why do people want Star Craft 2?(56k should upgrade)

Because some people like myself enjoy the depth of tactics and fury of the gameplay more then something thats slower and far less enjoyable on a multiplayer or singleplayer front, not only that but making your own custom games is fun.Zenkuso

there's hardly any depth of tactics in SC. And I'm pretty sure Empire:TW will more enjoyable in SP campaign. SC's main strenght isn't tactics (it hardly has any) or the good, but not exceptional SP campaign, it's all about frantic MP, where your strategy (not tactics), ability to memorize patterns and the reflexes you have are everything

Dude every game is different if your point was correct you can't compare any game with one another. Also again just because people don't agree doesn't mean that they are fanboys.

illegalimigrant

There is a difference between disagreeing and acting moronic. Downplaying one game to make your preferred game look better is acting moronic.

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

STarcraft "redefined" a genre...

Total War CREATED a genre of its own...

AdrianWerner

lol...what? :D How does taking Lords of the Realm2 formula, dumbing down the strategy level beyond belieft and instead adding 3D and morale into battles count as "creating a genre"?

Would be nice if you edited your post because I wasn't the one who originally said that....true_gamer did.

[QUOTE="Zenkuso"]

Because some people like myself enjoy the depth of tactics and fury of the gameplay more then something thats slower and far less enjoyable on a multiplayer or singleplayer front, not only that but making your own custom games is fun.AdrianWerner

there's hardly any depth of tactics in SC. And I'm pretty sure Empire:TW will more enjoyable in SP campaign. SC's main strenght isn't tactics (it hardly has any) or the good, but not exceptional SP campaign, it's all about frantic MP, where your strategy (not tactics), ability to memorize patterns and the reflexes you have are everything

Strategy = How you macro.

Tactics = How you micro.

Taking and securing certain positions on a map is about as far as you can go strategically when it comes to Starcraft. It's not meant to be that indepth, especially considering that a match is meant to last at least 20 to 30 minutes. Hard to get into things like culture, citizen's revolts, influence, yata yata, in that time frame. Starcraft is all about how you handle skirmishes. Since those battles are tactical by nature, yes, Starcraft is a very tactical game.

Strategy = How you macro.

Tactics = How you micro.

Taking and securing certain positions on a map is about as far as you can go strategically when it comes to Starcraft. It's not meant to be that indepth, especially considering that a match is meant to last at least 20 to 30 minutes. Hard to get into things like culture, citizen's revolts, influence, yata yata, in that time frame. Starcraft is all about how you handle skirmishes. Since those battles are tactical by nature, yes, Starcraft is a very tactical game.

Redmoonxl2

In SC it is more important what units you have built than how you use them. And the tactical depth? There hardly is any there. The terrain has almost no effect on anything, there are no formations and most of all, you can't have a decent tactical level without morale system, taking it out means you leave 90% of all tactics behind. Skirmishes in SC are all about how fast you can use mouse and hot keys, not about actualy creating and using any real tactics.

Play Close Combat 3 or Combat Mission, that;s a very tactical game. Calling SC a "tactical game" is like calling Mario Kari a racing sim

[QUOTE="Zenkuso"]

Because some people like myself enjoy the depth of tactics and fury of the gameplay more then something thats slower and far less enjoyable on a multiplayer or singleplayer front, not only that but making your own custom games is fun.AdrianWerner

there's hardly any depth of tactics in SC. And I'm pretty sure Empire:TW will more enjoyable in SP campaign. SC's main strenght isn't tactics (it hardly has any) or the good, but not exceptional SP campaign, it's all about frantic MP, where your strategy (not tactics), ability to memorize patterns and the reflexes you have are everything

Depends how you approach it really.

Having the ability to macro is vital to your survival against veteran players but not quite as nessacary against lesser players or in custom games and whilst a strategy is key to your long term annilation of your opponent you will more often then not resort to tactics using your units to off-set your opponent to achieve your actual strategy or to set it right after your opponent off-sets your own.

And while not a true definition of a depth of tactics there is the ability to deploy tactics in the game and have them be successful and varied enough to warrant the term to some degree, its more something thats there in the game but people rarely will every attempt because (borrowing a phase) its easier to run an gun and be successful then it is to actually think about what your doing.

As for the enjoyment factor of the game, its a completely personal agruement which has no real victor because we each like our own personal enjoyment in video games, music, movies, etc that its comes to a completely pointless conclusion of being utterly useless in the debate.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Etherninty"]Who ever think that Starcraft "just does not cut it anymore" does not realize that Starcraft is like Chess to many people. In South Korea Starcraft has even replaced the chess.Veterngamer

Wow you have no clue what you're talking about...... I live in South Korea... YOU = WRONG

Yea you live in south korea that's why your avatar is a canadian flag. I did not make it up it came out on Tech Tv before it was G4.

You're forgetting about resource gathering, base building and unit production. That's where most strategy in SC or any pure RTS come from. Of course nowadays the game is so old hardly anyone thinks anymore, they just repeat the patterns they've learned.

In SC it is more important what units you have built than how you use them. And the tactical depth? There hardly is any there. The terrain has almost no effect on anything, there are no formations and most of all, you can't have a decent tactical level without morale system, taking it out means you leave 90% of all tactics behind. Skirmishes in SC are all about how fast you can use mouse and hot keys, not about actualy creating and using any real tactics.

Play Close Combat 3 or Combat Mission, that;s a very tactical game. Calling SC a "tactical game" is like calling Mario Kari a racing sim

AdrianWerner

Don't be silly. The true definition of tactics is the effectiveness of how one deploys and manuvers units on the battlefield. There is plenty of differing tactics in Starcraft, especially with the ever evolving and expanding map list via tournament organizers. Don't try to elevate the word into something it's not, especially where very few titles aside from what you deem worthy will fit your views on the word.

You seem to have a very foggy and distorted view of Starcarft and the definitions of the words "strategy" and "tactics." Resource gathering, base building and unit production doesn't win a match. As far as strategy goes, that aspect of Starcraft is neglected when compared to harder strategy games, mostly due to the speed of the game. However, there is no such thing as victory outside of total annihilation in Starcraft and "pure" RTS games (Outside of AoE). How you utilize your units determines you victory in battle. For example, if you send in high templars without a decent tanking force (Whether it be zealots or dragoons), they will be be wiped. If you send in zealots without a detection unit, something as simple as lurkers will destroy your army. How you approach with one squad and flank with the other can mean victory or defeat, while choosing to attack an expansion will cripple your enemy to the point of an economic shutdown. There are many tactics that can assure victory and to simplify the game by calling it a race via mouse and hot keys is a stupid statement to make. Playing the game is completely different than learning the game. I advise you to learn some Starcraft before you comment on Starcraft.

On a side note, I'll take your advise and hunt down Close Combat 3 and Combat mission.

Depends how you approach it really.

Having the ability to macro is vital to your survival against veteran players but not quite as nessacary against lesser players or in custom games and whilst a strategy is key to your long term annilation of your opponent you will more often then not resort to tactics using your units to off-set your opponent to achieve your actual strategy or to set it right after your opponent off-sets your own.Zenkuso

Except that (especialy currently) SC micro has more in common with action game (or specificaly a fighting game) than tactics. It's all about how efficent you are with controls and quickly repeating memorized patterns. Now, compared to most pure RTSes there is plenty of tactics in SC, not so much because of the game itself, but because how competitive and experience the community is, but calling it a highly tactical game is pure nonsense as there are multiple games out there that make SC's tactical level look and play like it was designed for 5yrs olds

Well... that's funny because I'm about to go play Starcraft 1 right now. And I have a perfectly capable PS3 with GTAIV and a Wii with MP3, SMG, Brawl, etc in the living room right next to me.

*leaves to go play Starcraft*

[QUOTE="Veterngamer"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Etherninty"]Who ever think that Starcraft "just does not cut it anymore" does not realize that Starcraft is like Chess to many people. In South Korea Starcraft has even replaced the chess.illegalimigrant

Wow you have no clue what you're talking about...... I live in South Korea... YOU = WRONG

Yea you live in south korea that's why your avatar is a canadian flag. I did not make it up it came out on Tech Tv before it was G4.

Since when do avatars have to do anything about location?

He could be a canadian who lives on South Korea.

Or he could just like maple leaves.

Oh yeah...

Starcraft > You, and Me put together.

Because Starcraft is considered by MANY as the greatest RTS game EVER!3verlastingHero

But, I am afraid, it is not.

It is simply considered that by the uninformed mainstream.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

You're forgetting about resource gathering, base building and unit production. That's where most strategy in SC or any pure RTS come from. Of course nowadays the game is so old hardly anyone thinks anymore, they just repeat the patterns they've learned.

In SC it is more important what units you have built than how you use them. And the tactical depth? There hardly is any there. The terrain has almost no effect on anything, there are no formations and most of all, you can't have a decent tactical level without morale system, taking it out means you leave 90% of all tactics behind. Skirmishes in SC are all about how fast you can use mouse and hot keys, not about actualy creating and using any real tactics.

Play Close Combat 3 or Combat Mission, that;s a very tactical game. Calling SC a "tactical game" is like calling Mario Kari a racing sim

Redmoonxl2

Don't be silly. The true definition of tactics is the effectiveness of how one deploys and manuvers units on the battlefield. There is plenty of differing tactics in Starcraft, especially with the ever evolving and expanding map list via tournament organizers. Don't try to elevate the word into something it's not, especially where very few titles aside from what you deem worthy will fit your views on the word.

You seem to have a very foggy and distorted view of Starcarft and the definitions of the words "strategy" and "tactics." Resource gathering, base building and unit production doesn't win a match. As far as strategy goes, that aspect of Starcraft is neglected when compared to harder strategy games, mostly due to the speed of the game. However, there is no such thing as victory outside of total annihilation in Starcraft and "pure" RTS games (Outside of AoE). How you utilize your units determines you victory in battle. For example, if you send in high templars without a decent tanking force (Whether it be zealots or dragoons), they will be be wiped. If you send in zealots without a detection unit, something as simple as lurkers will destroy your army. How you approach with one squad and flank with the other can mean victory or defeat, while choosing to attack an expansion will cripple your enemy to the point of an economic shutdown. There are many tactics that can assure victory and to simplify the game by calling it a race via mouse and hot keys is a stupid statement to make. Playing the game is completely different than learning the game. I advise you to learn some Starcraft before you comment on Starcraft.

On a side note, I'll take your advise and hunt down Close Combat 3 and Combat mission.

Have you played MTW2? Tell me how starcraft tactics are better than MTW2? Can you take out an army 5 times your size with weaker units by using strategy?

I remember when playing medieval 2 I was able to take out an army 5x my size with peasant units by using pure strategy and tactics.

im upgrading my PC to play SC2. -GhostMLD-

So am I

Have you played MTW2? Tell me how starcraft tactics are better than MTW2? Can you take out an army 5 times your size with weaker units by using strategy?

I remember when playing medieval 2 I was able to take out an army 5x my size with peasant units by using pure strategy and tactics.

illegalimigrant

You are comparing apples with oranges. MTW2 is a historic battle simulator with no unit building, unit focused gameplay or base building. Like I stated before, you might as well bring the Civilization games into the argument.

[QUOTE="3verlastingHero"]Because Starcraft is considered by MANY as the greatest RTS game EVER!thepwninator

But, I am afraid, it is not.

It is simply considered that by the uninformed mainstream.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

You're forgetting about resource gathering, base building and unit production. That's where most strategy in SC or any pure RTS come from. Of course nowadays the game is so old hardly anyone thinks anymore, they just repeat the patterns they've learned.

In SC it is more important what units you have built than how you use them. And the tactical depth? There hardly is any there. The terrain has almost no effect on anything, there are no formations and most of all, you can't have a decent tactical level without morale system, taking it out means you leave 90% of all tactics behind. Skirmishes in SC are all about how fast you can use mouse and hot keys, not about actualy creating and using any real tactics.

Play Close Combat 3 or Combat Mission, that;s a very tactical game. Calling SC a "tactical game" is like calling Mario Kari a racing sim

illegalimigrant

Don't be silly. The true definition of tactics is the effectiveness of how one deploys and manuvers units on the battlefield. There is plenty of differing tactics in Starcraft, especially with the ever evolving and expanding map list via tournament organizers. Don't try to elevate the word into something it's not, especially where very few titles aside from what you deem worthy will fit your views on the word.

You seem to have a very foggy and distorted view of Starcarft and the definitions of the words "strategy" and "tactics." Resource gathering, base building and unit production doesn't win a match. As far as strategy goes, that aspect of Starcraft is neglected when compared to harder strategy games, mostly due to the speed of the game. However, there is no such thing as victory outside of total annihilation in Starcraft and "pure" RTS games (Outside of AoE). How you utilize your units determines you victory in battle. For example, if you send in high templars without a decent tanking force (Whether it be zealots or dragoons), they will be be wiped. If you send in zealots without a detection unit, something as simple as lurkers will destroy your army. How you approach with one squad and flank with the other can mean victory or defeat, while choosing to attack an expansion will cripple your enemy to the point of an economic shutdown. There are many tactics that can assure victory and to simplify the game by calling it a race via mouse and hot keys is a stupid statement to make. Playing the game is completely different than learning the game. I advise you to learn some Starcraft before you comment on Starcraft.

On a side note, I'll take your advise and hunt down Close Combat 3 and Combat mission.

Have you played MTW2? Tell me how starcraft tactics are better than MTW2? Can you take out an army 5 times your size with weaker units by using strategy?

I remember when playing medieval 2 I was able to take out an army 5x my size with peasant units by using pure strategy and tactics.

DIdn't he just say that with I dunno, the zealots and lurkers comparision?

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

Have you played MTW2? Tell me how starcraft tactics are better than MTW2? Can you take out an army 5 times your size with weaker units by using strategy?

I remember when playing medieval 2 I was able to take out an army 5x my size with peasant units by using pure strategy and tactics.

Redmoonxl2

You are comparing apples with oranges. MTW2 is a historic battle simulator with no unit building, unit focused gameplay or base building. Like I stated before, you might as well bring the Civilization games into the argument.

Yea they are two different games. But MTW2 does have unit building, base building and that. Have you played it? My point is that I prefer battles that are determined by your strategy and tactics not what units you have. But then that's my preference and my oppinion.

Yea they are two different games. But MTW2 does have unit building, base building and that. Have you played it? My point is that I prefer battles that are determined by your strategy and tactics not what units you have. But then that's my preference and my oppinion.

illegalimigrant

As I stated before, you might as well bring in Civilization into this argument since you are not arguing within the genre, you are arguing preference in games in general.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

You're forgetting about resource gathering, base building and unit production. That's where most strategy in SC or any pure RTS come from. Of course nowadays the game is so old hardly anyone thinks anymore, they just repeat the patterns they've learned.

In SC it is more important what units you have built than how you use them. And the tactical depth? There hardly is any there. The terrain has almost no effect on anything, there are no formations and most of all, you can't have a decent tactical level without morale system, taking it out means you leave 90% of all tactics behind. Skirmishes in SC are all about how fast you can use mouse and hot keys, not about actualy creating and using any real tactics.

Play Close Combat 3 or Combat Mission, that;s a very tactical game. Calling SC a "tactical game" is like calling Mario Kari a racing sim

ArisShadows

Don't be silly. The true definition of tactics is the effectiveness of how one deploys and manuvers units on the battlefield. There is plenty of differing tactics in Starcraft, especially with the ever evolving and expanding map list via tournament organizers. Don't try to elevate the word into something it's not, especially where very few titles aside from what you deem worthy will fit your views on the word.

You seem to have a very foggy and distorted view of Starcarft and the definitions of the words "strategy" and "tactics." Resource gathering, base building and unit production doesn't win a match. As far as strategy goes, that aspect of Starcraft is neglected when compared to harder strategy games, mostly due to the speed of the game. However, there is no such thing as victory outside of total annihilation in Starcraft and "pure" RTS games (Outside of AoE). How you utilize your units determines you victory in battle. For example, if you send in high templars without a decent tanking force (Whether it be zealots or dragoons), they will be be wiped. If you send in zealots without a detection unit, something as simple as lurkers will destroy your army. How you approach with one squad and flank with the other can mean victory or defeat, while choosing to attack an expansion will cripple your enemy to the point of an economic shutdown. There are many tactics that can assure victory and to simplify the game by calling it a race via mouse and hot keys is a stupid statement to make. Playing the game is completely different than learning the game. I advise you to learn some Starcraft before you comment on Starcraft.

On a side note, I'll take your advise and hunt down Close Combat 3 and Combat mission.

Have you played MTW2? Tell me how starcraft tactics are better than MTW2? Can you take out an army 5 times your size with weaker units by using strategy?

I remember when playing medieval 2 I was able to take out an army 5x my size with peasant units by using pure strategy and tactics.

DIdn't he just say that with I dunno, the zealots and lurkers comparision?

This game cannot reach the strategy of MTW. Medieval total war takes morale, flanks, elevation, speed, weather, stamina, terrain, weapons, armor, incline, formation, stealth, fear and others concepts to many to write into account when determening how much damage is done to the enemy. SC only uses a simple armor, hitpoints and damage concept to calculate damage.

For example in MTW2 armored units become more fatigued when in the dessert. This makes sence since the armour absorbs the heat and make it hotter for the soldier. This is just an example of detail in gameplay in MTW.

Ok I'm back, yep it's still fun.

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]im upgrading my PC to play SC2. Roushrsh

So am I

Me too.

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]im upgrading my PC to play SC2. thrones

Red Alert 3? :D

Don't be silly. The true definition of tactics is the effectiveness of how one deploys and manuvers units on the battlefield.

Redmoonxl2

For example, if you send in high templars without a decent tanking force (Whether it be zealots or dragoons), they will be be wiped. If you send in zealots without a detection unit, something as simple as lurkers will destroy your army. How you approach with one squad and flank with the other can mean victory or defeat, while choosing to attack an expansion will cripple your enemy to the point of an economic shutdown.Redmoonxl2

I don't consider rock and paper gameplay to be an example of deep tactics, tactics alone? yeah, deep tactics? not so much. Yo use flanking as example, except it's almost useless in SC, it hardly matters from which side you attack, the enemy units reacts the same( if there was a deep tactical level attacking unit from behing would absolutely demolish it, but in SC they just turn around and then fighting till the last one). You can't do advanced tactics because the most basic rules of tactics: the importance of positioning, the importance of morale and terrain are almost completely ignored by Starcraft.

On a side note, I'll take your advise and hunt down Close Combat 3 and Combat mission.

Redmoonxl2

It's like saying Ace COmbat is a flight simulator, sure. compared to say Rogue Leader it is a lot more realistic, there is plenty of realism in Ace Combat, but this doesn't make is a flight simulator. Starcraft is similiar, compared to other bare bones RTSes Blizzard did include plenty of tactics, but when you will play Close COmbat or Combat Mission you will understand what I've meant.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

Have you played MTW2? Tell me how starcraft tactics are better than MTW2? Can you take out an army 5 times your size with weaker units by using strategy?

I remember when playing medieval 2 I was able to take out an army 5x my size with peasant units by using pure strategy and tactics.

Redmoonxl2

You are comparing apples with oranges. MTW2 is a historic battle simulator with no unit building, unit focused gameplay or base building. Like I stated before, you might as well bring the Civilization games into the argument.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]

Don't be silly. The true definition of tactics is the effectiveness of how one deploys and manuvers units on the battlefield.

AdrianWerner

For example, if you send in high templars without a decent tanking force (Whether it be zealots or dragoons), they will be be wiped. If you send in zealots without a detection unit, something as simple as lurkers will destroy your army. How you approach with one squad and flank with the other can mean victory or defeat, while choosing to attack an expansion will cripple your enemy to the point of an economic shutdown.Redmoonxl2

I don't consider rock and paper gameplay to be an example of deep tactics, tactics alone? yeah, deep tactics? not so much. Yo use flanking as example, except it's almost useless in SC, it hardly matters from which side you attack, the enemy units reacts the same( if there was a deep tactical level attacking unit from behing would absolutely demolish it, but in SC they just turn around and then fighting till the last one). You can't do advanced tactics because the most basic rules of tactics: the importance of positioning, the importance of morale and terrain are almost completely ignored by Starcraft.

On a side note, I'll take your advise and hunt down Close Combat 3 and Combat mission.

Redmoonxl2

It's like saying Ace COmbat is a flight simulator, sure. compared to say Rogue Leader it is a lot more realistic, there is plenty of realism in Ace Combat, but this doesn't make is a flight simulator. Starcraft is similiar, compared to other bare bones RTSes Blizzard did include plenty of tactics, but when you will play Close COmbat or Combat Mission you will understand what I've meant.

I'm sorry but all I'm seeing here is a person with a high and mighty view of something he's making unattainable and presenting games in some cult list of games he has played. It's no different than telling someone that they haven't seen a real movie until they have seen some obscure foreign flick only he and a few dozen others have heard of. Get over yourself.

By breaking the gameplay down to rock, paper and scissors, it does sound simplistic. However, why would you make it that simplistic when you can combine all three into one working military? Also, how does a unit having a weakness making combat simple? Is infantry not weak against air? Is air units not weak against anti air units? How about anti air against tanks? This is no different than in real life. Unless your highly profile games are working on a perspective outside what we as humans see in battlefields new and old, I doubt they are straying from the presented formula.

Also, you complain about the lack of morale in Starcarft. Morale is there, you're just not looking in the right place. It's the player's job to adjust, adapt and react to the given situation. Losing a force, positioning your military in an area that can hazardous to your progress and witnessing the conditions of both your base and economy can and will break a person down mentally. There is no need for a gameplay system to tell you what should be common sense.

Again, since I'm taking your advise to try out a few games, my advise to you is go back and play some Starcraft online. What you need is a good memory refresher because it's obvious you are judging the game based on outdated views.

Yes, he's comparing apple with oranges. He compared a highly tactical battle system wit simple tactics-light RTS like SC. So yes, it is comparing apples to oranges. But people called Starcraft here a "deeply tactical game". so the comparision is valid. If you want to compare the oranges to other oranges the better way would be to say "SC is deeply tactical...for a pure RTS game" :)AdrianWerner

Because it makes sense to compare fast paced strategy games that last in under an hour to slower based games with long term kingdom building in mind. I mean, hell, I guess TW must be hellishly dumbed when compared to Galciv, amirite? Its a fair comparison, right?

:roll:

Wow this guy is actually serious, i knew ppl in SW were ignorant and ridiculous but this is something else. I personally NEVER played MTW2 never so im not going to insult u guys saying this suck this other thing is bad about this game. But u saying SC doesnt have tactics is insulting for me, i been playing this game for 9 years. If u knew all the planning that goes into a 1v1 game of BW wow, there are stuff that u just CANT do if u dont practice for months or even years, all u need to do is watch those koreans playing and u r jsut amazed.

Each unit in the game has a counter but thats not all theres to it, u have to know WHEN to move HOW to move WHERE to move, i've seen a lot of games end badly for one player cuz the other moved bad, didnt macro correctly, attacked the wrong location, didnt micro well enough, a little thing like 1 marine could save u in certain situations, i've seen guys kill 1 lurker with 1 marine(u know how much micro goes into that?). There are so many different BO's u could do vs any of the other races its really fun to play, u could start ur game doing whatever crazy tech that could or not work.

A game of BW could go from 4-5 mins to even 1 hour, that shows how well balanced the game is and just how many different tactics u use from one game to the other. I could go on and on about how many different tactics u need to use in so many different situations. A game in starcraft is very unpredictable u never know what the other guy is going to do and how r u going to counter; u need to learn every possible tactic that the other played could or not do.

U obviously never played starcraft in your life, since u have such a shallow opinion of the game

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Yes, he's comparing apple with oranges. He compared a highly tactical battle system wit simple tactics-light RTS like SC. So yes, it is comparing apples to oranges. But people called Starcraft here a "deeply tactical game". so the comparision is valid. If you want to compare the oranges to other oranges the better way would be to say "SC is deeply tactical...for a pure RTS game" :)Redmoonxl2

Because it makes sense to compare fast paced strategy games that last in under an hour to slower based games with long term kingdom building in mind. I mean, hell, I guess TW must be hellishly dumbed when compared to Galciv, amirite? Its a fair comparison, right?

:roll:

He compared battles. But yes, compared to say Europa Universalis 3 the strategy level of TW is dumbed down and simple. That's why I it's nonsense to say TW is very deep strategicaly game, it's not, just like Starcraft isn't deep tactical gameAdrianWerner

A slower paced game allows for more detail since you have the time to interpret those details. A faster paced game needs to be to the point in terms of detail and information. When you have a game tailored to end in X minutes/hours/days/months, you need information to be transferred that will accommodate that time. It doesn't make sense to worry about a unit's eating habits and whether or not he worships Islam if a match will last no longer than 30 minutes.

The level of strategy in a game is relative to the time it takes to complete a match. Try to remember that very simple fact.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

[QUOTE="3verlastingHero"]Because Starcraft is considered by MANY as the greatest RTS game EVER!mis3ry

But, I am afraid, it is not.

It is simply considered that by the uninformed mainstream.

I never said that "many" people do not consider it to be the greatest RTS. I said that the people who do are mainstream. They are unwilling to try anything that isn't played by a million others.

[QUOTE="Kiljoy66"]Yes let's bring realism into a game teeming with psionic aliens, insectlike aliens and humans running around in power armor shooting I think 6 inch spikes of some material from their guns, not to mention battleships, carriers, and flying swarms, yes realism will fit in just perfectly...:roll:illegalimigrant

Well realism does not have to deal with things that could only happen in reality. Look at GTA4 are cops really that easy to kill and can one man really withstand all those bullets. But the physics, gameplay and all add to it. Look at Medieval total war. Takes into account how tired a unit is, heigh elevation, weather conditions and well as physics with projectiles and units. Why can't Star Craft have some of that.

The bolded underlined part kinda tells me that you never even played the original starcraft and expansion or else you would know that they DID have height advantages in the game, if you had marines perched on a cliff area and say hydralisks or other marines came into contact the ones with the cliff had the advantage because they could hit better but the ones on the lower ground could actually miss, things like that were in the game, play it and you will see for yourself.

Something like that I would expect in SC2 since the original had it.

I'm sorry but all I'm seeing here is a person with a high and mighty view of something he's making unattainable and presenting games in some cult list of games he has played.Redmoonxl2

And all I'm seeing is a fanboy who's too in love in his favorite game to accept anything aside from absolute praise about it. What's next? You will claim Warcraft3 is amazing roleplaying game? I mean it has some RPG elements, it must be amazing RPG because of that. The only thing needed in this example would be for you to never play an RPG game in your life.

What would you think about somebody who claims WC3 is a great roleplaying game? He would go on and on about how there are stats and looting the little chests and he would flat out admit he never played a real RPG in his life, but itt doesn't matter, he knows WC3 is a great RPG, solely based on his...I don't know gut feeling? Imagine such person? That's exactly what you're doing here.

It's no different than telling someone that they haven't seen a real movie until they have seen some obscure foreign flick only he and a few dozen others have heard of. Get over yourself.Redmoonxl2

No, it's like claiming Matrix is a great romance movie when you haven't seen a single romance movie in your entire life and just because Matrix handled romance a bit better than all most other action movie you will go and claim that Matrix is a great romance movie.

You've never played a real tactical game, so your opinion is useless and based on nothing.

i remember playing Starcraft with my friend online....and even the single player....even though i used cheat codes when i was bored :P its a very fun game....but i dont care about SC2....im not a pc gamerDante2710

Missing out on a lot then.

The amount of idiocy written here is beyond hilarious. Lets take this one at a time, shall we?

And all I'm seeing is a fanboy who's too in love in his favorite game to accept anything aside from absolute praise about it. What's next? You will claim Warcraft3 is amazing roleplaying game? I mean it has some RPG elements, it must be amazing RPG because of that. The only thing needed in this example would be for you to never play an RPG game in your life.AdrianWerner

Oh if only you knew about the amount of RTS games I play. Hell, games in general. I'm just reacting to the inaccurate misinterpretation of a game I played quite a bit of spouted by a person who obviously doesn't know the difference between "strategy" and "tactics". I mean, hell, I question anyone who considers Starcraft more strategic than tactical.

What would you think about somebody who claims WC3 is a great roleplaying game? He would go on and on about how there are stats and looting the little chests and he would flat out admit he never played a real RPG in his life, but itt doesn't matter, he knows WC3 is a great RPG, solely based on his...I don't know gut feeling? Imagine such person? That's exactly what you're doing here.AdrianWerner

Your analogy makes no sense since Warcraft III would have to be in the RPG genre in general for this to make sense, much like how Starcraft is in the RTS genre. Since Warcraft III is clearly defined as a RTS, it would need to be compared to other RTS games. Besides, I didn't go by gut feeling. I presented details that has happened in any given match that illustrates what a player must face. There are some I can't even describe because the game is constantly evolving, hence the popularity. I'm not basing this on emotion but on fact. Unfortunately, your thoughts on Starcraft is based on ego, which bring me to this lovely quote from you:

You've never played a real tactical game, so your opinion is useless and based on nothing.

AdrianWerner

Nice attempt at closing the argument by presenting nothing but your epeen on the argument table, eh? Grow up and have fun.)

i loled a lot reading through this thread, starcraft broodwar is my idea of a perfect game. if they added any of the wheak things u mentioned i would not even want to get sc2.

the world does not revolve around you, go and play ur tedious "superior realism" rts and i'll stick to playing my 10 year old game that imo is perfect, hell i could wait another 10 years i mean StarCraft is just that good, in fact imma go play some zero clutter no rules right now.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]They simply made starcraft in 3d with the same mechanics and race. The graphics and gameplay is not impresive in my view. Look at medieval 2 total war is 1 year old and has a great gameplay and it's visuals surpass SC2. I think star carft 2 is just riding on the past success of star craft which for it's time was great but time has passed and old RTS gameplay just does not cut it anymore.illegalimigrant

Thank you you prove my point. No new gameplay just same old 8 year gameplay. Every projectile hits it's target no matter what is done to evade. Look at Company of Heroes another game better than SC2. Even mario improved its gameplay.

I've found Blizzard's dedication to the tried and true as a strong foundation to never receive a pill of steaming sh*t; so don't think just because it's simply "redone with 3d graphics" that the game's overall apeal will be drowned. It won't.

SC didn't become the most wonderful RTS game ever over night. It took hard work.. and patches. And more patches. And I'm sure more can still be done, but the game holds onto a wondeful formula and comes near to perfection. Explain to me why they shouldn't keep the formula?

The amount of idiocy written here is beyond hilarious. Lets take this one at a time, shall we?

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

And all I'm seeing is a fanboy who's too in love in his favorite game to accept anything aside from absolute praise about it. What's next? You will claim Warcraft3 is amazing roleplaying game? I mean it has some RPG elements, it must be amazing RPG because of that. The only thing needed in this example would be for you to never play an RPG game in your life.Redmoonxl2

Oh if only you knew about the amount of RTS games I play. Hell, games in general. I'm just reacting to the inaccurate misinterpretation of a game I played quite a bit of spouted by a person who obviously doesn't know the difference between "strategy" and "tactics". I mean, hell, I question anyone who considers Starcraft more strategic than tactical.

What would you think about somebody who claims WC3 is a great roleplaying game? He would go on and on about how there are stats and looting the little chests and he would flat out admit he never played a real RPG in his life, but itt doesn't matter, he knows WC3 is a great RPG, solely based on his...I don't know gut feeling? Imagine such person? That's exactly what you're doing here.AdrianWerner

Your analogy makes no sense since Warcraft III would have to be in the RPG genre in general for this to make sense, much like how Starcraft is in the RTS genre. Since Warcraft III is clearly defined as a RTS, it would need to be compared to other RTS games. Besides, I didn't go by gut feeling. I presented details that has happened in any given match that illustrates what a player must face. There are some I can't even describe because the game is constantly evolving, hence the popularity. I'm not basing this on emotion but on fact. Unfortunately, your thoughts on Starcraft is based on ego, which bring me to this lovely quote from you:

You've never played a real tactical game, so your opinion is useless and based on nothing.

AdrianWerner

Nice attempt at closing the argument by presenting nothing but your epeen on the argument table, eh? Grow up and have fun.)

Have a debate with Adrian is like trying to teach a cat to read. It is pointless. His epeen is all he as to keep him warm at night.

Wow this guy is actually serious, i knew ppl in SW were ignorant and ridiculous but this is something else. I personally NEVER played MTW2 never so im not going to insult u guys saying this suck this other thing is bad about this game. But u saying SC doesnt have tactics is insulting for me, i been playing this game for 9 years. If u knew all the planning that goes into a 1v1 game of BW wow, there are stuff that u just CANT do if u dont practice for months or even years, all u need to do is watch those koreans playing and u r jsut amazed.

Each unit in the game has a counter but thats not all theres to it, u have to know WHEN to move HOW to move WHERE to move, i've seen a lot of games end badly for one player cuz the other moved bad, didnt macro correctly, attacked the wrong location, didnt micro well enough, a little thing like 1 marine could save u in certain situations, i've seen guys kill 1 lurker with 1 marine(u know how much micro goes into that?). There are so many different BO's u could do vs any of the other races its really fun to play, u could start ur game doing whatever crazy tech that could or not work.

A game of BW could go from 4-5 mins to even 1 hour, that shows how well balanced the game is and just how many different tactics u use from one game to the other. I could go on and on about how many different tactics u need to use in so many different situations. A game in starcraft is very unpredictable u never know what the other guy is going to do and how r u going to counter; u need to learn every possible tactic that the other played could or not do.

U obviously never played starcraft in your life, since u have such a shallow opinion of the game

TanKLoveR

Exactly. In a game of StarCraft it require micromanagement of units. In which the units move into certain formations and maneuvering. Not a simply task, really. There three races with different abilities, economics, unit formations, base creation, techtree, etc and this creates many different plays style of competitive. StarCraft forces on both economic and tactical. There are specific units that counter others but that doesn't necessary means that it will do their role. Micromanagement can be done to change its outcome. One fatal mistake in a 1v1 between both players and it can probably be the turning point of the whole match. I like that example with the lurker and marine. I could do it with three marines, though. You cannot just rely on a siege tank to wipe it out. For me StarCraft is an example of a perfect balance game or close to perfect you could say that.

update....my team just lost but i got the ally at end cause i did good, i got reaveer dropped three times (stopped it twice) third time he got all my probes so it set me back huge, i still got second overall tho so i was pretty happy. my rec is now at 92 wins 11 losses.

also i only came back on here cause my router doesnt cooperate and then sc sometimes gives me udp packets through port 6112 message or just makes me lag so no one can join, i only get this if dont just make game soon as i enter bnet(usually 2nd game it wont let ppl in if i wait too long which is what just happened) anyone have any suggestions on how i can fix this? never had a problem without my router so i think that must be it but i dunno if a wireless router would even help.

and back to sc i go...

[QUOTE="Roushrsh"]

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]im upgrading my PC to play SC2. Franklinstein

So am I

Me too.

i would too upgrade my pc, but its already upgraded :P

In my oppinion SC2 brings a really good balance gameplay using totally different races. but relies to much in which units you build rather than strategical and tactiful gameplay.

illegalimigrant

i LOLed at that sentence... i still play sc and you left me wondering whether you've ever really played the game or maybe you just were never good at it...