.

I would like to try the multiplayer, but as totalbiscut says, I suck at Starcraft 2 in that department.

How would you suggest a novice get started? Play against the AI? Start right into placement? Or do the 5 tries before going to placement?

Look up build orders online. Watch some game videos on youtube. Focus on getting everything right in those first 3 minutes of play--everything. That's what these games are about. Don't focus on one area too long, keep your window moving, and don't expect a grand strategy to pay off. There are no effective grand strategies in Starcraft, you need to think about ways to force people to look in two places at once.

Since the entire game is micro-based, his units are helpless unless he's moving them. Ergo, if you can make him focus on his front lines AND on his mineral extractors at the same time, he's going to lose a portion of both. In this case your goal is to ruin his resourcers, not his front line, since it'll take longer to recover that mineral loss than it would to rebuild new military units.

Etc, etc, etc. Just don't treat it like you're playing Total War.

[D.Turtle]

I would first concentrate on learning one build order that you like a lot and gives you enough possibilities to branch out to different stuff. Something like Terran 1 barracks, 1 factory, 1 starport.

Then, go out and play 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 games to get some actual game experience.

Micro actually isn't THAT important after a certain point. Its managing the economy that is important. Focus on getting as many resources as possible and simply spending them.

And then simply play lots of games. And avoid 1v1 at the beginning - it sucks until you've reached a certain skill level.

[Thanas]

Hmm, I destroyed the Nydus worms. Fun mission. Anyways, I did the bunker/siege tank thing of course, with perdition turrets. I had a squad of wraiths around to deal with flyers, and 6 battlecruisers to Yamato Kerrigan to death. You need to occupy Kerrigan with expendable units before rolling the battlecruisers in. Bunkers work nicely for this, as do masses of marines.

You do not have the resources on brutal to really build BCs en masse on brutal, I think.

EDIT: Wait, you did the air mission. In that case, did you play on brutal?

[Thanas]

What's sad is a game years ago called Spellforce had a reverse-interface that worked extremely well for those rush scenarios - with units selected, you can click a list of relevant abilities to use on the target, rather than having to track down each unit with a cooldowned special power from a seething mass of units.

Yeah, but sadly Spellforce 1 and 2 tried to combine RPG elements with RTS without giving you actually characters that were fun to play with. I still liked 2, mind you.

I could have sworn that I did park a tank on a fucking hill today.

*inserts obligatory stupid lol*

LOL. Snide remark #1!

Yeah the terrain in the game is SOOO GREAT once you realize that unit line of sight is totally irrelevant.

Have you even played the game? Line of sight is very important. As is placing your long-range units on heightened positions.


*********************
To be honest, I really doubt why there is a reason for SC2 to be more like WiC or so. It looks more like that is based on personal preference - I for one like base building, something WiC completely lacks. Nor do I see anything wrong with people liking a formula now that they liked back then. After all, otherwise nobody of us should read books or watch movies, as they largely have the same formula as well.

[Hawkwings]

No, haha, I played on normal and slept through most of the mission. I did start with 3 battlecruisers though, so I only had to build 3 more.

When you do the air version, make sure you have a mobile group to go kill the zerg air-artillery units, that can attack your missile turrets from outside their range.

[Zixinus]

There is an entire mission (or two even) where you can take advantage of high positions that only special units or medevacs can lift. If you do it right, your ranged units (most terran forces) can destroy melee zerg without risk. Ghosts and Spectres can only nuke sites they are on the same plane or higher.

It's not much but I would like to see where it was promised that Starcraft 2, a sequel, that it will completely reinvent the genre. Seriously, was it seriously promised anywhere? When and where did the developers say that they will completely diverge from Starcraft 1 or even Warcraff 3?

I mean, what did you guys expect? That Blizzard will abandon a successful formula rather than polish it, to a completely new one that is extremely different than previously expected? In an industry where brand names and IPs are highly desired things due to name recognition?

Seriously guys, I understand that you are upset that the RTS genre has stagnated a lot, but so did almost any other video game genre. TPS are all trying to emulate Resident Evil 4, FPSs the last FPS market success (Modern Warfare I think) and adventure games have essentially remained the same (seriously, you can still sell games made with 10+ year old engines).

Starcraft 2 sold because it's Starcraft 2 and that won't convince any developer to try out new things, because even if Starcraft 2 was deeply different than Starcraft 1, the only thing they'll convince developers is that they should ape neo-Starcraft 2.

Starcraft II is likely to just convince developers that leaving the genre for the outside world is dangerous and horrible and they're better off doing what they did for 10 years. IE: Make Starcraft again. I

The industry is geared towards mimicry rather than innovation and there is no magic game that will change that. As long as their games that are Starcraft clones are selling, they will keep making Starcraft clones.

End of video games industry class.

Every screenshot i've seen of the game just disgusts me. The maps look so incredibly boring that I can't even stand to look at them.

Then don't buy the game. Nobody is forcing you to bother with it.

[Meest]

Then why not call it Starcraft 1.5 updated engine edition? Tweaked UI and updated graphics yet holds less interest and playing time than part one. So much to ask a huge game company to put more excitement or content into the game?

[Thanas]

There is an entire mission (or two even) where you can take advantage of high positions that only special units or medevacs can lift. If you do it right, your ranged units (most terran forces) can destroy melee zerg without risk. Ghosts and Spectres can only nuke sites they are on the same plane or higher.

There are many more such missions:
- The final mission on char
- The protoss artifact recovery mission
- The Zeratul prophecy missions (the first one and the one on AIur)
- The two missions with Tosh and Nova - each requires the use of high terrain to win
- the Zero Hour mission on Brutal as well
etc.

Really, on the hard difficulty levels you need to take advantage of the terrain, especially with Ghosts, Siege Tanks and Colossi or otherwise you will just lose too much.

[Stark]

How effective is the game at splitting up new/bad players from hardcore/pro players?

[starfury]

They could always embrace Ubisoft style DRM and DLC, not to mention move to Popcap and facebook games, where the real current growth of the industry is, instead of the Always critical traditional gamers with good hardware, since piracy always affects these games the most or move entirely to consoles, as Both Blizzard and Nintendo make more money then the rest the industry combined, who should they even bother listen the vocal critics of the current games.