Starcraft II vs other recent RTS?

he may be a troll, but i feel he makes a good point. Whjat Makes SC better than all the other games? Wic is a solid RTS (don't call it an RTT), teh battles are very fun, and it has nice pacing, DoW2 has an unique single player campaign (shame you only play Space Marines, but meh). And Men of War is also very good, so what exactly does SC 2 have thats better than these games.lordreaven

I found WiC's campaign to be frustratingly boring. It dealt more with me knowing what was going to be the next encounter, getting slaughtered, going bakc to a previous save to have my units setup just right, and repeat. I cared more about the well done inbetween story presentations than the actual game. As for its multiplayer, which i only played about 30 or 35 games; they were fun. But generally a single bad player can drag down the whole team tremendously, and it often felt a bit too spammy with units once you picked a role.

I liked DoW 2 but i found myself getting a bit bored of the whole "big boss battle" at the end of nearly every mission. And the difficulty... ugh. At its hardest its a decent challenge - until you get to the boss. they take SOOOO damn long to kill that its easy to die, not because its actually difficult, but simply because the length of the fight makes it easier to mess up over its duration. Thats not fun... at all. I do relaly like its coop campaign though, as its a blast. Its multiplayer is really good. Fast, intense, and tactical... But its still a bit too rock-paper-scissors feel for me. I know some people like it, but im not too crazy how a foot unit will not even scratch the paint off a vehicle but then having the counter of the vehicle will kill it in two shots. I preferred CoH's counter mechanics.

I havent played Men of War so i cant comment.

Why do i still think SC2 is better? I feel its better balanced, both at low and high levels of play. The races are far more distinct than most other strategy games. The campaign is far more interesting, despite it being super easy for me at the moment (since i played a good deal of beta). Its multiplayer really changes immensely when playing 2v2's when your partner is a seperate race. Even taking DoW 2 as a comparison, typically, even having another race as a partner will still mean roughly the same use of counters because of its hard rock-papers-scissors combo.

Glad I picked expert + I'm trying to get all the achievements. I just beat the train intercept mission. It's a great deal of fun and is difficult without being frustrating. :) You should try it. Unless you're already playing on expert and you're just a complete beast at the game. :P

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="omenodebander"]

^

they will tell you "It's more balanced", "It has base building" or "It's made by blizzard"

KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] This. People, please don't feed the troll. He pretty much revealed his troll-ness in the last thread he was in where he ended with a post which simply said something along the lines of "You butthurt?" showing that he has no actual arguements beyond "I like CoH and DoW2 better than SC2 therefore EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD TOO"kieranb2000

as long as you enjoy it. Just don't be like danieldust and make silly claims about how it's the standard to define rts. Personally, for a game that's been in development for what....a decade or more, and turns out to be the same game all over again, yes I 'm disappointed. They should have just released a movie to end the story rather than charge $60 bucks for a remake.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] he may be a troll, but i feel he makes a good point. Whjat Makes SC better than all the other games? Wic is a solid RTS (don't call it an RTT), teh battles are very fun, and it has nice pacing, DoW2 has an unique single player campaign (shame you only play Space Marines, but meh). And Men of War is also very good, so what exactly does SC 2 have thats better than these games.XaosII

I found WiC's campaign to be frustratingly boring. It dealt more with me knowing what was going to be the next encounter, getting slaughtered, going bakc to a previous save to have my units setup just right, and repeat. I cared more about the well done inbetween story presentations than the actual game. As for its multiplayer, which i only played about 30 or 35 games; they were fun. But generally a single bad player can drag down the whole team tremendously, and it often felt a bit too spammy with units once you picked a role.

I liked DoW 2 but i found myself getting a bit bored of the whole "big boss battle" at the end of nearly every mission. And the difficulty... ugh. At its hardest its a decent challenge - until you get to the boss. they take SOOOO damn long to kill that its easy to die, not because its actually difficult, but simply because the length of the fight makes it easier to mess up over its duration. Thats not fun... at all. I do relaly like its coop campaign though, as its a blast. Its multiplayer is really good. Fast, intense, and tactical... But its still a bit too rock-paper-scissors feel for me. I know some people like it, but im not too crazy how a foot unit will not even scratch the paint off a vehicle but then having the counter of the vehicle will kill it in two shots. I preferred CoH's counter mechanics.

I havent played Men of War so i cant comment.

Why do i still think SC2 is better? I feel its better balanced, both at low and high levels of play. The campaign is far more interesting, despite it being super easy for me at the moment (since i played a good deal of beta).

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="lordreaven"]he may be a troll, but i feel he makes a good point. Whjat Makes SC better than all the other games? Wic is a solid RTS (don't call it an RTT), teh battles are very fun, and it has nice pacing, DoW2 has an unique single player campaign (shame you only play Space Marines, but meh). And Men of War is also very good, so what exactly does SC 2 have thats better than these games.lordreaven

as long as you enjoy it. Just don't be like danieldust and make silly claims about how it's the standard to define rts. Personally, for a game that's been in development for what....a decade or more, and turns out to be the same game all over again, yes I 'm disappointed. They should have just released a movie to end the story rather than charge $60 bucks for a remake.

omenodebander

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] WiC isn't as good because it is waaaaay simpler than SC2. There is no macromanagment and far less Micromanagement too. DoW2 is the same. It was unique, but it was also a lot simpler. I personally haven't enjoyed a Relic game since the first expansion for Dawn of War, and I haven't thought that a relic game was truly an exceptional standout addition to the genre since Homeworld 2.kieranb2000

CnC 4 was so awesome and successful with its modern "RTS" features!

CnC 4 was so awesome and successful with its modern "RTS" features!

Baranga

haha, and yet again I repeat the question. Define "standard" rts, after all, herzog zwei started the genre. For all your claims about me being a troll, still no one here can state exactly what and why starcraft 2 is better than other games in the genre. I played the game, and all I got was the feeling of being there, done that. Still no one here show me proof of what makes a game worthy if being called an rts. All I've gotten so far from you guys is, "If there is no base building, it fails". And Yet you keep going on and on about strategy, so here, who are you to know what is strategy and what isn't.

Finally, by your logic, if it takes and old formula and "refine" it, its is great. Yeah, it's funny how a lot of shooters that stick to the "old" formula keeps failing today, (The new AVP AND MANY MORE), but I guess, if it's made by blizzard, it's an instant win, even though the idea has been done to death.

To me Starcraft II is the best RTS since WC3, but I mainly play RTS's for the eSports scene. That and the post-release support push Blizzard RTS's to the top.

The devil is in the details.

Nobody's devil is more awesome than Blizzard's.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

CnC 4 was so awesome and successful with its modern "RTS" features!

lordreaven

According to most people on the internet if a game was loved doesn't get a sequel for years then gets one it will be good. Seems like that for anything.Vexx88

i own Medieval 2: Total War, Empire Total War, Dawn of War 2, World in Conflict, Supreme Commander 1 and 2, Demigod, Company of Heroes, Kings Bounty and Armored Princess, Disciples 3, Civ 4, Galactic Civs 2, and Sins of a Solar Empire as my more recent strategy games.

I can easily say Starcraft 2 is better than all of them. Don't get me wrong, i enjoyed every one of them, and i'm still playing an Empire: TW campaign at the moment. But theres simply an unrivaled level of quality and polish in Starcraft that the others games lack.

XaosII

IMO SC doesn't seem to great graphics despite 7 years in development. But I guess that a performance vs looks debate.

If a game is bad, it's bad, no matter if it uses the best formula ever created, by your logic all modern games should be instant win, yet BC 2 fails so hard it could be considered the worst BF yet. Also get your facts right Herzog Zwei isn't the first, and it's just a prototype, you refine the prototype and you end up with something that cannot be improved further, something that will be used for absolutely any RTS regardless of what they choose to take out or add. The core of the RTS genre was determined with the C&C series, Starcraft and others, standard if it's so hard to understand is what defines the very core of an RTS, what makes it an RTS, from there you add features to make it more fun and realistic or you take most of them and turn it into an RTT, were you just focus on pure action.

My last post in this thread, I'm tired of repeating myself to a guy that can't or chooses not to understand, a guy that keeps repeating some random game that apparently invented RTS when it wasn't even the first, because for some reason, when you create gaming, the first concepts that had a few buttons and a limit of a few hundred pixels automatically defines a genre for something that was just created (gaming). Gaming was defined before 2000 most genres, then other sub genres were created, etc, RTS wasn't invented by a single game in 82' (Utopia) or by a 2nd that was entirely different in 89'. Frankly at this point I doubt you even played those old games from the 90', you arguments seem like " arguing for the sake of arguing" because somehow all games should be how you want them to be.

haha, and yet again I repeat the question. Define "standard" rts, after all, herzog zwei started the genre. For all your claims about me being a troll, still no one here can state exactly what and why starcraft 2 is better than other games in the genre. I played the game, and all I got was the feeling of being there, done that. Still no one here show me proof of what makes a game worthy if being called an rts. All I've gotten so far from you guys is, "If there is no base building, it fails". And Yet you keep going on and on about strategy, so here, who are you to know what is strategy and what isn't.

Finally, by your logic, if it takes and old formula and "refine" it, its is great. Yeah, it's funny how a lot of shooters that stick to the "old" formula keeps failing today, (The new AVP AND MANY MORE), but I guess, if it's made by blizzard, it's an instant win, even though the idea has been done to death.

sigh, danieldust, you truly are a fanatic fanboy. I've played all those games, and you want to know how I felt after playing world in conflict, ground control, dow 2? It was fresh air. Gone was the dated formula that plagued CnC 3 . This was what pc gaming was all about. Going the distance, evolving, taking great strides and breathing new life into genre. But later on, READING so many "pc gaming is dying topics",and now watching people overhyping a remake of an old game.

I am saddened. You still fail to answer my question and all you do is repeat the same old, "but starcraft did this and that". Yet failing to provide proof of what makes an RTS an Rts. Just because people still play an old game, doesn't make it the best. Hell, I still play Clive barker's undying and I'm willing to acknowledge the out dated nature of the game.

omenodebander

sigh, danieldust, you truly are a fanatic fanboy. I've played all those games, and you want to know how I felt after playing world in conflict, ground control, dow 2? It was fresh air. Gone was the dated formula that plagued CnC 3 . This was what pc gaming was all about. Going the distance, evolving, taking great strides and breathing new life into genre. But later on, READING so many "pc gaming is dying topics",and now watching people overhyping a remake of an old game.

I am saddened. You still fail to answer my question and all you do is repeat the same old, "but starcraft did this and that". Yet failing to provide proof of what makes an RTS an Rts. Just because people still play an old game, doesn't make it the best. Hell, I still play Clive barker's undying and I'm willing to acknowledge the out dated nature of the game.

The gameplay mechaics are flat out archaic in starcraft 2 compared to CoH/DoW2. Playing Relic RTS really tarnished my perception of what an RTS could be. Still, Starcraft is the Counter Strike of the RTS world. It has a simplicity to it and yet the skill cap is beyond the stratasphere. IF Relic poured heart and soul into an RTS to balance it and make it competetive, it would rival Starcraft. Right now though, Blizzard will pay a lot of attention to balance and continue to tweak the game because of the serious nature of the game in S. Korea.

Anyways, I love both Blizzard and Relic. I hope though in the future Blizzard takes some notes from Relic.

a lot of people are neck deep in nolstagia that they're quick to ignore the advances in the rts genre. To say that starcraft 2 even matches or surpasses the recent giants in the genre is just pure blizzard fanboyism. A polished game does not = the best game of them all. Stracraft 2 is good, maybe even great, but really, it's like CnC 3 all over again. Gloss up an old game with shinier graphics and a few tweak, but its's still the same game. To say that starcraft 2 matches the quality of company of heroes or the combat depth found in Dow 2 ? jeez, I can understand you paid $60 bucks for the game, but come.

omenodebander

My feelings exactly. Many things are overlooked due to the nolstalgic factor. Its a blizzard game, and as long as we get all those adorable little starcaft units with a new polish it dosn't matter how similar SC2 and the original actually are. The gameplay is really identical to the original.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I definitely think other RTS games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes blow SC2 out of the water.

The devil is in the details.

Nobody's devil is more awesome than Blizzard's.

Baranga

DoW PRO.

I think that Starcarft II is nice, one of the finest rts and in my short contact with the beta and now the full gale looks a very polished game. But the problem is that since Starcraft I found better rts mechanics. I like more the requise point system from DoW, CoH and DoW II -even if I don't like much MoH and DoW II, by different reasons. I found DoW 1 and DoW Pro more faster and enjoyable in the mp. Maybe not as balanced, but I found more fun in these games and I saw in both signs of innovation and improvement which Starcraft II is clearly lacking. For me currently Starcraft II is a solid rts with a bad battlenet implementation, but is far from being the best rts, to my tastes.

and finally danieldust, you've finally proven that you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post reeks of not only ignorance, it also stinks of quick googling.

Herzog zwei was not a prototype. It was a game far ahead of its time, and only recently acknowleged for its hybrid nature and innovation. yOU SAY THE CORE OF RTS WAS DETERMINED BY cNC and starcraft and that some nonsense like that about RTT. seriously just what the hell are you smoking?

please reread your post and recognize sillines for what it is. No one game determnines what a genre is and what it SHOULD ALWAYS BE. That is why there are

hybrids today and games that take into account realistic (to some degree) elements to improve a genre, such as physics and what not. All you have done so far is reinforce your idea that an RTS must stick to starcraft's formula or else it's not worthy.

You really don't get it. All you managed to prove is that you cannot play any other style of rts, hybrid or not, and that the only games you're good at are games with the "old" style. Your using bad company 2 (I think Bc2 ) as an example only goes to show how jaded you really are.

anD WORSE OF THEM ALL, IS your laughable post, and I quote,

"Herzog Zwei isn't the first, and it's just a prototype, you refine the prototype and you end up with something that cannot be improved further,". Really? Really?

and even more, you say, "something that will be used for absolutely any RTS regardless of what they choose to take out or add. The core of the RTS genre was determined with the C&C series, Starcraft and others, standard if it's so hard to understand is what defines the very core of an RTS, what makes it an RTS, from there you add features to make it more fun and realistic or you take most of them and turn it into an RTT, were you just focus on pure action."

Wow, so CnC, and starcraft was made by the god emperor of man and that means they are so full of win, they determine what an rts should be ?

Because the god emperor of man invented the genre?

Becuase the Cnc and starcraft invented the genre so they have a say on what is an RTS and what isn't?

Holy cow on a popsicle!

read my post above yours to understand why RTT isin't a genuine term.lordreaven

Yesterday's tactics won't win a war, but yesterday's strategies still win them. There's a huge difference between focusing on the forest and focusing on its trees.

Ruse is as different from Men of War as cats are from chimpanzees.

Take a very old game, gloss it up and let nolstagia do the rest. And some people wonder why a lot say pc gaming is dying.

omenodebander

THIS!

Sure SC was the greatest game of its time but look what it had to compete with; cnc and red alert where the factions played near identical, aoe which was the same case. SC was the first game to feature factions that played differently. However RTS games have moved on, many games feature this and a lot of people are still in nolstalgia mode. If any other company made this game other than Blizzard, this game would get a 7. However I keep seeing reviews for the SC2 which are like 9.9 or 9.8 while gameplay remains the same and gfx are long outdated. So many games have come out since SC which have innovated the genre; COH micro is more intense than SC with terrain and other factors coming into play, Sup Com's macro is much more advanced than SC and total war SP kills SC2 period.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] read my post above yours to understand why RTT isin't a genuine term.Baranga

Yesterday's tactics won't win a war, but yesterday's strategies still win them. There's a huge difference between focusing on the forest and focusing on its trees.

Ruse is as different from Men of War as cats are from chimpanzees.

What are you talking about? or are you just mindlessly throwing military quotes. Games like COH and DOW2 which people claim are RTT have set strategies to them as well, SC is not the only game to do this. If you dont have a plan you will lose no matter how good your micro and tactics are.

and even worse, had this been made by a different dev under a different title, (armored dudes vs space insects), reception = mixed. With reviewers comparing it to starcrfat and citing, "No innovation or advancement in the genre. Too much like starcraft"

Go look up a title called Armies of Exigo. It copied starcraft in everyway, and even the devs cited starcraft as an inspiration. Guess what happened? it got slammed and panned for being stuck in the past.But it was a great game.

And now we have starcrfat 2, guess who won here? good old nolstagia for blizzard.

The most pathetic attempt to try and make yourself look good lol, you went from your internet browsing that you accuse me because you couldn't find out that an RTS was created 7 years before your so called first RTS to fantasy, like somehow I'm bad at most RTSs, thanks you proved my point, as others said feeding the trololol, I actually don't even like the standard RTS formula much, I do enjoy the sp campaigns but as Xfire shows even tho I rarely use/used it I actually love RTSs like WiC, DoW 2, CoH, DoW 1 for their sp campaigns, but by all means, continue to trololol ;) I doubt anyone really cares and the ones that ask simple questions like Cdscottie, you "strategically" avoid ;), have fun living in that fantasy world of yours where your opinion is what matters.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] This. People, please don't feed the troll. He pretty much revealed his troll-ness in the last thread he was in where he ended with a post which simply said something along the lines of "You butthurt?" showing that he has no actual arguements beyond "I like CoH and DoW2 better than SC2 therefore EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD TOO"kieranb2000

WIC has a different sense of skill, there isnt much macro but teamwork and micro is heavy. Try playing a top tier clan match; the teamwork micro is heavy and one screwup spells a loss. But hey I guess only SC is allowed to have micro

The only RTS game i ever dug was COH or WIC but the latterwas more of an action game, you didn't have to resource gather. Never tried SC and honestly I don't like any Blizzard games. None of them are really any good if you think about it. They are like more of pioneers in terms of gaming rather than great game makers. Think about it... most have fond memories of D2, SC and others because they were children or teens when they came out. And I don't even need to mention WoW.I personally never played them until recently and all I am going to say is there is better top-down dungeon crawlers, better RTS games and definitely better MMO's. The most overrated developer ever.

CHEERS:D

@danieldust. yeah ok. I played herzog years ago. many years ago. You? not really. What happened to the part about your "last" post of this thread?

Starcraft 2 is ok. Just don't try to justify it's blandness and outdated feel with post claiming otherwise.

haha, and yet again I repeat the question. Define "standard" rts, after all, herzog zwei started the genre. For all your claims about me being a troll, still no one here can state exactly what and why starcraft 2 is better than other games in the genre. I played the game, and all I got was the feeling of being there, done that. Still no one here show me proof of what makes a game worthy if being called an rts. All I've gotten so far from you guys is, "If there is no base building, it fails". And Yet you keep going on and on about strategy, so here, who are you to know what is strategy and what isn't.

Finally, by your logic, if it takes and old formula and "refine" it, its is great. Yeah, it's funny how a lot of shooters that stick to the "old" formula keeps failing today, (The new AVP AND MANY MORE), but I guess, if it's made by blizzard, it's an instant win, even though the idea has been done to death.

omenodebander

I think us old schoolers are so used to base building when it's not included it just seems like the game is out of place and missing something. Almost like the base building is a core part of what RTS's are made of. It's really a bised viewpoint though and admit I am often guilty of it.

[QUOTE="omenodebander"]

as long as you enjoy it. Just don't be like danieldust and make silly claims about how it's the standard to define rts. Personally, for a game that's been in development for what....a decade or more, and turns out to be the same game all over again, yes I 'm disappointed. They should have just released a movie to end the story rather than charge $60 bucks for a remake.

kieranb2000

Its funny when Blizz fanboys say SC2 is the best RTS in years without playing any other RTS game after SC

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] read my post above yours to understand why RTT isin't a genuine term.Baranga

Yesterday's tactics won't win a war, but yesterday's strategies still win them. There's a huge difference between focusing on the forest and focusing on its trees.

Ruse is as different from Men of War as cats are from chimpanzees.

[QUOTE="omenodebander"]

haha, and yet again I repeat the question. Define "standard" rts, after all, herzog zwei started the genre. For all your claims about me being a troll, still no one here can state exactly what and why starcraft 2 is better than other games in the genre. I played the game, and all I got was the feeling of being there, done that. Still no one here show me proof of what makes a game worthy if being called an rts. All I've gotten so far from you guys is, "If there is no base building, it fails". And Yet you keep going on and on about strategy, so here, who are you to know what is strategy and what isn't.

Finally, by your logic, if it takes and old formula and "refine" it, its is great. Yeah, it's funny how a lot of shooters that stick to the "old" formula keeps failing today, (The new AVP AND MANY MORE), but I guess, if it's made by blizzard, it's an instant win, even though the idea has been done to death.

I think us old schoolers are so used to base building when it's not included it just seems like the game is out of place and missing something. Almost like the base building is a core part of what RTS's are made of. It's really a bised viewpoint though and admit I am often guilty of it.

[QUOTE="omenodebander"]

sigh, danieldust, you truly are a fanatic fanboy. I've played all those games, and you want to know how I felt after playing world in conflict, ground control, dow 2? It was fresh air. Gone was the dated formula that plagued CnC 3 . This was what pc gaming was all about. Going the distance, evolving, taking great strides and breathing new life into genre. But later on, READING so many "pc gaming is dying topics",and now watching people overhyping a remake of an old game.

I am saddened. You still fail to answer my question and all you do is repeat the same old, "but starcraft did this and that". Yet failing to provide proof of what makes an RTS an Rts. Just because people still play an old game, doesn't make it the best. Hell, I still play Clive barker's undying and I'm willing to acknowledge the out dated nature of the game.

Cdscottie

I dont think anybody here is saying SC2 is a bad game, its a good game but as for being the greatest RTS game ever since SC1, the answer is no.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] read my post above yours to understand why RTT isin't a genuine term.lordreaven

Yesterday's tactics won't win a war, but yesterday's strategies still win them. There's a huge difference between focusing on the forest and focusing on its trees.

Ruse is as different from Men of War as cats are from chimpanzees.

Tactics are the means used to achieve an objective, strategy represents the overall plan.

The strategy is to destroy the enemy's barracks, thus cripple his war effort. The Zerg rush and the adjacent operations - spawning a hatchery or whatever it's called, using the right amount of drones, organising the attack formation - that's the tactical part.

Both concepts are used in everyday life, if you want to argue semantics... But in this discussion, they have military connotations. When a videogame has an overwhelming amount of tactical gameplay as opposed to strategic gameplay, I'd rather call it a RTT game.

Sticky...