Starcraft II - Outdated?

  • 50 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for thrones
thrones

12178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 thrones
Member since 2004 • 12178 Posts

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

Avatar image for Kirlok
Kirlok

2061

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Kirlok
Member since 2008 • 2061 Posts
i agree, if the game just ends up being the same formula with better graphics it will feel very outdated, but its being developed by blizzard so i doubt that will be the case.
Avatar image for aliblabla2007
aliblabla2007

16756

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 aliblabla2007
Member since 2007 • 16756 Posts
Blizzard implements those features, they compromise the competitiveness. Starcraft is all about the competititveness.
Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

thrones

I don't know if RTSes have really advanced the standards. There seem to be two camps forming: strategic RTSes and tactical RTSes. Strategic RTSes are things like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire where individual engagements aren't that important compared to overall troop movement and economic management., whereas tactical RTSes are things like CoH and DoW which require a TON of micromanagement.

I think StarCraft 2 will fall in between those two extremes, kinda like how StarCraft did, with a slight lean towards the strategic end with more devastating weapons like the mothership's black hole and the nukes and such. I'll expect units in StarCraft other than the basic infantry to be much more powerful in general, but also much more vulnerable in general. If they take that approach, there should be a kind of dynamic high-end equilibrium resulting from having so many incredibly powerful, specialized units acting in concert.

Avatar image for cobrax75
cobrax75

8389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 cobrax75
Member since 2007 • 8389 Posts

Considrering how many people play Starcraft today...they could probably re-release that and it still wouldnt be outdated.

Besides, Starcraft was always about creative unit design and balance...at least as far as multiplayer goes.

Avatar image for monkeytoes61
monkeytoes61

8399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 0

#6 monkeytoes61
Member since 2005 • 8399 Posts
I guess you have a point. But hey, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I guess people didn't see that with Halo 3, but that's a seperate issue.
Avatar image for GazzaB
GazzaB

27139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#7 GazzaB
Member since 2004 • 27139 Posts

I guess you have a point. But hey, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I guess people didn't see that with Halo 3, but that's a seperate issue.monkeytoes61

You could argue with Halo 3 though that they tried to fix something great and ended up with something worse:?

Avatar image for MjorJnsn
MjorJnsn

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 MjorJnsn
Member since 2008 • 25 Posts

Starcraft 2 will be an extremely competitive game. I can't see it being very successful on a more casual scale, which is rather disappointing.

Avatar image for JLF1
JLF1

8263

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 JLF1
Member since 2005 • 8263 Posts

Considrering how many people play Starcraft today...they could probably re-release that and it still wouldnt be outdated.

Besides, Starcraft was always about creative unit design and balance...at least as far as multiplayer goes.

cobrax75

I think that is a little wrong. games like CS, Starcraft and Quake 1 is outdated in gameplay and graphics but they are still good because of the great and balanced gameplay. But I don't think if a new game with Starcrafts gameplay but whit a different developer and name would do so well if it was released today. Standards have changes in the genre so people are expecting games to live up to them. The JRPG genre was perfect 10 years ago but games today with the same standards are looked down on.

Personally I don't worry about SC2 as Blizzard is one of the few devs that always nails the gameplay part of a game but I think it's naive to think that SC2 would only need a graphical update to succeed in today's market.

Avatar image for Ewok432
Ewok432

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Ewok432
Member since 2006 • 425 Posts
i would be outraged if they tried to turn sc2 into a COH/DOW hybrid. i mean i have been waiting 10 years for a sequel to starcraft and you think that they should just abandon the loyal fanbase that is still playing the game to this day just to appease people who think that DOW/COHare better. gimme a break, and let me have sc2 the way it should be.
Avatar image for kostmpekir
kostmpekir

780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 kostmpekir
Member since 2008 • 780 Posts

i agree, if the game just ends up being the same formula with better graphics it will feel very outdated, but its being developed by blizzard so i doubt that will be the case.Kirlok

Seems very old in gameplay indeed

Avatar image for Blue-Sky
Blue-Sky

10381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#12 Blue-Sky
Member since 2005 • 10381 Posts
I just hope people don't expect it to revolutionize the RTS genre, that always seems to be the case with blockbuster sequels.
Avatar image for justforlotr2004
justforlotr2004

10935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 justforlotr2004
Member since 2004 • 10935 Posts

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

thrones

Personally I miss the old school RTS games like Starcraft and AoE 1&2.

In all honesty I find them more complex than a game like CoH. Sure CoH has a cover system, but I miss the resource managment. Even in AoE 3 they in my opionion ruined the resource gathering by removing drop off points. Right now it seems developers are more pressed on streamlining the game towards more combat oriented gameplay rather than a 50/50 status or resources gathering and combat/defense. These games are still fun to play but the lack the feeling of old school RTS games and I am sure Im not the only one that misses it.

i would be outraged if they tried to turn sc2 into a COH/DOW hybrid. i mean i have been waiting 10 years for a sequel to starcraft and you think that they should just abandon the loyal fanbase that is still playing the game to this day just to appease people who think that DOW/COHare better. gimme a break, and let me have sc2 the way it should be.Ewok432

Indeed let us fans of actual RTS games have our true sequels.

Avatar image for Killer2401
Killer2401

3431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 Killer2401
Member since 2006 • 3431 Posts

[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]I guess you have a point. But hey, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I guess people didn't see that with Halo 3, but that's a seperate issue.GazzaB

You could argue with Halo 3 though that they tried to fix something great and ended up with something worse:?

IMO Halo 3 doesn't feel "worse", just different. Though I can see where your coming from.

But look at Half-Life 2, that game stayed with the original formula and made something that was possibly better than the original.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

15874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#15 Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 15874 Posts
Blizzard's games are usually not pushing any boundaries in the graphics or technology department. What they really excell in is the super tight gameplay that practically sets a new standard in the respective genre. I'm not sure starcraft 2 will redefine rts, but it will almost certainly be a kickass game.
Avatar image for TanKLoveR
TanKLoveR

5712

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 TanKLoveR
Member since 2004 • 5712 Posts

i would be outraged if they tried to turn sc2 into a COH/DOW hybrid. i mean i have been waiting 10 years for a sequel to starcraft and you think that they should just abandon the loyal fanbase that is still playing the game to this day just to appease people who think that DOW/COHare better. gimme a break, and let me have sc2 the way it should be.Ewok432

I agree with u good sir, i been playing SC since the first demo and like u i been waiting A LOT time for this, if they changed the formula they will lose millions of fans, the loyal fans the ones waiting for years and years for this. I doubt they will get the same amount in new players just cuz its like CoH.

Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts
[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

justforlotr2004

Personally I miss the old school RTS games like Starcraft and AoE 1&2.

In all honesty I find them more complex than a game like CoH. Sure CoH has a cover system, but I miss the resource managment. Even in AoE 3 they in my opionion ruined the resource gathering by removing drop off points. Right now it seems developers are more pressed on streamlining the game towards more combat oriented gameplay rather than a 50/50 status or resources gathering and combat/defense. These games are still fun to play but the lack the feeling of old school RTS games and I am sure Im not the only one that misses it.

i would be outraged if they tried to turn sc2 into a COH/DOW hybrid. i mean i have been waiting 10 years for a sequel to starcraft and you think that they should just abandon the loyal fanbase that is still playing the game to this day just to appease people who think that DOW/COHare better. gimme a break, and let me have sc2 the way it should be.Ewok432

Indeed let us fans of actual RTS games have our true sequels.

I actually like COH's resource system. I think it fits with the game's philosophy of focusing on tactical combat instead of overall strategy while still preserving careful base management. The more tactical and fast-paced you make the combat, the more you have to simplify other areas of the game to keep things manageable.

Avatar image for Lazy_Boy88
Lazy_Boy88

7418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Lazy_Boy88
Member since 2003 • 7418 Posts
[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

mjarantilla

I don't know if RTSes have really advanced the standards. There seem to be two camps forming: strategic RTSes and tactical RTSes. Strategic RTSes are things like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire where individual engagements aren't that important compared to overall troop movement and economic management., whereas tactical RTSes are things like CoH and DoW which require a TON of micromanagement.

I think StarCraft 2 will fall in between those two extremes, kinda like how StarCraft did, with a slight lean towards the strategic end with more devastating weapons like the mothership's black hole and the nukes and such. I'll expect units in StarCraft other than the basic infantry to be much more powerful in general, but also much more vulnerable in general. If they take that approach, there should be a kind of dynamic high-end equilibrium resulting from having so many incredibly powerful, specialized units acting in concert.

Could not have said that better. Small unit tactics RTS and large scale strategy RTS are very different. Starcraft was a very good blend.

Avatar image for ArisShadows
ArisShadows

22784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 ArisShadows
Member since 2004 • 22784 Posts
Starcraft 2 will be one solid, updated version installment, except with a continued amazing storyline; new units and branchouts to expand upon and again very tight balance of all three races. It still advancement from original to now; number 2.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8
deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8

22399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8
Member since 2007 • 22399 Posts

considering people still play the first one to this day...i dout it will feel very dated.

but hey, if the formula ain't broken then don't fix it

Avatar image for Hewkii
Hewkii

26339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Hewkii
Member since 2006 • 26339 Posts
sometimes it's the outdated things that feel fresh.
Avatar image for justforlotr2004
justforlotr2004

10935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 justforlotr2004
Member since 2004 • 10935 Posts

I actually like COH's resource system. I think it fits with the game's philosophy of focusing on tactical combat instead of overall strategy while still preserving careful base management. The more tactical and fast-paced you make the combat, the more you have to simplify other areas of the game to keep things manageable.

mjarantilla

Yeah Im not saying that is a bad game, I rather enjoyed it. Its just I think there could be more games like SC2.

Avatar image for Koalakommander
Koalakommander

5462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Koalakommander
Member since 2006 • 5462 Posts

i agree, if the game just ends up being the same formula with better graphics it will feel very outdated, but its being developed by blizzard so i doubt that will be the case.Kirlok

Blizzard perfects whatever genre it works in. It's primary focus is making a balanced and enjoyable game.

People look at Starcraft 2 right now and think, "well hey it doesn't have all those cool features and flashy content, it doesn't have the 20 different buttons of special abilities and nukes on the side of the screen like CnC3 does, it doesn't have 50 diffrent types of buildings and units per team, it's not nearly as in depth or expansive as Rise of Nations or Civilization games, and it doesn't have any creative new gameplay devices like Company of Heroes' cover system, or the unique design of world in conflict."

Starcraft is RTS simplified, and that's why it's famous.

Why? Because all the features of those other games make them difficult to approach by new players, and even more difficult for compeitive players to figure out. CnC3 is a fun game, it has alot of cool features, flashy effects, and tons of cool units. Yet, it one of the most unbalanced RTS games on the market. You can't play CnC3 online and expect fair play, because the game is so broken in that department.

Why not take out all those extra units no one uses? Why not take out those super units that everyone masses? Why not remove all those EMP bombs, paratrooper drops, the 4 different nukes, the air strikes, the 5 different kinds of resources, the in depth unit abilites, the tedious cover systems -- why not take everything out that isn't necessary, and just leave as much control in the players' hands as possible?

Starcraft is simply brilliant in that there are 3 races, perfectly balanced yet completely unalike in every way. There is no overwhelming feature of Starcraft except for the how fast,smart, and skilled your opponent is. Because the game's design is so streamlined, players can focus on strategy, micromanagment and think of how they can outsmart their opponent rather than become bogged down with tons of useless flash features.

Starcraft 2 is being made to be a competitive game first, and a feature rich show case last. If you want those games, go play Halo Wars or CnC.

Avatar image for ArisShadows
ArisShadows

22784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 ArisShadows
Member since 2004 • 22784 Posts

[QUOTE="Kirlok"]i agree, if the game just ends up being the same formula with better graphics it will feel very outdated, but its being developed by blizzard so i doubt that will be the case.Koalakommander

Blizzard perfects whatever genre it works in. It's primary focus is making a balanced and enjoyable game.

People look at Starcraft 2 right now and think, "well hey it doesn't have all those cool features and flashy content, it doesn't have the 20 different buttons of special abilities and nukes on the side of the screen like CnC3 does, it doesn't have 50 diffrent types of buildings and units per team, it's not nearly as in depth or expansive as Rise of Nations or Civilization games, and it doesn't have any creative new gameplay devices like Company of Heroes' cover system, or the unique design of world in conflict."

Starcraft is RTS simplified, and that's why it's famous.

Why? Because all the features of those other games make them difficult to approach by new players, and even more difficult for compeitive players to figure out. CnC3 is a fun game, it has alot of cool features, flashy effects, and tons of cool units. Yet, it one of the most unbalanced RTS games on the market. You can't play CnC3 online and expect fair play, because the game is so broken in that department.

Why not take out all those extra units no one uses? Why not take out those super units that everyone masses? Why not remove all those EMP bombs, paratrooper drops, the 4 different nukes, the air strikes, the 5 different kinds of resources, the in depth unit abilites, the tedious cover systems -- why not take everything out that isn't necessary, and just leave as much control in the players' hands as possible?

Starcraft is simply brilliant in that there are 3 races, perfectly balanced yet completely unalike in every way. There is no overwhelming feature of Starcraft except for the how fast,smart, and skilled your opponent is. Because the game's design is so streamlined, players can focus on strategy, micromanagment and think of how they can outsmart their opponent rather than become bogged down with tons of useless flash features.

Starcraft 2 is being made to be a competitive game first, and a feature rich show case last. If you want those games, go play Halo Wars or CnC.

Well said.

Avatar image for Koalakommander
Koalakommander

5462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Koalakommander
Member since 2006 • 5462 Posts

Another way to think of it:

Let's say your playing a game with your friends. This could be football, CallofDuty 4 or whatever.

Does the game get more or less fun when people make a bunch ridiculous rules, special execptions, and basically ruin a really simple idea of a fun time?

Avatar image for freshfighter83
freshfighter83

503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 freshfighter83
Member since 2006 • 503 Posts
I don't see the 1st starcraft as being dated, it's still the best RTS in history. It can be picked up very quickly and played in a very basic form or played in a very advanced way using strategies I don't even the the blizzard thought of. So no, I don't think Starcraft II will be outdated at all.
Avatar image for Nikalai_88
Nikalai_88

1755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 Nikalai_88
Member since 2006 • 1755 Posts

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

thrones

Well all those things you mentioned have existed before the original StarCraft was released, so using your logic it would have been already outdated in 1998.

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

mjarantilla

I don't know if RTSes have really advanced the standards. There seem to be two camps forming: strategic RTSes and tactical RTSes. Strategic RTSes are things like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire where individual engagements aren't that important compared to overall troop movement and economic management., whereas tactical RTSes are things like CoH and DoW which require a TON of micromanagement.

I think StarCraft 2 will fall in between those two extremes, kinda like how StarCraft did, with a slight lean towards the strategic end with more devastating weapons like the mothership's black hole and the nukes and such. I'll expect units in StarCraft other than the basic infantry to be much more powerful in general, but also much more vulnerable in general. If they take that approach, there should be a kind of dynamic high-end equilibrium resulting from having so many incredibly powerful, specialized units acting in concert.

The micro and macro management in StarCraft scale well to the point beyond anything in CoH. High level SC players imput something like 500 commands per minute while one of the best CoH players (Nystrom) doesn't really use keyboard hotkeys.

Avatar image for white_sox
white_sox

17442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

#28 white_sox
Member since 2006 • 17442 Posts

considering people still play the first one to this day...i dout it will feel very dated.

but hey, if the formula ain't broken then don't fix it

darkspineslayer

Agreed 100%, I can go back to play starcraft to this day but fps like goldeneye feel so old and stale.

Avatar image for MTBare
MTBare

5176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 MTBare
Member since 2006 • 5176 Posts
As long as I can be zerg and rush... Starcraft 2 will be awesome.
Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

Nikalai_88

Well all those things you mentioned have existed before the original StarCraft was released, so using your logic it would have been already outdated in 1998.

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

mjarantilla

I don't know if RTSes have really advanced the standards. There seem to be two camps forming: strategic RTSes and tactical RTSes. Strategic RTSes are things like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire where individual engagements aren't that important compared to overall troop movement and economic management., whereas tactical RTSes are things like CoH and DoW which require a TON of micromanagement.

I think StarCraft 2 will fall in between those two extremes, kinda like how StarCraft did, with a slight lean towards the strategic end with more devastating weapons like the mothership's black hole and the nukes and such. I'll expect units in StarCraft other than the basic infantry to be much more powerful in general, but also much more vulnerable in general. If they take that approach, there should be a kind of dynamic high-end equilibrium resulting from having so many incredibly powerful, specialized units acting in concert.

The micro and macro management in StarCraft scale well to the point beyond anything in CoH. High level SC players imput something like 500 commands per minute while one of the best CoH players (Nystrom) doesn't really use keyboard hotkeys.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by micromanagement. When I say micromanagement, I'm talking about manipulating a plethora of largely passive combat factors (as opposed to active special abilities) to play out to your advantage. In StarCraft, things like terrain, direction of fire, cover, movement, accuracy, armor type, and hit locations are generally irrelevant (I know that SC has some basic simulation models for armor and accuracy and such), but in Company of Heroes they are vital to the point where traditionally MUCH weaker units can take out MUCH stronger units if the factors are in their favor.

Micro/macromanagement in terms of actions per minute is more applicable to strategic RTSes like Supreme Commander, where you're generally penalized for being slow to act, just like in StarCraft (as opposed to Company of Heroes, which rewards patience). There are much fewer factors to keep track of in any individual battle in StarCraft, making battles less tactical but more fast-paced and exciting. It also has the effect of making you pay more attention to overall strategic concerns, because you have less control over how individual battles play out.

That's one of the reasons why I said that StarCraft 2's gameplay will be closer to strategic RTSes than tactical RTSes like COH. Not that StarCraft or StarCraft 2 aren't tactical games. They are, but not as much as COH. Which is why I ALSO said that SC2 will be between the extreme tactical gameplay of COH and the extreme strategic gameplay of SupCom and SoaSE.

Avatar image for Koalakommander
Koalakommander

5462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 Koalakommander
Member since 2006 • 5462 Posts
[QUOTE="Nikalai_88"]

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

mjarantilla

Well all those things you mentioned have existed before the original StarCraft was released, so using your logic it would have been already outdated in 1998.

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

mjarantilla

I don't know if RTSes have really advanced the standards. There seem to be two camps forming: strategic RTSes and tactical RTSes. Strategic RTSes are things like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire where individual engagements aren't that important compared to overall troop movement and economic management., whereas tactical RTSes are things like CoH and DoW which require a TON of micromanagement.

I think StarCraft 2 will fall in between those two extremes, kinda like how StarCraft did, with a slight lean towards the strategic end with more devastating weapons like the mothership's black hole and the nukes and such. I'll expect units in StarCraft other than the basic infantry to be much more powerful in general, but also much more vulnerable in general. If they take that approach, there should be a kind of dynamic high-end equilibrium resulting from having so many incredibly powerful, specialized units acting in concert.

The micro and macro management in StarCraft scale well to the point beyond anything in CoH. High level SC players imput something like 500 commands per minute while one of the best CoH players (Nystrom) doesn't really use keyboard hotkeys.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by micromanagement. When I say micromanagement, I'm talking about manipulating a plethora of largely passive combat factors (as opposed to active special abilities) to play out to your advantage. In StarCraft, things like terrain, direction of fire, cover, movement, accuracy, armor type, and hit locations are generally irrelevant (I know that SC has some basic simulation models for armor and accuracy and such), but in Company of Heroes they are vital to the point where traditionally MUCH weaker units can take out MUCH stronger units if the factors are in their favor.

I'm not referring to it in terms of actions per second like competitive RTS players. That's more applicable to strategic RTSes like Supreme Commander, where you're generally penalized for being inefficient and slow to act just like in StarCraft (as opposed to Company of Heroes, which rewards patience). There are fewer factors to keep track of in any individual battle, making battles less tactical but more fast-paced and exciting. It also has the effect of making you pay more attention to overall strategic concerns.

That's one of the reasons why I said that StarCraft 2's gameplay will be closer to strategic RTSes than tactical RTSes like COH. Not that StarCraft or StarCraft 2 aren't tactical games. They are, but not as much as COH. Which is why I ALSO said that SC2 will be between the extreme tactical gameplay of COH and the extreme strategic gameplay of SupCom and SoaSE.

I've seen one firebat with a dropship take down 30+ zerglins in a pro korean game. I see what you are saying, but I honestly thought you were going to make the opposite argument. Starcraft's simplicity allows players to focus on making tactical moves and micromanaging their troops instead of being bogged down with features.

I think SC is just as much "tactical" as CoH is, if not more. 2 marines and a few ScVs take on a whole zerg base early game? It's been done. SC is all about micromanaging your troops, and I'm sure CoH is too. Terrain and movement are crucial in SC.

You gave the dragoon vs siege tank example. Siege tank gets first hit, dragoon is in red. But the player is rushing the tank and before it can take another shot, the dragoon is too close and is tearing it apart. The other player must get out of siege mode, but it is too late.

The dragoon wins.

This may only be possible with upgrade dragoon armor. This battle may have gone to the tank if it had higher elevation, etc...

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
AdrianWerner

28441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#32 AdrianWerner
Member since 2003 • 28441 Posts
Propably not. Because games like DoW or CoH didn't so much move the genre forward, they've moved it sideways
Avatar image for thepwninator
thepwninator

8134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#33 thepwninator
Member since 2006 • 8134 Posts

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

Nikalai_88

Well all those things you mentioned have existed before the original StarCraft was released, so using your logic it would have been already outdated in 1998.

[QUOTE="thrones"]

I'm wondering... when Starcraft 2 comes out, will it seem dated by current genre standards? I mean, we've moved on since the Dune formula, and we're getting more complex things like cover etc. from games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War.

However, from what I'm aware Starcraft 2 seems firmly rooted in the Dune formula and there seems to be mainly new units, new story and new graphics in this... don't get me wrong, I love the game but I can't get rid of the sense it just doesn't seem to fit anymore...

mjarantilla

I don't know if RTSes have really advanced the standards. There seem to be two camps forming: strategic RTSes and tactical RTSes. Strategic RTSes are things like Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire where individual engagements aren't that important compared to overall troop movement and economic management., whereas tactical RTSes are things like CoH and DoW which require a TON of micromanagement.

I think StarCraft 2 will fall in between those two extremes, kinda like how StarCraft did, with a slight lean towards the strategic end with more devastating weapons like the mothership's black hole and the nukes and such. I'll expect units in StarCraft other than the basic infantry to be much more powerful in general, but also much more vulnerable in general. If they take that approach, there should be a kind of dynamic high-end equilibrium resulting from having so many incredibly powerful, specialized units acting in concert.

The micro and macro management in StarCraft scale well to the point beyond anything in CoH. High level SC players imput something like 500 commands per minute while one of the best CoH players (Nystrom) doesn't really use keyboard hotkeys.

Is the "500 commands per minute" thing really a good thing? It turns it from a strategy game into a twitch-reflexes action game. That is why I prefer Total Annihilation over Starcraft. It is just as streamlined, just as balanced, just as polished, but far less special ability-intensive, allowing the player to focus far more on growth, unit diversification (building squadrons of varied aircraft and entire fleets to support ground units, or some variation thereof), and economic management than on how many times they can cast Psionic Storm in the first three seconds of a battle.

Avatar image for darkmagician06
darkmagician06

6060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 darkmagician06
Member since 2003 • 6060 Posts
As long as I can be zerg and rush... Starcraft 2 will be awesome.MTBare
the zerg rush is a commin....
Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

I've seen one firebat with a dropship take down 30+ zerglins in a pro korean game. I see what you are saying, but I honestly thought you were going to make the opposite argument. Starcraft's simplicity allows players to focus on making tactical moves and micromanaging their troops instead of being bogged down with features.Koalakommander

Except that firebats are designed to take out large numbers of soft infantry. Sure, the scenario you presented is an extreme example of that capability in action, but it's still playing to the firebat's specialization. That level of specialization is what makes StarCraft a strategic rather than tactical game, because strategic planning requires clear delineations between troop types and pitting certain troop types against other troop types that it is stronger against.

I think SC is just as much "tactical" as CoH is, if not more. 2 marines and a few ScVs take on a whole zerg base early game? It's been done.Koalakommander

Although tactics would be necessary in the battle itself, that kind of action is a strategic action.

SC is all about micromanaging your troops, and I'm sure CoH is too. Terrain and movement are crucial in SC.

You gave the dragoon vs siege tank example. Siege tank gets first hit, dragoon is in red. But the player is rushing the tank and before it can take another shot, the dragoon is too close and is tearing it apart. The other player must get out of siege mode, but it is too late.

The dragoon wins.

This may only be possible with upgrade dragoon armor. This battle may have gone to the tank if it had higher elevation, etc...Koalakommander

That's a rather simplistic example, and an extreme one because it relies on the use of an extreme specialization (siege mode). If the tank HADN'T been in siege mode, which would you put your money on? Or, alternatively, is there any other way for the dragoon to win that fight other than rushing?

Having a variety of possible tactical decisions to choose from is what makes a game tactical, not the simple fact that you can use tactical maneuvers at all. All RTSes are tactical on some level, but And Company of Heroes, because of all the individual factors it tracks, gives you a wider variety of tactical decisions to choose from with any given situation than StarCraft does, which is what makes it a more tactical game than StarCraft.

StarCraft relies on a bunch of highly specialized units and epitomizes the "rock-paper-scissors" mentality of RTSes, which is what makes it a strategic RTS. Each unit has a specific weakness and a specific strength, and other than overwhelming them with numbers, you achieve victory or defeat by playing to your strengths and avoiding your weaknesses. That doesn't mean it's not tactical or that a strategic player will always beat a tactical player, however. It just means that even on a tactical level, you're using strategic thinking by pitting specific unit types against specific unit types

In Company of Heroes, you have some specialized units (vehicles) that serve specific functions, but your most valuable units are your rifle infantry, which are general purpose units. Their only weakness is shared by all infantry, but their strengths during any given battle depend entirely on the tactics you choose to utilize during that battle.

Ok, here's an example to help illustrate the difference: one team of four riflemen/Marines against another identical team of four riflemen/Marines in an urban battlefield. In StarCraft, how would one team achieve a decisive victory over the other?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#36 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
I am playing StarCraft II mostly for the story and Use Map Settings... I could care less about the actual game itself.
Avatar image for azell07
azell07

281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 azell07
Member since 2006 • 281 Posts
blasphemy! If we were in mideviL times well nvm xD starcraft will own so hard... blizz will make millions. greatness is expected from those noobs @ blizzard. outdated? i dont think so. I think the screens look pretty and from what ive heard, they dont do teh game justice when you see it flow on a gg pc.
Avatar image for MadExponent
MadExponent

11454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 MadExponent
Member since 2003 • 11454 Posts
Don't want to piss off the South Koreans. I was hoping that the game would change some things and take at least some risks. I understand being competitive. Command and Conquer Generals took the series in a fresh direction, added new things and was VERY balanced and competitive. I still prefer the old Westwood/EALA games to Blizzards, matter of preference. Not saying that SC/WC is bad, but come on the formula needs some tweaks/kicks. I can't wait for RA3, I was quite dissapointed in CNC3.
Avatar image for Koalakommander
Koalakommander

5462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 Koalakommander
Member since 2006 • 5462 Posts

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]I've seen one firebat with a dropship take down 30+ zerglins in a pro korean game. I see what you are saying, but I honestly thought you were going to make the opposite argument. Starcraft's simplicity allows players to focus on making tactical moves and micromanaging their troops instead of being bogged down with features.mjarantilla

Except that firebats are designed to take out large numbers of soft infantry. Sure, the scenario you presented is an extreme example of that capability in action, but it's still playing to the firebat's specialization. That level of specialization is what makes StarCraft a strategic rather than tactical game, because strategic planning requires clear delineations between troop types and pitting certain troop types against other troop types that it is stronger against.

I think SC is just as much "tactical" as CoH is, if not more. 2 marines and a few ScVs take on a whole zerg base early game? It's been done.Koalakommander

Although tactics would be necessary in the battle itself, that kind of action is a strategic action.

SC is all about micromanaging your troops, and I'm sure CoH is too. Terrain and movement are crucial in SC.

You gave the dragoon vs siege tank example. Siege tank gets first hit, dragoon is in red. But the player is rushing the tank and before it can take another shot, the dragoon is too close and is tearing it apart. The other player must get out of siege mode, but it is too late.

The dragoon wins.

This may only be possible with upgrade dragoon armor. This battle may have gone to the tank if it had higher elevation, etc...Koalakommander

That's a rather simplistic example, and an extreme one because it relies on the use of an extreme specialization (siege mode). If the tank HADN'T been in siege mode, which would you put your money on? Or, alternatively, is there any other way for the dragoon to win that fight other than rushing?

Having a variety of possible tactical decisions to choose from is what makes a game tactical, not the simple fact that you can use tactical maneuvers at all. All RTSes are tactical on some level, but And Company of Heroes, because of all the individual factors it tracks, gives you a wider variety of tactical decisions to choose from with any given situation than StarCraft does, which is what makes it a more tactical game than StarCraft.

StarCraft relies on a bunch of highly specialized units and epitomizes the "rock-paper-scissors" mentality of RTSes, which is what makes it a strategic RTS. Each unit has a specific weakness and a specific strength, and other than overwhelming them with numbers, you achieve victory or defeat by playing to your strengths and avoiding your weaknesses. That doesn't mean it's not tactical or that a strategic player will always beat a tactical player, however. It just means that even on a tactical level, you're using strategic thinking by pitting specific unit types against specific unit types

In Company of Heroes, you have some specialized units (vehicles) that serve specific functions, but your most valuable units are your rifle infantry, which are general purpose units. Their only weakness is shared by all infantry, but their strengths during any given battle depend entirely on the tactics you choose to utilize during that battle.

Ok, here's an example to help illustrate the difference: one team of four riflemen/Marines against another identical team of four riflemen/Marines in an urban battlefield. In StarCraft, how would one team achieve a decisive victory over the other?

3 scvs, 2 marines -- attack a zerg base with all it's workers and 5 zerglins. Rock paper scissors logic would result in a nearly perfect victory for zerg, tactics make way for an embarassing loss for the zerg. Using micromangment, terran player uses units made to resource gather as a way of blocking incoming zerglins as the marines shoot from a distance.

How is this not tactical?

These types of tactics are very common in SC. You are right that a zealot would tear apart a marine, but you have to remember that a player with tactics can use that marine to do much more than otherwise possible.

Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts
3 scvs, 2 marines -- attack a zerg base with all it's workers and 5 zerglins. Rock paper scissors logic would result in a nearly perfect victory for zerg, tactics make way for an embarassing loss for the zerg. Using micromangment, terran player uses units made to resource gather as a way of blocking incoming zerglins as the marines shoot from a distance.

How is this not tactical?Koalakommander

I didn't say that it's not tactical. If you'll notice, I said specifically that tactics would be used in the battle itself.

These types of tactics are very common in SC. You are right that a zealot would tear apart a marine, but you have to remember that a player with tactics can use that marine to do much more than otherwise possible.Koalakommander

Yes, but still not nearly as much as in Company of Heroes, which is why I said that CoH is a more tactical game than StarCraft. You simply cannot play Company of Heroes strategically the way you could with StarCraft.

Avatar image for laughingman42
laughingman42

8730

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 laughingman42
Member since 2007 • 8730 Posts

Considering the only thing that feels outdated in the origional Starcraft is being able to select only 12 units at once (and graphics if you really want to ***** about it) I don't think they have to do a whole lot to the formula to keep SC incredible.

Avatar image for laughingman42
laughingman42

8730

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 laughingman42
Member since 2007 • 8730 Posts

[QUOTE="Kirlok"]i agree, if the game just ends up being the same formula with better graphics it will feel very outdated, but its being developed by blizzard so i doubt that will be the case.Koalakommander

Blizzard perfects whatever genre it works in. It's primary focus is making a balanced and enjoyable game.

People look at Starcraft 2 right now and think, "well hey it doesn't have all those cool features and flashy content, it doesn't have the 20 different buttons of special abilities and nukes on the side of the screen like CnC3 does, it doesn't have 50 diffrent types of buildings and units per team, it's not nearly as in depth or expansive as Rise of Nations or Civilization games, and it doesn't have any creative new gameplay devices like Company of Heroes' cover system, or the unique design of world in conflict."

Starcraft is RTS simplified, and that's why it's famous.

Why? Because all the features of those other games make them difficult to approach by new players, and even more difficult for compeitive players to figure out. CnC3 is a fun game, it has alot of cool features, flashy effects, and tons of cool units. Yet, it one of the most unbalanced RTS games on the market. You can't play CnC3 online and expect fair play, because the game is so broken in that department.

Why not take out all those extra units no one uses? Why not take out those super units that everyone masses? Why not remove all those EMP bombs, paratrooper drops, the 4 different nukes, the air strikes, the 5 different kinds of resources, the in depth unit abilites, the tedious cover systems -- why not take everything out that isn't necessary, and just leave as much control in the players' hands as possible?

Starcraft is simply brilliant in that there are 3 races, perfectly balanced yet completely unalike in every way. There is no overwhelming feature of Starcraft except for the how fast,smart, and skilled your opponent is. Because the game's design is so streamlined, players can focus on strategy, micromanagment and think of how they can outsmart their opponent rather than become bogged down with tons of useless flash features.

Starcraft 2 is being made to be a competitive game first, and a feature rich show case last. If you want those games, go play Halo Wars or CnC.

you pretty much just hit the nail on the head.

Avatar image for Nikalai_88
Nikalai_88

1755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#43 Nikalai_88
Member since 2006 • 1755 Posts

mjarantiala, look>

As a short one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujq1e4ig4d8

Please abserve all the micro techniques in this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh6JPbIWNU0

I am sorry but I doubt that you play StarCraft or follow professional games.

Some of the things you describe in CoH are simply not true, its a game of hard counters and positioning with plenty of special abilities. A rifleman squad without sticky bombs simply can't take on a tank and a greyhound (without mines) won't take on a Panthern. There are certainly more 'systems' in CoH but they are not as versetile as in SC. Most tank/small arms fire is calculated with simple 'to hit chances'- a model simpler than StarCraft's. If the 'to hit chance' is calculated as positive than you will see the shell curve towards your units no matter how you move it. Other aspects, like elevation are present in SC (and not in CoH) and coupled with air units has great affect. Also Movement speeds play a more important role, I mean in SC you have units like the Reaver and abilities like Recall creating truly opposite ends; in CoH most combat units either have the games generic 'normal' speed or 'slightly faster', true arty is slow, but its range makes up for it.

There is certainly more to it, I mean how would you lay your vulture mines to stop enemy goons? Or to counter dark templars or to protect your siege against speed zealots? You mentioned the rifleman example but I do not know (or remember) any 1v1 maps that are urban, if you mean something like the center of Semois than I can answear that. If you only had basic Volks against basic rifles than the cover in the contested area would become so saturated that the options will come to whether to fight the battle or not. Most infantry battles that I have seen in that are amounted to church/grave-yard against the positions of the house to the north-east.

Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#45 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

mjarantiala, look>

As a short one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujq1e4ig4d8

Please abserve all the micro techniques in this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh6JPbIWNU0

I am sorry but I doubt that you play StarCraft or follow professional games.

Nikalai_88

It's obvious that you don't realize that everything employed in those videos are of rather BASIC tactical maneuvers that rely on only four factors:
* unit placement
* special abilities
* timing
* weapon type

In Company of Heroes, tactics rely on:
* unit placement
* special abilities
* timing
* weapon type
* cover (complete/incomplete/exposed)
* unit posture (crouching, standing, kneeling, in a building
* building destructibility (a shell of a building provides much less cover to units inside than a complete building)
* direction of fire (units have narrow fields of fire; some have to be manually pointed)
* elevation (higher elevation penetrates more cover)
* sectional targeting (targeting wheels, engines, weapons, side/back/top armor, etc.)
* armor type (different values for front armor, back armor, side armor, top armor, turret armor, etc.)
* unit accuracy (depends on whether units are in cover, moving, standing, crouching, kneeling, under fire, in a building, etc.; also, tank shells and artillery are highly inaccurate)
* retrievable weapons (your units can retrieve the special weapons of enemies they've killed, e.g. squad machine guns, bazookas, etc.)

Granted, you can pull off some amazing tactical maneuvers in StarCraft, but that doesn't make it a more tactical game. StarCraft relies on a relatively simple tactical model, which is why battles are so fast and fierce in StarCraft. In Company of Heroes, battles are long and drawn out affairs, but are incredibly tense because there are so many factors at play all at once.

its a game of hard counters and positioning with plenty of special abilities. Nikalai_88

So? How would that make it less tactical?

A rifleman squad without sticky bombs simply can't take on a tank and a greyhound (without mines) won't take on a Panthern.Nikalai_88

This is true, but it's also a given. You still cannot deny the fact that a rifleman squad in CoH is a FAR more versatile unit than the basic infantry units in StarCraft, especially given the fact that such squads can pick up weapons and man emplacements on the battlefield as they are needed.

There are certainly more 'systems' in CoH but they are not as versetile as in SC. Most tank/small arms fire is calculated with simple 'to hit chances'- a model simpler than StarCraft's.Nikalai_88

Wrong. StarCraft's damage modeling is FAR simpler. In StarCraft, units ALWAYS hit their targets, with the exception of units which have a time-on-target delay that can be exploited (siege tanks in siege mode, lurkers, etc.).

If the 'to hit chance' is calculated as positive than you will see the shell curve towards your units no matter how you move it. Nikalai_88

Yes, but the number of variables/modifiers in that calculation is what requires tactical compensation.

CoH's damage modeling may be straightforward, but it's anything but simple. Having half a dozen modifiers to the hit-chance, and then another half-dozen modifiers to the damage calculation is not simple, especially when you're the one that has to keep track of them all.

However, having one modifier to the hit-chance (time on target) and one modifier to the damage calculation (armor/weapon type), as in StarCraft, is simple.

Other aspects, like elevation are present in SC (and not in CoH) and coupled with air units has great affect. Also Movement speeds play a more important role, I mean in SC you have units like the Reaver and abilities like Recall creating truly opposite ends;Nikalai_88

That only means that StarCraft's tactics are more dynamic, but the number of simultaneous factors that need to be monitored in each tactical maneuver is still smaller than in CoH.

in CoH most combat units either have the games generic 'normal' speed or 'slightly faster',Nikalai_88

CoH compensates for a lack of variety in movement speeds by giving those movement speeds a direct effect on other factors, such as enemy accuracy and your own units' accuracy.

true arty is slow, but its range makes up for it.Nikalai_88

Which is the case in CoH, but NOT in StarCraft. Most artillery emplacements are immobile in CoH, and mobile artillery is either weak (mortars) or a limited unit (rocket tanks).

There is certainly more to it, I mean how would you lay your vulture mines to stop enemy goons? Or to counter dark templars or to protect your siege against speed zealots?Nikalai_88

Again, those involve basic tactical thinking. The speed at which actions occur in StarCraft preclude any sort of complex tactical models.

You mentioned the rifleman example but I do not know (or remember) any 1v1 maps that are urban,Nikalai_88

"Urban" was a wrong choice of words because it's too specific. I meant terrain with plenty of intermediate and impassable obstacles and occupiable shelters (e.g. bunkers).

Avatar image for ejstrup
ejstrup

2192

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#46 ejstrup
Member since 2005 • 2192 Posts

Considrering how many people play Starcraft today...they could probably re-release that and it still wouldnt be outdated.

Besides, Starcraft was always about creative unit design and balance...at least as far as multiplayer goes.

cobrax75

QFT

I'm expecting this game to play like the old and not introduce any new rushed gimmicky features. Starcraft ftw!

Avatar image for HatFried
HatFried

704

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 HatFried
Member since 2006 • 704 Posts

Strategic Real Time Strategy games, Tactical Real Time Strategy games?!

....anyway, I personally don't think that Starcraft's outdated at all. It looks like it does what it does to a tee.

Avatar image for Taiko88
Taiko88

1854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#48 Taiko88
Member since 2004 • 1854 Posts
I don't know why you ladies are getting your panties in a bunch. SC2 will be almost the same as SC1 - there is no difference. The game will be what starcraft has always been, a fast paced, resource gathering micro/macro managing game. From the videos and screenshots you guys should stop worrying about a CoH style gameplay. Relax, and by the end of the year we'll all be being pumelled by the elite korean teams...unfortunately. :(
Avatar image for mjarantilla
mjarantilla

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#49 mjarantilla
Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

I don't know why you ladies are getting your panties in a bunch. SC2 will be almost the same as SC1 - there is no difference. The game will be what starcraft has always been, a fast paced, resource gathering micro/macro managing game. From the videos and screenshots you guys should stop worrying about a CoH style gameplay. Relax, and by the end of the year we'll all be being pumelled by the elite korean teams...unfortunately. :(Taiko88

I'm not worrying about it, personally, but some people here seem to have an issue with StarCraft not being the deepest game in the world in terms of tactical gameplay. They don't seem to realize that it's precisely that balance that StarCraft has between tactical and strategic gameplay that makes it so great, and that if Blizzard had made StarCraft to be as tactical as CoH, then it probably would not have been as much fun as it was.

Avatar image for Koalakommander
Koalakommander

5462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Koalakommander
Member since 2006 • 5462 Posts

[QUOTE="Taiko88"]I don't know why you ladies are getting your panties in a bunch. SC2 will be almost the same as SC1 - there is no difference. The game will be what starcraft has always been, a fast paced, resource gathering micro/macro managing game. From the videos and screenshots you guys should stop worrying about a CoH style gameplay. Relax, and by the end of the year we'll all be being pumelled by the elite korean teams...unfortunately. :(mjarantilla

I'm not worrying about it, personally, but some people here seem to have an issue with StarCraft not being the deepest game in the world in terms of tactical gameplay. They don't seem to realize that it's precisely that balance that StarCraft has between tactical and strategic gameplay that makes it so great, and that if Blizzard had made StarCraft to be as tactical as CoH, then it probably would not have been as much fun as it was.

I was just trying to say that you don't need to bog your game down with all the features of games like CoH to make your game extremely tactical.

That's why CoH is nowhere near SC in terms of popularity -- there's too much to learn.

Doesn't mean CoH isn't awsome though.