Starcraft 2 discussion thread

[Thanas]

^no idea.



However, look for a guy named Crota on youtube. He is a great teacher for Terran tactics and freely acknowledges what he did wrong where. Oh, and reportedly he is also the highest-rated Terran player in his diamond league.

[Thanas]

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?

So what do you want then? Improved SP design? The missions are way better than SC1, the characters are also way better animated.

[Stark]

In case they wanted to make a good game? Of course it makes sense to cater to Korea and China (about 70% oh wow is china). Let's all play the same game forever?

[Stark]

That's why casual players want to avoid cunts like him.

The Internet reducing the build tree generation time to a few days is pretty funny, though. SC2 multi is ALREADY nearly a spreadsheet.

[Thanas]

In case they wanted to make a good game?

I think your definition of good is vastly different from the usual one then. Good in your book seems to mean "innovation", whereas that clearly is not the case here. Heck, it is very hard to find any innovation in mass media.

Of course it makes sense to cater to Korea and China (about 70% oh wow is china). Let's all play the same game forever?

I don't really think that SC I singleplay is the same as SC II. Sure, you have the same basic game mechanics, but the way you play it is actually quite different - by which I mean the way the missions are designed. SC1 was mostly "build huge army, crush them" - now we got a lot more events, different approaches to solve a mission etc.

[Thanas]

That's why casual players want to avoid cunts like him.

Are you being sarcastic? Or is there really a subset of players who do not like being told what they are doing wrong?

[Stark]

Actually all the RTS development SC2 deliberately ignore isn't innovation because its already been innovated. He unavoidable success of the game might reset the genre back to the 90s which would be terrible. Hopefully it goes the other way as developers try to becdistinct from than than compete with SC2.

And heavily scripted SP missions are cold comfort.

[Thanas]

Actually all the RTS development SC2 deliberately ignore isn't innovation because its already been innovated. He unavoidable success of the game might reset the genre back to the 90s which would be terrible. Hopefully it goes the other way as developers try to becdistinct from than than compete with SC2.

Oh that, yeah, that I get. However, I am not sure that this was much of the case back then. I think the only comparable Strategy game back then was C&C and it already sucks that much today that I would be quite happy if it emulates Starcraft in the next sequel. That said, old-style RTS seem to be dieing anyway - I am not seeing any new announcements of SC clones right now, I doubt they will misteriously happen.

What game after SC1 did you have in mind when you wrote of developers emulating SC, btw?

And heavily scripted SP missions are cold comfort.

Well, to be honest, I much prefer somewhat exciting and well scripted SP missions on a stable and nearly completely bug-free game to the dreary mess of Supreme Commander/C&C etc. Honestly, this is the most fun I had with singleplayer (I find SC multiplayer to be quite boring, mostly you just use three or four main strategies and either win or loose on them) since a long time ago.

[Stark]

Don't you understand that noobs or casual players don't like being stomped in two minutes by build order automatons?

The same thing happens in FPS games with class builds and map geometry. This is the whole issue leagues are addressing! Lowering barriers to entry and letting top players play top players helps everyone except stat padding griefers.

[Thanas]

Don't you understand that noobs or casual players don't like being stomped in two minutes by build order automatons?

Oh that.

The same thing happens in FPS games with class builds and map geometry. This is the whole issue leagues are addressing! Lowering barriers to entry and letting top players play top players helps everyone except stat padding griefers.

The ladders are quite good - or so my friend just told me.

[Zixinus]

Then why not call it Starcraft 1.5 updated engine edition?

Because they have enough sense to name heir product based on something else than cyanicism?

Tweaked UI and updated graphics yet holds less interest and playing time than part one.

It's a sequel! What did you expect? Especially considering that they're planning on diverging all three campaigns?

So much to ask a huge game company to put more excitement or content into the game

They did. They did so by polishing and expanding what they already did, rather than making everything from scratch again. Like most VG studios do with sequels.

In case they wanted to make a good game?

They did. Starcraft 2 doesn't go too far away from Starcraft 1 and shares some of the flaws, but it isn't unplayable or horrible (unless you didn't like Starcraft 1, in which case, why did you buy Starcraft 2?).

They are under no obligation to reinvent the RTS genre nor have they promised to do so (unless you can show me otherwise). No matter how everyone whines, at the end of the day, they're gonna bet millions of dollars of investment, the name of a recognized IP and a whole bunch of people's jobs on a safe, known formula rather than a completely new one.

Of course it makes sense to cater to Korea and China (about 70% oh wow is china).

Show me stats that most of Blizzard's sales have been from Korea and China. Also, tell me why would people that played WoW, a completely different type of game, would play Starcraft 2.

Let's all play the same game forever?

Welcome to the world of mainstream (and likely, most) video games and the industry associated with it. Where mimicry is the standard practice and innovation is usually punished with failure.

[Stark]

I'm very excited by that element of MP because it's the sort of thing other developers can easily steal and make pretty much all games waaaaaaaay less annoying.

[Stark]

What game after SC1 did you have in mind when you wrote of developers emulating SC, btw?

Off the top of my head there are several types - the nearly direct clones like Submarine Titans, the near-ripoffs like Conquest, and the later 'Starcraft with xyz' like Universe at War. Obviously it's inane to pick small similarities, but the threefold balance (or attempted balance, since SC is about the only threefold balanced game out), the resourcing model, the teching and hard counters were all both big influences on later games and not necessarily great features.

I really want to compare a picture of a hill to what SC2 calls a hill but I can't get a screenshot to work.

[Thanas]

What game after SC1 did you have in mind when you wrote of developers emulating SC, btw?

Off the top of my head there are several types - the nearly direct clones like Submarine Titans, the near-ripoffs like Conquest, and the later 'Starcraft with xyz' like Universe at War. Obviously it's inane to pick small similarities, but the threefold balance (or attempted balance, since SC is about the only threefold balanced game out), the resourcing model, the teching and hard counters were all both big influences on later games and not necessarily great features.

To be honest, I never heard of the first. The second...I am not sure about that one, given that it was part of Robert's large thrend of "let us redesign a lot" which fizzled out due to funding issues. The later one, I never played, but my brother told me it was crap. Truth to be told, these were all crappy games anyway (especially Conquest), so I am not sure whether SC is to blame for that or whether they would have been crap anyway.

Besides, a lot of those can also be said to copy C&C.

I really want to compare a picture of a hill to what SC2 calls a hill but I can't get a screenshot to work.

No, I get what you mean (with the different levels of terrain, of which SC has three at maximum), but I think the point was not that "SC hills are super realistic" but that Hawkeyes "line of sight does not matter" was inaccurate.

[RogueIce]

So, has anyone played with the new map editor? How does it compare to the original StarEdit, which would let you do crazy things like make your mission one long cutscene if you felt like it? How much more flexibility does (or doesn't) it add compared to SC1?

[Stark]

It's not crapness (I mean plenty of SC clones were success and good, just like Warcraft clones) but that the huge success of the game with those new concepts propagated them throughout the industry. After all most people don't play multi - if you can make a SC knockoff people will buy it just for more missions with stupid stories. It's much easier to make a Starcraft clone than an interesting game.

[Thanas]

It's not crapness (I mean plenty of SC clones were success and good, just like Warcraft clones) but that the huge success of the game with those new concepts propagated them throughout the industry. After all most people don't play multi - if you can make a SC knockoff people will buy it just for more missions with stupid stories. It's much easier to make a Starcraft clone than an interesting game.

Sure, but you will always have people emulating successfull games. I mean, how many sudden strike clones/derivatives are floating around the market or were at a time? I think I remember five, not counting the gazillion times the developers themselves just released it as a new game. I mean, even WiC got a clone or so and it sucked as well (at least by a review I read).

As for the concepts, none of them are really that new or unique (Heck, even C&C has three races now) - what the clones will miss is the extensive polish that went on at Blizzard. To be honest, I think the clones would have copied C&C as well had it come out instead of Starcraft (and if it had not been such a dismal failure).

Of course it is easier to just copy SC, but that is pretty much the same in the whole gaming industry. Heck, just look at the various sequels coming out.

[Covenant]

I think his point was that you can shoot through 'a hill' without regard to it. Even in SC1 your units had a tiny, nearly irrelevent range bonus up higher. I heard that this was no longer the case, which seems like going in the wrong direction. It isn't as if Starcraft's core is dependent on many of the other elements it carries with it. You could have made a game focused on economy and time management with it also having things like terrain, ballistic weaponry, and so forth. Basically, that's what Supreme Commander was--and why I found it mostly dull as well.

But with such a huge franchise and basically a blank check to cash in as much as they want on name alone, regardless of what the game actually is, I don't think it woulda' killed them to bring in more innovation. Starcraft itself will probably be played for a long time now by the Koreans, I can't imagine they'll all dump it in short order, since SCII is bound to be filled with minor mechanical inconsistencies that will, along with the issues of LAN, make it less desirable to some markets.

It would have been exciting to see them say "We're having fire affected by Line of Sight now. You can take cover behind low walls, wreckage, as well as your Siege Tanks. Protoss expecially benefit from this with their Shielded Units including the new Protoss Phalanx, and the Zerg swarm means that a wave of Zerglings in front of your mutalisks will force the enemy to blast through them first--leading to extremely dynamic horde tactics." Etc etc.

They could add in terrain and unit cover without changing anything except adding depth. They could do more to give the game a better sense of scale between units without actually changing the balance, as only certain units are really effective against certain foes anyway. Seeing Siege Tanks treated like King Tiger would be exciting, and if it breaks the convention of sending marines to kill them, I don't really see the harm. The rush-centric nature of Starcraft may be an integral part of it's character, but I think there's ways to accommodate that ethos without losing the idea of asymmetric strategy and trading depth for arcade-style 15 minute thrills. You should be able to do both.

[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).

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

Infantry died in huge swatches against pretty much anything. It took 3 shots of the weakest gun to get them killed, nevermind they regularly got instagibbed by heavy machineguns or splash damage from heavy artillery. Then again, you got a huge amount of them and their high vulnerability was part of the charm. Part of the reason why I liked Men of War and WiC as well.

[CaptHawkeye]

Hell I play infantry all the time in RTS games. Especially when they're well designed like in WiC or RUSE. One of the reasons I didn't like Supreme Commander was the lack of "infantry" units which I felt removed a personal element from the game. A purely subjective one on my part.

I appreciate WiC infantry paticularly for taking a unique approach. Then again WiC took a unique approach to everything.

[Stark]

Infantry are often a multi-role element to defeat rock-paper-scissors bullshit. In WiC morons think they useless, but they're a great deadlock breaker in most situations and are good for everything. Even Sudden Strike had really flexible and essential infantry.

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah, I appreciate RTS games that not only model infantrys strength in numbers, but its flexibility too. Infantry should be a unit more guys use. They often don't though because blob spamming them leads to instant death. Most RTS gamers only know how to blob spam sooooo......

[AniThyng]

Yeah, I appreciate RTS games that not only model infantrys strength in numbers, but its flexibility too. Infantry should be a unit more guys use. They often don't though because blob spamming them leads to instant death. Most RTS gamers only know how to blob spam sooooo......

Yeah but in sudden strike the infantry are barely able to take cover and even when they do it just takes one shell landing nearby to wipe them out utterly. Suppression and things like that are not modeled at all iirc

[Stark]

Sudden Strike is a very primitive game. Turns out they should have modeled accuracy?

[Zinegata]

I think his point was that you can shoot through 'a hill' without regard to it. Even in SC1 your units had a tiny, nearly irrelevent range bonus up higher. I heard that this was no longer the case, which seems like going in the wrong direction.

SC1 had a very significant bonus for higher elevation. A 50% evasion chance. It's no longer around in SC2.

I'm not totally against it though, as this bonus was very rarely applied except in one regard: Chokepoints. And chokepoints in SC2 are more or less just as effective as in SC1.