This topic is locked from further discussion.
so Blizzard has been killing us for the past 2 years i think.from all the screenshots,trailers...etc,what are your impressions of the game?
personally,im afraid that they will ruin the whole thing.they will make pretty graphics,more action and more complexity to the gameplay.but in the other hands,im afraid that they will take off the originality from the game.
Crappy graphics =/= originality, SC wasn't and still is not a groundbreaking game, it's not even that diverse, but when it comes to pure strategy and balance it's the best, no other can rival it.
People won't get SC 2 because they think it's pretty or because SC 1 was extremely outdated and they couldn't get into it, they'll get it for what it is a strategy game and when it comes to strategic complexity SC 2 isn't a shameful new addition to the series, just look at all the gameplay vids that they released so far, it's on a whole new level compared to SC 1 and it's worlds apart from any other RTS.
No, you are wrong, terribly wrong. Graphics don't make the game, the action was extremely frenetic in SC I don't know where you got the idea that it didn't have much action, when you fight zerg armies you can barely see anything through all the blood and SC was never that original in the first place.
i didnt say the older one didnt have much action,but i said they will increase the action.SC is dam original,its from 1998,give me an RTS game with upgrades,classes,story...etcCrappy graphics =/= originality, SC wasn't and still is not a groundbreaking game, it's not even that diverse, but when it comes to pure strategy and balance it's the best, no other can rival it.
People won't get SC 2 because they think it's pretty or because SC 1 was extremely outdated and they couldn't get into it, they'll get it for what it is a strategy game and when it comes to strategic complexity SC 2 isn't a shameful new addition to the series, just look at all the gameplay vids that they released so far, it's on a whole new level compared to SC 1 and it's worlds apart from any other RTS.
No, you are wrong, terribly wrong. Graphics don't make the game, the action was extremely frenetic in SC I don't know where you got the idea that it didn't have much action, when you fight zerg armies you can barely see anything through all the blood and SC was never that original in the first place.
DanielDust
Red Alert, but we aren't here to compare games, we are here to argue if SC 2 will be worse than the original, which I highly doubt.
SC doesn't have such a community because it's a flawless game on all fronts, but because it's a highly strategical game that has very balanced races, in short, the multiplayer, it isn't the originality, which is lacking, that makes it such a good game.
[QUOTE="DanielDust"]i didnt say the older one didnt have much action,but i said they will increase the action.SC is dam original,its from 1998,give me an RTS game with upgrades,classes,story...etc In 98? The age of empires series... There was a story, different units, upgrades, and resource gathering. Sc2 will be amazing god I can't wait to play it :).Crappy graphics =/= originality, SC wasn't and still is not a groundbreaking game, it's not even that diverse, but when it comes to pure strategy and balance it's the best, no other can rival it.
People won't get SC 2 because they think it's pretty or because SC 1 was extremely outdated and they couldn't get into it, they'll get it for what it is a strategy game and when it comes to strategic complexity SC 2 isn't a shameful new addition to the series, just look at all the gameplay vids that they released so far, it's on a whole new level compared to SC 1 and it's worlds apart from any other RTS.
No, you are wrong, terribly wrong. Graphics don't make the game, the action was extremely frenetic in SC I don't know where you got the idea that it didn't have much action, when you fight zerg armies you can barely see anything through all the blood and SC was never that original in the first place.
GazaAli
i was playing this game since i was 12 i think,and what really caught my attention to it was the races and complex gameplay.later when i started playing it online,i begab to apprecaite its great strategy.all in all,im not saying the game will be bad,i didnt play it anyway.this is the only game im really really waiting for and i hope i will like it
I think you're wrong. They added lots of small new gameplay changes, units, and features that all look great.
The only real originality I saw in Starcraft was the very diverse races and they seem to be keeping that in SC2 and more with all the unique units they're adding.
Starcraft 2 looks good, but it's one of those games I just can't get into. I hate babysitting units because, imo, that's not strategy and most modern RTSs remove that babysitting aspect. I liked red alert (and that did require a fair amount of babysitting), but this isn't the 90s anymore. After playing games like Company of Heroes or Total War, it's impossible to play starcraft or red alert ever again.
It's gonna take a few years to balance out SC2, like it did with SC1.
Unfortunately, the the last thing i heard was the Zerg was the last race being tweaked,
because they were too weak........I fear for the Swarm
i'm looking foward to it and all this bs about the 3 games and lan stuff needs to stop
Ok, if it needs to stop why are you the only one to bring those things into discussion?>_> We'll see about the Zerg, they seem to be good enough from the battle reports and they also have 2x the size they would normally have in SC 1 at pretty much the same price, also those Banelings are pretty "cute", if you know what I mean ;).i'm looking foward to it and all this bs about the 3 games and lan stuff needs to stop
tony2077ca
what do you mean by babysitting units? about the zerg,yea they really need to strengthen them.it was frustrating when you lose the entire game against a couple of marines with medics,LAAAAME!The only real originality I saw in Starcraft was the very diverse races and they seem to be keeping that in SC2 and more with all the unique units they're adding.
Starcraft 2 looks good, but it's one of those games I just can't get into. I hate babysitting units because, imo, that's not strategy and most modern RTSs remove that babysitting aspect. I liked red alert (and that did require a fair amount of babysitting), but this isn't the 90s anymore. After playing games like Company of Heroes or Total War, it's impossible to play starcraft or red alert ever again.
Swiftstrike5
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]what do you mean by babysitting units? about the zerg,yea they really need to strengthen them.it was frustrating when you lose the entire game against a couple of marines with medics,LAAAAME! What he means by babysitting units is you actually have to micro and stuff. Its not as simple as some RTS games. He doesn't like the base building, micro/macro concept. He prefers the easier lazy ways to play RTS which is fine they are fun no doubt (I didn't like Red alert). But CoH and Total War are fun but not as fun as starcraft, age of empires, to me. It all goes on opinion.The only real originality I saw in Starcraft was the very diverse races and they seem to be keeping that in SC2 and more with all the unique units they're adding.
Starcraft 2 looks good, but it's one of those games I just can't get into. I hate babysitting units because, imo, that's not strategy and most modern RTSs remove that babysitting aspect. I liked red alert (and that did require a fair amount of babysitting), but this isn't the 90s anymore. After playing games like Company of Heroes or Total War, it's impossible to play starcraft or red alert ever again.
GazaAli
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]what do you mean by babysitting units? about the zerg,yea they really need to strengthen them.it was frustrating when you lose the entire game against a couple of marines with medics,LAAAAME! What he means by babysitting units is you actually have to micro and stuff. Its not as simple as some RTS games. He doesn't like the base building, micro/macro concept. He prefers the easier lazy ways to play RTS which is fine they are fun no doubt (I didn't like Red alert). But CoH and Total War are fun but not as fun as starcraft, age of empires, to me. It all goes on opinion. i personally don't mind base build but its nice not to have to worry about that stuff once in awhileThe only real originality I saw in Starcraft was the very diverse races and they seem to be keeping that in SC2 and more with all the unique units they're adding.
Starcraft 2 looks good, but it's one of those games I just can't get into. I hate babysitting units because, imo, that's not strategy and most modern RTSs remove that babysitting aspect. I liked red alert (and that did require a fair amount of babysitting), but this isn't the 90s anymore. After playing games like Company of Heroes or Total War, it's impossible to play starcraft or red alert ever again.
blade55555
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]what do you mean by babysitting units? about the zerg,yea they really need to strengthen them.it was frustrating when you lose the entire game against a couple of marines with medics,LAAAAME! What he means by babysitting units is you actually have to micro and stuff. Its not as simple as some RTS games. He doesn't like the base building, micro/macro concept. He prefers the easier lazy ways to play RTS which is fine they are fun no doubt (I didn't like Red alert). But CoH and Total War are fun but not as fun as starcraft, age of empires, to me. It all goes on opinion. still dont get it,whats micro/macro ?The only real originality I saw in Starcraft was the very diverse races and they seem to be keeping that in SC2 and more with all the unique units they're adding.
Starcraft 2 looks good, but it's one of those games I just can't get into. I hate babysitting units because, imo, that's not strategy and most modern RTSs remove that babysitting aspect. I liked red alert (and that did require a fair amount of babysitting), but this isn't the 90s anymore. After playing games like Company of Heroes or Total War, it's impossible to play starcraft or red alert ever again.
blade55555
Looks good so far and I definitely can't wait to get my hands on it (them?). But aside from watching a few battle reports, I haven't looked too deeply into the game. I'll save all the excitement for when the game is released.
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]what do you mean by babysitting units? about the zerg,yea they really need to strengthen them.it was frustrating when you lose the entire game against a couple of marines with medics,LAAAAME! What he means by babysitting units is you actually have to micro and stuff. Its not as simple as some RTS games. He doesn't like the base building, micro/macro concept. He prefers the easier lazy ways to play RTS which is fine they are fun no doubt (I didn't like Red alert). But CoH and Total War are fun but not as fun as starcraft, age of empires, to me. It all goes on opinion. If you strip starcraft of its 3 diverse and balanced races, you've got the most simplistic RTS you could possibly make. You can micro in both Total War and Company of Heroes, but not nearly as much as is REQUIRED by starcraft. The units don't even move out of the way of the builders so they can build. If you block a patch, you have to MOVE your units before you can move other units through that path. If they get attacked, they'll follow that unit to the end of the world (most likely to the enemy fire base). What infuriates me is that people think Starcraft is the pinnacle of RTS, which it simply isn't. I'm not saying that it's a bad game (because I'd probably loved it if I had played it back in the day), but modern RTSs allow for far more complexity in a strategy game. Even something as simply as units not being able to shoot through buildings or terrain adds a very deep layer of strategy. Position your unit behind a tree line and now they're invisible. Starcraft 2 is only just now adding things like this (smoke). Terrain still doesn't block view range and well... units can still fire magic rounds through anything.The only real originality I saw in Starcraft was the very diverse races and they seem to be keeping that in SC2 and more with all the unique units they're adding.
Starcraft 2 looks good, but it's one of those games I just can't get into. I hate babysitting units because, imo, that's not strategy and most modern RTSs remove that babysitting aspect. I liked red alert (and that did require a fair amount of babysitting), but this isn't the 90s anymore. After playing games like Company of Heroes or Total War, it's impossible to play starcraft or red alert ever again.
blade55555
itll be very good. My beef is that the grapihcs are too bright and childish. I wish they would be more gritty like the first and a bit mroe serioua looking.Dr_BrocoliIf you say so, imo the original Starcraft was just as cartoony...
[QUOTE="blade55555"][QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"] If you strip starcraft of its 3 diverse and balanced races, you've got the most simplistic RTS you could possibly make. You can micro in both Total War and Company of Heroes, but not nearly as much as is REQUIRED by starcraft. The units don't even move out of the way of the builders so they can build. If you block a patch, you have to MOVE your units before you can move other units through that path. If they get attacked, they'll follow that unit to the end of the world (most likely to the enemy fire base). What infuriates me is that people think Starcraft is the pinnacle of RTS, which it simply isn't. I'm not saying that it's a bad game (because I'd probably loved it if I had played it back in the day), but modern RTSs allow for far more complexity in a strategy game. Even something as simply as units not being able to shoot through buildings or terrain adds a very deep layer of strategy. Position your unit behind a tree line and now they're invisible. Starcraft 2 is only just now adding things like this (smoke). Terrain still doesn't block view range and well... units can still fire magic rounds through anything.Swiftstrike5Yes but Sc takes a lot more skill then CoH. It really goes on opinion. You like more simplistic rts thats fine. Thats like saying this about CoH. Strip away going in covor, or going in buildings, its a simplistic RTS. Thats really flawed logic you used for Starcraft... But it goes on opinion again you like rts's like that that are more simple (its true not trying to offend you). You don't have to agree that its more simple but it is because you just have to make a couple buildings and just more of pay attention to your units then anything else. In sc you have to pay attention to all your expansions, units, more fast paced. If you strip away cover and going into buildings... you've still got, weak points on vehicles, retreat ability, in-field upgrades, defensive structures, secure points for resources, call in airstrikes/reinforcements/artillery/etc, you've got skill trees, environmental destruction (destroy a bridge), you've got PHYSICS (tank shells won't pass through building), there are unique maps (instead of starcraft where each side is balanced through cloning... for all the time they spend on balancing unique races, they could at least spend some time on making some unique and balanced maps). Do you want me to keep going? Balanced through cloning? What are you talking about Starcraft has 3 diverse unique factions. On starcraft there are balanced and unique maps go on ICCUP or go to the website if you don't believe me. CoH has more "cloning" then Starcraft does. CoH was easy to play for me I got to rank 10 playing exclusive 1v1's within a week before I quit playing competitively . (I even beat a rank 12 at one point). CoH is a fun I'm not denying that but it doesn't take much skill either. I found it very easy to micro my units, there is no macro so no need to worry about that. I do like the physics its a very fun game just not a competitive game imo. But at least get your facts straight before saying sc is balanced through cloning but I do want to know why you think its balanced by cloning please elaborate on it. Oh also to throw in there CoH isn't balanced either. If Recic would throw out patches faster it might be but it takes too long for them to make a damn patch.
Balanced through cloning? What are you talking about Starcraft has 3 diverse unique factions. On starcraft there are balanced and unique maps go on ICCUP or go to the website if you don't believe me. CoH has more "cloning" then Starcraft does. CoH was easy to play for me I got to rank 10 playing exclusive 1v1's within a week before I quit playing competitively . (I even beat a rank 12 at one point). CoH is a fun I'm not denying that but it doesn't take much skill either. I found it very easy to micro my units, there is no macro so no need to worry about that. I do like the physics its a very fun game just not a competitive game imo. But at least get your facts straight before saying sc is balanced through cloning but I do want to know why you think its balanced by cloning please elaborate on it. Oh also to throw in there CoH isn't balanced either. If Recic would throw out patches faster it might be but it takes too long for them to make a damn patch.I was talking about how the maps sides are 'clones' or reflections of the other side of the map. Basically what you're saying is you prefer the basic RTS with no bells and whistles because it's more balanced. It's like the Counterstrike of FPS gaming. I don't get why you think microing = complexity = difficulty. Games in the Total War series even offer a morale system on top of the basics of modern RTS. Starcraft throws you into the most simplistic environment possible and tells you to micro your units to get the best result. Company of Heroes and Total War through you into a unique environment where you have to take advantage of terrain, cover, or weaknesses on specific units.blade55555
I was talking about how the maps sides are 'clones' or reflections of the other side of the map. Basically what you're saying is you prefer the basic RTS with no bells and whistles because it's more balanced. It's like the Counterstrike of FPS gaming. I don't get why you think microing = complexity = difficulty. Games in the Total War series even offer a morale system on top of the basics of modern RTS. Starcraft throws you into the most simplistic environment possible and tells you to micro your units to get the best result. Company of Heroes and Total War through you into a unique environment where you have to take advantage of terrain, cover, or weaknesses on specific units.Swiftstrike5
I must have missed this somewhere but why are you comparing Starcraft, a game released in 1998, to Company of Heroes released eight years later?
Starcraft was a revolutionary game because it blended micro-management, base-building and strategy with three completely distinct races creating the most balanced RTS ever. Modern games may have all of the new bells and whistles you mentioned like physics, destructible environments and terrain obstruction but not one has the mix of attributes that made Starcraft one of the best, if not the best, RTS game ever.
I was talking about how the maps sides are 'clones' or reflections of the other side of the map. Basically what you're saying is you prefer the basic RTS with no bells and whistles because it's more balanced. It's like the Counterstrike of FPS gaming. I don't get why you think microing = complexity = difficulty. Games in the Total War series even offer a morale system on top of the basics of modern RTS. Starcraft throws you into the most simplistic environment possible and tells you to micro your units to get the best result. Company of Heroes and Total War through you into a unique environment where you have to take advantage of terrain, cover, or weaknesses on specific units. Ok so I want you to play Starcraft and try to get to even C- (still a noobish rank). I bet you can't do it. You make it sound like CoH takes so much more skill when it doesn't... Thats all I am saying. But if you want to think that then go ahead thats your right.[QUOTE="blade55555"] Balanced through cloning? What are you talking about Starcraft has 3 diverse unique factions. On starcraft there are balanced and unique maps go on ICCUP or go to the website if you don't believe me. CoH has more "cloning" then Starcraft does. CoH was easy to play for me I got to rank 10 playing exclusive 1v1's within a week before I quit playing competitively . (I even beat a rank 12 at one point). CoH is a fun I'm not denying that but it doesn't take much skill either. I found it very easy to micro my units, there is no macro so no need to worry about that. I do like the physics its a very fun game just not a competitive game imo. But at least get your facts straight before saying sc is balanced through cloning but I do want to know why you think its balanced by cloning please elaborate on it. Oh also to throw in there CoH isn't balanced either. If Recic would throw out patches faster it might be but it takes too long for them to make a damn patch.
Swiftstrike5
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]I was talking about how the maps sides are 'clones' or reflections of the other side of the map. Basically what you're saying is you prefer the basic RTS with no bells and whistles because it's more balanced. It's like the Counterstrike of FPS gaming. I don't get why you think microing = complexity = difficulty. Games in the Total War series even offer a morale system on top of the basics of modern RTS. Starcraft throws you into the most simplistic environment possible and tells you to micro your units to get the best result. Company of Heroes and Total War through you into a unique environment where you have to take advantage of terrain, cover, or weaknesses on specific units. Ok so I want you to play Starcraft and try to get to even C- (still a noobish rank). I bet you can't do it. You make it sound like CoH takes so much more skill when it doesn't... Thats all I am saying. But if you want to think that then go ahead thats your right. Because people have been playing Starcraft for 11 years... I'm not saying CoH takes more skill. I'm actually pointing out that CoH has a much deeper strategic system than Starcraft and that's because of those specific things I mentioned.[QUOTE="blade55555"] Balanced through cloning? What are you talking about Starcraft has 3 diverse unique factions. On starcraft there are balanced and unique maps go on ICCUP or go to the website if you don't believe me. CoH has more "cloning" then Starcraft does. CoH was easy to play for me I got to rank 10 playing exclusive 1v1's within a week before I quit playing competitively . (I even beat a rank 12 at one point). CoH is a fun I'm not denying that but it doesn't take much skill either. I found it very easy to micro my units, there is no macro so no need to worry about that. I do like the physics its a very fun game just not a competitive game imo. But at least get your facts straight before saying sc is balanced through cloning but I do want to know why you think its balanced by cloning please elaborate on it. Oh also to throw in there CoH isn't balanced either. If Recic would throw out patches faster it might be but it takes too long for them to make a damn patch.
blade55555
[quote="Swiftstrike5"]I was talking about how the maps sides are 'clones' or reflections of the other side of the map. Basically what you're saying is you prefer the basic RTS with no bells and whistles because it's more balanced. It's like the Counterstrike of FPS gaming. I don't get why you think microing = complexity = difficulty. Games in the Total War series even offer a morale system on top of the basics of modern RTS. Starcraft throws you into the most simplistic environment possible and tells you to micro your units to get the best result. Company of Heroes and Total War through you into a unique environment where you have to take advantage of terrain, cover, or weaknesses on specific units.da_bomb123
I must have missed this somewhere but why are you comparing Starcraft, a game released in 1998, to Company of Heroes released eight years later?
Starcraft was a revolutionary game because it blended micro-management, base-building and strategy with three completely distinct races creating the most balanced RTS ever. Modern games may have all of the new bells and whistles you mentioned like physics, destructible environments and terrain obstruction but not one has the mix of attributes that made Starcraft one of the best, if not the best, RTS game ever.
You probably did miss something. Blade55555 is calling all RTSs that aren't Starcraft easy and simple. I'm not arguing that Starcraft isn't one of the best RTSs either. It's still a fair comparison because Starcraft 2 isn't going to be much different. It's still going to require as much microing as the original and units can still shoot through terrain (excluding smoke stacks or whatever blizzard calls them).[QUOTE="da_bomb123"][quote="Swiftstrike5"]I was talking about how the maps sides are 'clones' or reflections of the other side of the map. Basically what you're saying is you prefer the basic RTS with no bells and whistles because it's more balanced. It's like the Counterstrike of FPS gaming. I don't get why you think microing = complexity = difficulty. Games in the Total War series even offer a morale system on top of the basics of modern RTS. Starcraft throws you into the most simplistic environment possible and tells you to micro your units to get the best result. Company of Heroes and Total War through you into a unique environment where you have to take advantage of terrain, cover, or weaknesses on specific units.Swiftstrike5
I must have missed this somewhere but why are you comparing Starcraft, a game released in 1998, to Company of Heroes released eight years later?
Starcraft was a revolutionary game because it blended micro-management, base-building and strategy with three completely distinct races creating the most balanced RTS ever. Modern games may have all of the new bells and whistles you mentioned like physics, destructible environments and terrain obstruction but not one has the mix of attributes that made Starcraft one of the best, if not the best, RTS game ever.
You probably did miss something. Blade55555 is calling all RTSs that aren't Starcraft easy and simple. I'm not arguing that Starcraft isn't one of the best RTSs either. It's still a fair comparison because Starcraft 2 isn't going to be much different. It's still going to require as much microing as the original and units can still shoot through terrain (excluding smoke stacks or whatever blizzard calls them). I never said all rts's are simple. I was using your crap argument... Your argument was "take away the 3 unique races and units" and its a simple rts. Will no poopie. That was just a dumb argument on your part so I copied it kind of as a joke.again you like rts's like that that are more simple (its true not trying to offend you).blade55555
What he means by babysitting units is you actually have to micro and stuff. Its not as simple as some RTS games. He doesn't like the base building, micro/macro concept. He prefers the easier lazy ways to play RTS which is fine they are fun no doubt (I didn't like Red alert). But CoH and Total War are fun but not as fun as starcraft, age of empires, to me. It all goes on opinion.blade55555
One of the most insulting posts I've read. Especially, when I did nothing but state my opinion.
I never said all rts's are simple. I was using your crap argument... Your argument was "take away the 3 unique races and units" and its a simple rts. Will no poopie. That was just a dumb argument on your part so I copied it kind of as a joke.blade55555
I didn't realize that 3 unique races is what made separated the "easy" RTSs from the "complex" RTSs for you.
What requires more strategy and which one requires more reflex. Moving a marine around in circles to avoid melee (starcraft microing aka "babysitting")? Or using sticky bombs to immobilize a vehicle before calling in heavy artillery?
It's a ****ing joke to me that you'd consider it a FACT that Starcraft is a better strategy game, which you've stated indirectly in the several posts above.
[QUOTE="blade55555"]
[QUOTE="blade55555"] What he means by babysitting units is you actually have to micro and stuff. Its not as simple as some RTS games. He doesn't like the base building, micro/macro concept. He prefers the easier lazy ways to play RTS which is fine they are fun no doubt (I didn't like Red alert). But CoH and Total War are fun but not as fun as starcraft, age of empires, to me. It all goes on opinion.Swiftstrike5
One of the most insulting posts I've read. Especially, when I did nothing but state my opinion.
I never said all rts's are simple. I was using your crap argument... Your argument was "take away the 3 unique races and units" and its a simple rts. Will no poopie. That was just a dumb argument on your part so I copied it kind of as a joke.blade55555
I didn't realize that 3 unique races is what made separated the "easy" RTSs from the "complex" RTSs for you.
What requires more strategy and which one requires more reflex. Moving a marine around in circles to avoid melee (starcraft microing aka "babysitting")? Or using sticky bombs to immobilize a vehicle before calling in heavy artillery?
It's a ****ing joke to me that you'd consider it a FACT that Starcraft is a better strategy game, which you've stated indirectly in the several posts above.
Oh I was saying it took more skill then what your making it out to be. Thats all I was saying I never was talking that it had better strategy I was implying it took more skill. Your making it sound like its an easy game where you can do bla bla bla easily. And sorry you got offended but i didn't realize if it had more strategy that made it more complex. Goes on opinion as I have said in the past you go for yours I 'll go for mine.Thats all I was saying I never was talking that it had better strategy I was implying it took more skill. Your making it sound like its an easy game where you can do bla bla bla easily.blade55555Ah, then we're on the same page. I'm not here to argue that it doesn't require more skill to play Starcraft. I'm certain it does. The amount of focus and concentration required to play the game is much higher. That's why I related it to CS 1.6.
I was just trying to get my point across that Starcraft isn't the pinnacle of RTS games. There are plenty of other RTSs that have good ideas and aspects, which add aspects of strategy that many Starcraft players have never seen (which makes the RTS elements deaper). Supreme Commander has strategic zoom. Total War has morale system. Company Of Heroes has its cover system.
you mean SC1.5? pfft. couldn't care less.
Ah, then we're on the same page. I'm not here to argue that it doesn't require more skill to play Starcraft. I'm certain it does. The amount of focus and concentration required to play the game is much higher. That's why I related it to CS 1.6.[QUOTE="blade55555"]Thats all I was saying I never was talking that it had better strategy I was implying it took more skill. Your making it sound like its an easy game where you can do bla bla bla easily.Swiftstrike5
I was just trying to get my point across that Starcraft isn't the pinnacle of RTS games. There are plenty of other RTSs that have good ideas and aspects, which add aspects of strategy that many Starcraft players have never seen (which makes the RTS elements deaper). Supreme Commander has strategic zoom. Total War has morale system. Company Of Heroes has its cover system.
I have played all the games you just mentioned and liked them all. I think supreme commander though is under rated as its online community is so small but its such a good game. Their all fun in their own aspects (I actually own them all and still play CoH from time to time just for fun). As for the people saying the graphics look childish for sc2 it doesn't seem childish graphics to me. I am assuming you guys have seen the latest game play video's right? I think they look fantastic and can't wait to view them on my computer :)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment