Starcraft 2: a step backwards in gameplay?

Siege is fun though, if they could have infinite ammunition for siege weapons/cannons like in napoleon total war, and if the walls could actually be totally destroyed rather than just a small hole in it.

 

yeah, but urban combat with phalanxes or legions tends to not work so well. light infantry works a lot better, but my armies tended to consist of legions, cav, spear aux, and archer aux, and that's about it. I only had spears to kill elephants and cav, the archers just harassed, and the legions + cav did classic hammer & anvil, ala alexander. Works in reality, worked in the game.

 

I love the Beta.

Haters gonna hate.

 

i thought it was a boring era too at first but it has turned out to be very interesting and one of the best in the total war series.

 

im also looking forward to that

 

Yes, definitely looking forward to Civ 5. And this is a good example of changes in gameplay, as much as you can do with TBS, to improve the game. Civ 3 was a fail IMHO, but Civ IV rectified that.

Ruse looks interesting, but played the beta for a bit, and seems like it has a big learning curve.

I'm sure I'll still play SC2, hoping the single player campaign will be in depth and fun, and not too in your face, kick your butt, from the beginning. And chances are my multiplayer will be limited to a few friends that like to play like I do, and has similar skills to myself.

 

SC2 so far is fantastic. I'm an RTS fan but you cannot compare Starcraft II to say CoH or Dawn of War II. Just b/c they're RTS you can't compare. DoWII is a great game, but that's more RTS/RPG. It's like comparing Oblivion to CoD, b/c they're both FPS.

SC2 feels a lot like SC1 but that's fine with me. Deep down there there's a lot of changes for the better besides a prettier graphics engine. Even b.net 2.0 update alone is worth it lol. You want new style gameplay? Try out another game, say Dawn of War 1 or some of the new RTS's that have come out. None play like SC and that's what makes SC unique.

 

Again, the point is not that it should be LIKE them, but that it should bring something new to the table. There's zero innovation that I've seen so far from SC2. Those were just examples of RTS games that offered improved and different gameplay that seemed to work well.

 

I'm betting we'll see some innovative "use map setting" games though! =)

SC helped ignite the Turret Defense genre, WarIII with DOTA. I can bet SCII will have some interesting gametypes.

*edit*
In my opinion, I don't think SCII was changed up say like DoW --> DoWII because of the huge following it STILL has 12 years later and the anticipation it has created. If Blizzard truly wanted to be new and innovative, I feel they would create a new IP for that and try their hand in that rather than be criticized greatly - and I know this would have happened if they had changed up the entire gameplay structure on which the original was known for. Great macro/micro with superb and balanced multiplayer. So sure it's valid to be upset that SCII isn't something totally new or innovative, but I think one should save that for a Warcraft IV or another title.

Plus, like I've mentioned, battle.net 2.0 is an awesome step above any other RTS's multiplayer setup. It makes it extremely easy to find friends, add them, chat, join games, whisper, build a community profile and share it, etc. A strong community will keep this game going for a long time. That + 3d graphics will be worth the $60 price tag upon a solid foundation of gameplay.

 

Yeah Starcraft's story makes me want to know more about Halo's Universe as well hahah

Terran= Humans
Zerg=Flood
Protoss=Covenant
XelNaga= Forerunner

Of course i like to know what will happen to SC2 story Single Player mode for me

 

Yeah, that's where I'll probably spend most of my time. I'm just miffed that they're releasing single player as three $60 games. Maybe they will offer a discount to existing owners for the additional single player content.

For all those seasoned multiplayer vets, I just don't like having maxed out battlecruisers sitting on my door steps while I'm pushing out siege tanks. LOL.

 

I'm enjoying the beta. Finally my friends are in too which is great. Now if they can get the game to not crash on exit.

 

even during the first sc, i considered the gameplay kinda standard for its time.
what it had going for it was excellent balancing. playing as the three factions really made you adapt/use different strategies for sure. i think this is the endearing trait of SC that a lot of other rts'es have a hard time emulating.

but for me the best part of SC1 and almost all other blizzard games has been the storyline. my, that story kept me playing just to find out what happens next. it was really well told and well executed even if it was a ripoff of warhammer 40k of which i am a fan of.
the same was tru for all blizzard games for me. gameplay was good but the storylines were really excellent. and for a single player like me that was the most important thing.

 

Yeah, I agree that it was the great balance among asymmetric races what made starcraft quite unique. I hope it is maintained (the balance) but with a few more (innovative) things. Let's see the final release.

 

I don't care because I'm not even buying it for the RTS mechanics, I just want to play the campaign once and then around in the amazing map editor and play custom games all day.

A bit crazy though how a game/community can make me so excited for the expected user generated content that I don't even care about the rest of the product.

 

Play DoW, learn about the Warhammer 40k universe, think that 40k ripped off Starcraft, then learn the grim dark truth.

 

I hope there will be "expension set" available too, but each campaign is estimated to last 30~60 hours so if that holds up, 3 separate games is justified imo. $60 is already what you pay for console games. I'm still wondering why most PC games aren't $60 yet.

 

^ b/c of publishing/licensing fees or something like that

 

Yeah, each console game sold a good portion goes to Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. PC games, it's all about the publisher and how greedy they are. TBH, I don't know why they don't sell just the single player campaign for the other two and not include multiplayer so you're not in effect paying for the multiplayer aspect three times.

 

htwingnut - that would be a sweet idea.. and just have the new units etc patched in through b.net for MP. Campaigns separate.

 

Novel idea, as I'm sure there are many others like who plan on buying SC2 just for campaign and not planning on playing MP.

 

Sony, for example, only makes about $7 / $60 PS3 game. It's a "good" portion, but not huge. The store probably makes $20-30.

 

I'm sure they'll add an "expension pack" option for the other games.
$60 does not change much in my case since in Canada we only have PC games at $50 and console games at $60 when the Canadian Dollar is over 0.95US, otherwise they jump the price $10.

For using to know someone having a VG store, stores make $5-15 on games.

Publisher->Distributor->Store

 

<- buying SC2 just for the campaign and multiplayer custom map games. The multiplayer custom map games in WC3 made the game worth every single cent of it and more.

Foreseeing that Zerg+protoss campaign packs will have expansions included so you have to buy them, judging by the multitude of expansions in WoW.

 

Uh OP, what rank are you (league)?

Cause flanking makes a HUGE difference, it's the difference between having half of your guys sitting around getting shot while the other half shoot and having your whole army work properly.

What I will say is that it's true, some units totally suck against certain other ones (e.g. roach vs. immortal), so the counters tend to be pretty hard, but the game is extremely fast and micro-heavy as well as demanding on build orders. I really feel like you should get past comparing it to SC1 because let's face it: they're not going to (thank god) make it warcraft in space. That would be terrible for the SC:BW and SC fans out there; they've made a game whose gameplay is very close to SC:BW but the unit dynamics and the relationships between different units are very different, especially factoring the new units.

RPG elements would probably make most of the fans ragequit and flip out completely, and to be honest there's still WarCraft for that. Just because it hasn't added X feature doesn't mean it isn't evolving; it's just evolving in a different direction and less radically changing.

I will say, however, that it's really lame that Blizz is jumping on the $60 game bandwagon. The fact is, licensing fees matter only when the hardware (PS3/XBOX/Wii) is proprietary; there is NO ONE that they have to pay a licensing fee too. If anything, it's now cheaper to make PC games than it used to be because of the large amount of talent that's out there and the number of people available to work on these games.

Even though the price is a bit outrageous, I really urge you guys to give this game another go with a clear mind, because it's really a very deep game once you start to play with competitive players.

 

Wait until you get try out the map/unit editors.

Then you'll have maxed out Siege Cruisers at your doorstep.

 

Why would you want Starcraft to be like "any other" new RTS game? Then it would have been "common", easy-to-compare to one of these newer games... unoriginal.

But Stacraft 2 takes what made SC the best RTS ever and just makes it better. And there is really only one game you can compare SC2 and that game is the first SC, thank god they didn't do a "warcraft in space" like somebody here said.

You just wait until people start developing strategies, then this game will skyrocket because THAT is what made the first one so good. It had an amazing story, excelent balance and stuff but the multiplayer.. it had so many possible strategies, so many original ones... SC 2 will bring all that to the table again =)

And no, thankfully it doesn't have all the "things" the OP thinks it needs, otherwise, it would've just been another RTS game in your list.

 

Heroes of might and magic 3 damn great turn based

 

Check here. You have to get past the first minute or so before he gets into costs: Pach-Attack! Video Game, Episode 111 | Game Trailers & Videos | GameTrailers.com

For $60 game:

$12 for console maker (Sony, MS, Wii)
$12 for Retailer (GameStop, Best Buy, etc)
$10 R&D
$9 Marketing
$17 Profit

Did you even read the OP's post? He didn't suggest it be like "any other new RTS game." He just said it's a rehash of SC1 with nothing really new to bring to the table. Marines destroying tanks with machine guns, large units able to turn 180 degrees in a heartbeat, etc seem quite laughable these days. It's an advanced game of rock-paper-scissors basically. And typically whoever has the fastest and most accurate wrist and clicking finger wins.

I'm not saying it can't be fun, but Pac-Man was good too. Would it be awesome if they released it in 3D but with different mazes and a new ghost or two? Not really.

I'm interested in the single player campaign because the Starcraft universe is interesting to me, and considering they feel $60 per faction single player experience is acceptable, then it better be damn good.

 

Starcraft II isn't being released for consoles. They picked $60, they can pick whatever they want.

It is annoying, though, when a cross platform game costs the same for the PC as for the consoles. That doesn't make sense. However, in this case, I can't object (except that I don't want to pay $60 for a video game)

 

You forgot something, of the $17 profit, $15 is for publisher, $2 for game developer.

 

Those numbers aren't very reliable.

 

@Meemat

I'm not in any league for SC, I would never be, cause its a clickfest. You wanna know who wins in an SC league? The Korean who can click 1200 times per minute and has superhuman multitasking ability. SC is like playing whack a mole with your mouse. Its not strategy, its micro and muscle memory.

As far as innovation, Its just like htwingnut said, if Namco released Pacman 3d, with a new maze and a 5th, multicoloured ghost, would it be innovative? No, worse, it would be stupid. Just like SC2.

 

Only 60 usd? You have to take into account the other '2 extensions' (will they be priced as expansions? as cheap DLC? as a full game?). I think the key question will be if the price is worthy, especially for people like me and others who are not very interested in the multiplayer section.

 

SC2 is all about strategy, micro and muscle memory.

SC2 can also do flanking. It just that you don't have little button like you have in other RTS games for it. You have to manually do it. What's the problem with that?

The only thing missing in SC2 is interactive environments I think.

I will be interested in what you think is a good RTS as your argument about clickfest is interesting.

 

SC2 is great! RTS'
for me have always been about APM, Micro, and Macro. Build orders? When to expand? Counter units? Unit positioning? Fast paced game! (Proleauge, OSL, MSL iCCUP!)

Also Blizzard has never made a game that required high-end systems. Thats what so great! Almost everyone can enjoy the game.

PPS: The thought of putting Heroes in an RTS makes me sick....IE WC3.

 

SC2 definitely will have its entertainment value for me, just clearly not MP unless its with close friends. Anonymous slaughter clickfests just don't interest me. And I still say SC2 MP has little strategy, it's more of a rock-paper-scissors meets Serious Sam reflexes.

And I don't know of other RTS games that have a "button" for flanking...

Each unit may be unique but they don't use those characteristics to make it more interesting. It's just a 3D model with different hit and attack points behind it. It's like there's no mass to the vehicles. Just bigger and heavier troops.

 

hi htwingnut, as for flanking, I was thinking of formations that has buttons in other RTS games.

Actually I really don't understand why you believe SC2 has no strategy - could you elaborate?

The rock, paper, scissors formula is strategy - as you need to adapt and change your strategy. Your elections are very important.

Micro is strategy (in fact I think SC2 has a lot more micro management than other RTS games).


Another question to you and OP, what features would you like to see in SC2 that you think should be in there?

 

I don't think flanking works to well against Terrans though, unless you're flanking using siege tanks or you're flanking siege tanks. With other races, you can flank the ranged units while the melee units are in front tanking all the damage.

However Terrans main strength is range and sheer firepower, so pretty much any attempt to flank them from behind or from the side will simply make them all turn around and gun them all down.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I once saw an attempt by a Zerg player to flank Terrans by having Hydras come in from the side. IMO the flanking didn't have much of an effect at all, because the Marines and Maruaders simply just shot back. The Zerg army was killed and the Terrans went on to wreck the base. Seems like the Hydras were probably just better off hiding behind the frontline, instead of wasting a few precious seconds sneaking around the side while the zerglings are getting killed.

 

As for the notion of clickfest, certainly if you have a higher APM, you generally do better but I think the increase in benefit is at a decreasing rate. There has been lots of lower APM players beating higher APM players.

But I don't understand this point anyways. Are you trying to say that this game is just all clicking and nothing else? If that is the case, why make different maps, different units, different attack or speed advantages etc, different buildings?

 

i love heroes 3!!!
those were the good old days.

 

Well, if you're just going to dismiss a game for being a "clickfest" i.e. being a fast, micro-based RTS versus a longer, macro oriented game, then so be it. I mean, just because it's a different STYLE of RTS doesn't mean it sucks. Don't you think that alot of these newer RTSes which tend to be slower and huge-army based can be called derivative because there have been the same type of slow RTS before? I'm personally a fan of both, it's a very very different type of game but still fun.

One of the best things about Starcraft was the speed; it was ridiculously intense and rarely took over 40 minutes to finish a match because all of the game comes down to the speed that you have to scout and execute builds in preparation for what your opponent has. Starcraft and SC2's battles are much closer to small skirmishes rather than large, decisive battles, and I think that's okay because it's the game's style.

As far as the PACMan analogy goes, clever, but does it really make sense? SCBW was a game with a lot of depth to it in the first place, not a 2d game involving eating dots. There's a lot of variety in the different builds possible and the different ways to play the game; pacman has different paths maybe but leading to the same goal; you'll never get rushed by the ghosts in pacman.

Also, the game itself still retains the identities and playstyles of the races, but the new units (especially the queen) change the game so much! I really urge you to just accept the intensity and speed of the game and give it a try...

Well, if it was a space strategy simulator, I'd totally be okay with your complaints because it wouldn't live up to what it promises, but speed is one of the core aspects of the game's style; call it what you want, but it's certainly part of the identity of the game; there's no time for big vehicles to turn around slowly

Well, maybe your definition of flanking is different from what I'm referring to, because I mean flanking to be when two or more sets of troops approach an enemy and attack from different sides. In this case, it'd be that the Terrans would be engaging one set of zerg troops and be fully paying attention to them at one side and another group of units would come in from the side and damage them without being paid attention to.

For example, what I like to do is hide 20 or so lings off to the side, about 1/2 way to the opponents base, and keep 1 or 2 scouting in the enemy's path. Once I see the enemy coming, I send my main force (roach/hydra often) out to engage them but the lings come from behind to flank them, thus they can do damage without really being hit since the enemy will have their guys attack my main force.

 

@meemat,
I totally agree. SC2 is another style of RTS. Blizzard is just choosing to stick with the same RTS style.

@OP and htwingnut: As for the innovations thing, this is what happens when you try to create a sequel to such a huge game. You can go add new things in it and make the old fanbase angry or keep the same things and make people who crave innovations angry. While I agree that it's possible to add innovations, adding innovations might make you happy, but it might displease others. And as for the innovations themselves, the only innovations that I see are worth adding are the zoom/map scale and the epicness from Supreme commander. Everything else is just horrible. Most of the new RTS games don't compare at all to older RTS games like AoE2 or SC1 in my opinion. I also believe resourcing is a big part of RTS games, and taking away the resource aspect from RTS games make them a lot less fun (hence I love Supcom1's resourcing).

Adding innovations to such a polished and refined game is hard. That's not saying Blizzard can't do it, but if the innovations you guys are suggesting are stuff like less resourcing, then I'd prefer SC2 to stay the way it is right now.

Again, it's more of an opinion. You like this kind of RTS games and he likes that kind of RTS games. Plus, the game isn't finalized yet. There might be some changes that might change your opinion (even minor changes can have big impacts, such as ME2's switch from no ammo/heat based shooting to ammo based shooting)

 

The only thing I'm looking forward to in Starcraft 2 is custom maps.. a la Dota for Warcraft III. They should be sweet.

The actual gameplay? I say meh. Too intense for me... hell I get mentally tired enough playing MW2 and running around with the Spas-12.

 

The maps DONT really make that much of a difference. Thats why a few maps became standard in SC1 and were rarely deviated from.

I guess the thing I dislike most is the amount of time I spend in my base, clicking around. Thats not fighting, its not tactics, its SimCity...and to me thats not what it should be about...

 

correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a lot of RTS games involve clicking? Maybe you should play fps games more. In fact, FPS games require clicking too, so maybe play with a controller or go out and fight someone in real life?

The way I see it, all RTS games have a lot of clicking. Different RTS just need different kinds of clicking in different places for different things. It's really all the same. It's just more of a rush to click stuff in starcraft I guess, which is the problem here. Most people in starcraft are probably already very good, and at that level, the speed of clicking and proper clicking begins to matter more and more. It would be nice if most of the players are average so that the rate of clicking and knowing what to click at the right time won't affect the outcome of the game as much. Therefore, I kind of agree with you OP. But then again, that's how RTS games play. You have to be fast like that to be competitive.

 

Eh? You spend most of your time clicking around in your base? Shouldn't you spend only a few seconds on your base building/training what you need and the rest of the time you harrass and assault the opponent? It's definitely your playstyle that made it boring

 

Right there is a big part of it. I don't hate Starcraft or Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 caters to the existing die-hard Starcraft players. It's no fun to newcomers or rusty old farts like me when it's a race to click the right things and the fastest. One wrong click or second delay and you're done for.

Maybe battle.net will match opponents a little better with their abilities which would make it more interesting. I also wish there were server side rules you could implement like a set time limit before a rush is allowed.

Also, the funny thing is that people mention about blocking off their paths, I recall when playing SC1, I did that all the time and was criticised frequently that it was a "noob" strategy. Yet here I see it recommended all the time. So which is it?

Also, if blocking your path is an understood strategy, then why not actually allow building of walls or trenches or force fields (this is fantasy space isn't it?) instead of putting up supply depots, etc. Kinda silly.

And I don't understand why no emplaced ground turrets (for Terrans at least)?

I dunno, it's stuff like this that seems off to me. Doesn't seem to match up with the units and environment they're using.

 

well protoss does have a force field you can throw down to bottleneck and block..

terrans have bunkers + marines I suppose for their ground defense.

they've added rocks and shrubbery though for blocking and vision, but why build a wall when you can use supply depot which also give supplies as well as a fortress? Most blocking devices, say zerg spine crawlers do defense or have uses rather than just build "wall".

 

yes I agree htwingnut, a matchmaking service based on skill level makes sense

having serverside rules to limit rushing is also a good idea.

as for the ground defense stuff, I'm used to playing supcom and having powerful ground/air/naval defenses, so it would be nice if starcraft 2 added those also instead of having to rely on troops for defense. just have to add more units I guess to balance out turret defenses. In my opinion, bunks+marines is too weak to stand up to any mid or high level assaults.