Comments on: StarCraft II Battle Report Two

By: Spanish Technophobe

Spanish Technophobe — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:42:02 +0000

luckystriker, I got a pretty strong Christopher Guest vibe from the commentary on that vid. Cool, just the same.

By: SPOONS

SPOONS — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:38:14 +0000

Hate them for leaving all the zerg stuff out intentionally. Like when the terran floated his nighthawks over the zerg base and they were talking about it but they barely showed them on the edge of the screen then panned away. The zerg dude also conceded before the terrans could get into his main and see his tech buildings. I kept wanting to scroll over. Looks ill though, I’m absolutely gonna try myself at some ranked play on b-net, they’re not all pros

By: luckystriker

luckystriker — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:59:58 +0000

Obviously it’s far too early to tell whether SC2 will ever approach the perfection that is SC.

I’m an avid RTS player and more specifically a SC player and it boggles my mind how any RTS aficionado can think SC wasn’t the greatest of all time.

Maybe it’s all the Korean Pro SC i watch? I swear, it’s one of the most exciting professional sports on TV!

Come on, watch this recent game between Shuttle and ForGG and tell me that wasn’t exciting! http://www.gomtv.net/videos/639

By: Sunjammer

Sunjammer — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:40:50 +0000

I dunno guys, is it not okay to not like the game but still respect it? I’ll repost a comment on this that i put over at giantbomb

I think something that made SC playable when it came out, was that massing units was an acceptable tradeoff for what was occationally utterly abysmal pathing and a sense of momentum that was really heavily tied into army size. To me, a tank being blocked from progress by a single infantry unit is hilarity itself, but this tile based abstraction is what apparently stands at the foundation of SC as a competitive sport, much like hitboxes and area control abstractions are par for Street Fighter 2 tourney play.

Back then, that was okay, but i stopped thinking of the units on the map as CHARACTERS very quickly once i joined a clan and played a lot of online. I just thought the game turned into numbercrunching. I remember a friend with a unit damage/hp/cost spreadsheet on his bedroom wall, and it was freaking me the fuck out. Some people just really get into that kind of game, but to me it removes the personality and turns it into squares bumping into one another on top of a bunch of other squares as numbers tick up and down. It’s just so depressing to me as a player.

WC3s big innovation of SC for me was lower unit cap and more “intimate” micro. Micro in SC felt like i needed to work out beforehand. WC3 let me concentrate on less. CoH does this as well, less units, more abilities, and while i think CoH is boring as hell, it really helps the game experience to have to actually care about each unit as a long term investment rather than just fodder. DoW2 takes this to an extreme, and i’m totally in love with that model of intense micro with fewer units. It simply allows for split second tactical plays that don’t feel artificial or contrived. SC2 looks like it is aiming to please SC players first and foremost, and i kind of worry about those dudes, because they’re hella weird in terms of what they want from the game experience.

I won’t buy it. But i’ll happily look at it from the distance and admire the game. It just won’t be that fun for me to play.

By: Jambe

Jambe — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:45:00 +0000

CoH the pinnacle of the genre? Pff. Total Annihilation (albeit with custom AIs) was the pinnacle, and it’s been downhill ever since! If you like RTT pewpew and totally-free, I’d suggest checking out the The Spring Project. There are some nice 3D TA-inspired games built on the engine.

And Starcraft, CoH, WiC et all are RTS titles? Pff… Far be it from me to suggest that “moving specifically-selected units about small maps” is “tactics” and not “strategy”. Strategy is more grand a term than tactics in my mind, and its use to describe titles like Starcraft strikes me as a misappropriation.

disclaimer: m’tongue may be ever-so-slightly in cheek here

By: Tei

Tei — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:48:19 +0000

I will buy the damn game, for the damn singleplayer part.

By: Jetsetlemming

Jetsetlemming — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:16:38 +0000

Starcraft frustrates me so, but in spite of my experiences with the games that trailer made me wanna play SC2 really badly. So much focus on buildings and mechs for the Terran players, and the spawn rates for zergs seemed to be significantly increased so building up a massive army of zerglings is easier and faster. Also no 12 unit selection cap.
I’m afraid I’ll end up buying this and then not playing it because I suck horribly at it. D:

By: Butler`

Butler` — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:27:33 +0000

I don’t see why there’s so many people unwilling to learn how to play multiplayer. All it takes it a little patience and commitment.

Especially with the comparisons to FPS. Were you really topping the score boards on CS1.5 the first time you played it?

RTS is certainly more intimate and focused, I suppose that’s what people have a problem with. They can’t sit back and let others do the work for them, then get a share of the glory :p

By: Butler`

Butler` — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:13:41 +0000

Can’t wait for this. I’m long since bored of competitive WC3 (pretty much since DoTA killed the scene…) and C&C3 was only a mild distraction.

By: A:\Big.bat

A:\Big.bat — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:22:12 +0000

Looks bloody brilliant.

By: Spanish Technophobe

Spanish Technophobe — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:12:22 +0000

This vid made me want to download Starcraft from my Blizzard account, which I barely use, and get playing again. I never really got the appeal–too twitchy–but seeing people who play halfway competent has inspired me.

Gah–and I have work to do, too…

By: Mil

Mil — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:12:48 +0000

@Okami: or, as Penny Arcade put it:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/04/

(Not the same strip as earlier in this thread).