**** Original Starcraft 2 Thread ****

[Spektor]

its **** easy game

as has been said, put research into advancing your medics and marines and you will faceroll it. I have not failed a mission yet.

Also but research points into base defenses and the zerg wont touch you.

Im loving it though, not played much multi but the SP is the best ive played since Red Alert 2.

Been up till 1.30am on school nights last two nights.......im a bad little boy

You have to play on Brutal; there is no real difficulty ramp between the easy/normal and hard, they're all as simple and as one shottable as the next, brutal is where things become a challenge, especially missions like the terrazine gas, mineral race etc.

yea i said something similar last page and i got the 'roflmaoeyes, LOLAGE, YOU SUCK' type comments. oops. a fanboy scorned is a fanboy at his most dangerous it seems.

but at least its not just me who thinks the whole 'blob-opple' concept of creating the super megaforce korean WTHBBQ style with no accounting for tactics concept is a little bit dated and basic...

but i did say ill butt out of this thread as i dont want to spoil it for those who enjoy it.

i still might pick SC2 up for a quick blast in short time frames if i can find it on the cheap.

So every other page you get to post all your stupidity about what you think the game is and why you don't think it's good then finish it with "but I'll leave now, leave you SC2 guys to it!" believing it makes you immune to replies from anything other than 'fanboys'... rtard much?

The more you post the more it is evident to everyone just how little you know about RTS games; especially Starcraft1/2. But well done on taking your position of sheer ignorance and forming a whole slew of negative opinions about it.

 

[Indie]

yea i said something similar last page and i got the 'roflmaoeyes, LOLAGE, YOU SUCK' type comments. oops. a fanboy scorned is a fanboy at his most dangerous it seems.

but at least its not just me who thinks the whole 'blob-opple' concept of creating the super megaforce korean WTHBBQ style with no accounting for tactics concept is a little bit dated and basic...

but i did say ill butt out of this thread as i dont want to spoil it for those who enjoy it.

i still might pick SC2 up for a quick blast in short time frames if i can find it on the cheap.

the difference between him and you is the fact he's played the game at least you watched a replay of the first week of beta of a joke game ^^

Either way CoH is a much more complex RTS, where as Starcraft has stuck to its guns being simple, but more fast paced and micro/macro intensive, with a perfect balance of units. both very good games.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Nickg you really need to leave this thread....you have nothing constuctive to say whatsoever and your effectively trolling/spamming now.

Been up till 1.30am on school nights last two nights.......im a bad little boy

2.30am last 3 nights up at 7.30 - not good!!!! sooo tired.
im trying to get the panda marine avatar at the moment, in amongst playing mp p league....haha

 

[craptakular]

Nickg you really need to leave this thread....you have nothing constuctive to say whatsoever and your effectively trolling/spamming now.

This is a thread about the game, comments can be good or bad. It's not a "lets tug over starcraft thread".

 

[just Scott]

yea i said something similar last page and i got the 'roflmaoeyes, LOLAGE, YOU SUCK' type comments. oops. a fanboy scorned is a fanboy at his most dangerous it seems.

but at least its not just me who thinks the whole 'blob-opple' concept of creating the super megaforce korean WTHBBQ style with no accounting for tactics concept is a little bit dated and basic...

but i did say ill butt out of this thread as i dont want to spoil it for those who enjoy it.

i still might pick SC2 up for a quick blast in short time frames if i can find it on the cheap.

Please do get it. If it's so easy I'd like to see you beat one of us.

Or a personal challenge if you ever play the multiplayer - play a full game without your minerals ever going above 600. Good luck if you've never played Starcraft. That challenge goes out to all who thinks Starcraft is basic. Perform basic macro, keep your minerals low, and create an army while keeping your economy in good shape. Do that even against a bad player with no harassment and I'll be seriously impressed. Do it against a good player who's going to harass your mineral line at a number of different points in the game when you're least expecting it and I will personally agree Starcraft is an easy game.

 

[The Running Man]

So every other page you get to post all your stupidity about what you think the game is and why you don't think it's good then finish it with "but I'll leave now, leave you SC2 guys to it!" believing it makes you immune to replies from anything other than 'fanboys'... rtard much?

The more you post the more it is evident to everyone just how little you know about RTS games; especially Starcraft1/2. But well done on taking your position of sheer ignorance and forming a whole slew of negative opinions about it.

wow so im not allowed to feedback my thoughts from what ive seen? are you that protective that you cant possibly bear any negative comments.

im not immune - but i can see that a lot of people enjoy the game so i dont want to continue to purport my opinion as i can see it is incongruent with many peoples in here, and whilst i feel i have qualified what i said by comparing and contrasting to another game - i understand that ppl like this game and so when you are banging your head ona brick wall, you might as well stop and leave everyone else to do what they are doing...but if you wanna make it personal thats fine

The more you post the more it is evident to everyone just how little you know about RTS games; especially Starcraft1/2. But well done on taking your position of sheer ignorance and forming a whole slew of negative opinions about it.

come closer....ill let you in to a little secret, i am NOT the only person in this thread who has echoed these sentiments.

especially Starcraft1/2. But well done on taking your position of sheer ignorance and forming a whole slew of negative opinions about it.

i thank you, and welcome you to yours. i note you might play many rts then that are NOT of the C&C clone nature, i.e ones with more diverse tactical strategy. which compels you to your opinion and me to mine.

but if you want to become a propaganda bastion for SC2 and ensure that no negative comments are possibly fielded about it, then thats fine...but be aware that maybe someone will form a different opinion to you at some point...

Please do get it. If it's so easy I'd like to see you beat one of us.

are you 12 years old?

where did i say it was easy?

 

[just Scott]

No I'm not 12. What kind of question is that? You've been saying all along it's a basic game with no tactics or strategy. How is that not saying it's easy? If it's so basic, you should be able to do it, right? If it's simply massing up a blob and moving in, oh, anyone can do that. So show us how easy it is?

 

[The Running Man]

No I'm not 12. What kind of question is that? You've been saying all along it's a basic game with no tactics or strategy.

no thats not what i said, i just presumed your age from your 'well if u fink its so easy, right, play me, ive only played 30,000 games before' challenge.. its that kind of mentality that makes me wonder sometimes.

i said the gameplay is tactically basic. this doesnt mean that there is no Macro strategy, no build orders, or no room for strategy efficiency gains to be made and clearly playing the game 24/7 you will know the units better, you will know the build orders, counters and will obviously own someone who has never played before. that goes without saying...and its the same for virtually any game. practice makes proficient makes winning easier for that individual.

i never said the game was easy, or that it did not have a steep learning curve, just that the gameplay formula is basic. its the same idea as the original starcraft...it hasnt been expanded upon from a terrain usage or tactical point of view. and this is dissapointing. its almost like a repackaged SC1 but with new gfx?

wheras the industry has moved on, where i cite, DOW or COH as examples of using cover, frontal armour, tactics etc and not relaint upon blob formations to win, and therefore is more micro and tactical strategy intensive. i would have liked to see some of this in SC2 to make it the best in terms of Macro innovation, faction balance, as well as having to use local items, such as cover, terrain, frontal/rear armour to change the dynamic map by map and circumstance by circumstance.

if you feel that the game is perfect as it is and could not benefit from this added layer of complexity, thats fine. but you cannot expect everyone to have the same viewpoint, or not express a different one.

but trying to throw down a challenge in that manner is clearly a childish thing to do because it proves nothing and does not really help to explore further ideas of building upon what SC2 is good at and becoming even more tactical as opposed to speed intensive?

 

[just Scott]

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying "lol u suck noob play me". What I got from your posts is that you thought the game is extremely basic and therefore easy. It's the first time you've even mentioned anything about a steep learning curve, literally all you've said in this thread is that it's basic and it's blob vs blob. And that you've only watched 1 joke game and basing your opinion off that. I want you to play the game before you judge it, hence the challenge. If you can do it maybe you'll see it's not as basic as you think. I don't see how it's childish at all wanting you to play the game to see for yourself it's not what you think it is.

 

[shaggyd]

No cover in SC2? Tank rush gameplay? No unit armour front/rear weaknesses? It all sounds so 1997 to me. If it doesn't have burying units then it cannot be any better than original Dark Reign or even the latest Supreme Commander 2 (which had a serious slating by die-hard SupCom fans)?

 

[just Scott]

No cover in SC2? Tank rush gameplay? No unit armour front/rear weaknesses? It all sounds so 1997 to me. If it doesn't have burying units then it cannot be any better than original Dark Reign or even the latest Supreme Commander 2 (which had a serious slating by die-hard SupCom fans)?

What do you mean burying units? Much of the zerg army can be burrowed underground, and banelings can be used as mines.

 

[Guest2]

No cover in SC2? Tank rush gameplay? No unit armour front/rear weaknesses? It all sounds so 1997 to me. If it doesn't have burying units then it cannot be any better than original Dark Reign or even the latest Supreme Commander 2 (which had a serious slating by die-hard SupCom fans)?

Have you even played it?

I might have to donate my guest passes soon to let people try it out for themselves before posting rubbish

kreeeee - Just had a few 2v2 ranked games and you are right, they are a lot more tactical. Have to scout and attack and not just sit back and wait to mass a huge army. I found myself countering, flanking, needed different strategies and units...

 

[Redman]

wow so im not allowed to feedback my thoughts from what ive seen? are you that protective that you cant possibly bear any negative comments.

Still only seen the one video from the first month of beta eh?

Simple mechanics do not always equal a simple game, to thinks you'd have to be, well, simple Watch some of the vids recommended here, and try not to see it as a replacement for COH. There's a reason the first game, with it's simple mechanics last many, many years.

 

[The Running Man]

If you can do it maybe you'll see it's not as basic as you think. I don't see how it's childish at all wanting you to play the game to see for yourself it's not what you think it is.

its childish to challenge someone if you are already good at the game and you know the other party have not played the game before - because there can only be one outcome. that goes for any game really. whether its COD, C&C, GT5 etc

dont confuse some basic elements with it being easy thats not what i am saying. just that the game is not as developed or a panancea of RTS like many people would clearly like to believe it is. i was with my friend who played a lot of TA, im played a bit of RA2 online, when i watched the SC2 youtube and i asked him if its like that al the way through and he said yes it is. i was in amazement that so many of the concept are basic.

but that doesnt mean that i dont value the balance, or speed of the game just that in my mind the game dynamics have not changed vs the original SC.

do you think the game dynamics have been altered drastically since SC2 or is SC2 SC1 + slight faction overhaul and better gfx?

There's a reason the first game, with it's simple mechanics last many, many years.

yes because its quick fire, fast paced, easily blobbable gameplay that doesnt necessarily have the frustration factor of something like COH. and tis well balanced. the same cannot be said for COH, it is frustrating at times, not well balanced not blobbable...

i can understand why the original was well loved, it was C&C on steroids. is SC2 anything more than SC1 on speed?

 

[shaggyd]

Lol - no I haven't played the game
But I am raising a question about comparing SC2 to older rts games, how far has sc2 pushed rts or has it fallen a few steps behind?
Personally, I liked the way Men of War was heading - an evolution of Company of Heroes with rpg elements, varied units and multiple tactics.
I am also a big fan of Sup Com, but felt disappointed after their aircraft-rush in the sequel (SupCom2).
So, if you can convince me that SC2 is a step in the right direction, I may purchase it (or if a demo is released).

 

[just Scott]

No, Blizzard kept much of the dynamics and mechanics the same because of how competitive and balanced the first one was. It's the reason it's the biggest esport in the world. They've added some macro mechanics like mules, chrono boost and spawn larva which change macro quite a bit, but it's still the same general formula which made the first game so great.

Don't take the word "challenge" as something hostile that I'm telling you to do. It was a light hearted gesture to try the game, play a multiplayer game see just how hard it is to keep your minerals low past the 5 minute mark.

 

[The Running Man]

shaggyd, watch some youtube like i did, see for yourself.

i feel that SC2 has kept to the old RTS formula and not really invented anything new since the first edition. it is just bigger better faster stronger

but no real new elements.

 

[just Scott]

Lol - no I haven't played the game
But I am raising a question about comparing SC2 to older rts games, how far has sc2 pushed rts or has it fallen a few steps behind?
Personally, I liked the way Men of War was heading - an evolution of Company of Heroes with rpg elements, varied units and multiple tactics.
I am also a big fan of Sup Com, but felt disappointed after their aircraft-rush in the sequel (SupCom2).
So, if you can convince me that SC2 is a step in the right direction, I may purchase it (or if a demo is released).

Blizzard aren't trying to reinvent the RTS genre. Starcraft 1 was a massive success because of its mechanics, balance and extremely steep learning curve. Starcraft 2 has the same formula.

 

[Indie]

Wh yis there so much talk about SCII being the "next gen" of RTS. Its never been dubbed that by anybody with a brain. Its kept to its simple mechanics for a reason. It was so SO popular, that if it was changed, it would simply lose the following it has.

It wasnt meant to break barriers with graphics and add new elements to gameplay with cover/armour etc... the following is too huge and demanding of its heritage.

SCII is NOT a next gen RTS, Its quite proudly, the most well balance, competetive and sought after RTS of all time.

 

[NathWraith]

This game is unbelievably hard online, I blame these people for runing my fun.