278 replies to this topic

[Mister Mumbles]

With the exception of the first win I seem to get my ass beaten... a lot. Still being unfamiliar with most new unit and other changes slows me down considerably as I keep reading the texts for the various buildings/upgrades/units. I may give it a few more tries, but I may just stop until the official retail release comes around. I mainly was interested in seeing how well the game ran, and it does just fine.

I've reinstalled the original Starcraft for kicks, and I may give the whole campaign plus expansion a run-through, as I haven't played the campaign in about eight years. Still a pretty fun game, although I do notice how much more fluid everything is in SC2 with the likes of less restrictive group sizes, queuing of upgrades, etc.

[Mister Mumbles]

Yeah, I'm definitely done with SC2 beta for now, especially after this last game where that fire trucking dippopsnizzle of a teammate proceeded to kill me off just before we hammered the opposition into the ground. I mean, really? WTF!

It's too bad that co-op vs AI games aren't accessible.

[BenRoethig]

You are able to create you own game and play the A.I. that way.  It doesn't count towards rankings though.

[Tetsuya]

technically, im very impressed with Starcraft 2 and feel that Blizzard outdid themselves with most things in the game - the visuals are amazing and scale down well, the sound is great, etc.  

However, the gameplay, particularly the Multiplayer, is 10+ years old and shows it.  It isnt new or innovative, and it in fact caters to the same crowd of spastic rush-rush-rush fanatics as before.  Probably 30% of the units in the game are useless in multiplayer against anyone but your friends because the game will only last long enough to build them if both players have failed totally.  

Games that came out after SC but before SC2 have done multiplayer better - removed the frenetic "did you build X building at Y seconds into the match when you had exactly Z resources?  No?  you lose.  Try again." and actually made it so you have to use all the unit types.  Starcraft 2 didnt even try - its exactly like SC1.  Build order > flexibility.  Twitch > Strategy.  

Ill play the single-player game, since it will likely be quite good, but the Multiplayer will not be something i even bother with.  I played SC1 on Battle.net for about.. two weeks before i decided that games lasting 6-8 minutes and being determined by Tier 1 units and who built the "correct" order faster held no interest for me of any kind.  I dont see that changing at all, here.

Ill just stick to Dawn of War: Dark Crusade/Soulfire, which is a MUCH better MP game that doesn't feel 10+ years old with new graphics.

[Mister Mumbles]

Those are definitely some valid points, especially 'twitch>strategy'. I almost always feel like I'm the slowest player around, both in SC and now SC2. I guess it does have something to say when a game tracks your actions per minute as trying to show how effective you were. I suppose that's one reason I've stopped playing RTSs for the most part and went with turn-based strategy games instead. I'm still probably going to get SC2 as well, and the only multiplayer part that's really going to appeal to me is the co-op vs AI.

Tried a couple of matches against AI last night, but with the only option of it being 'very easy' in the beta it was kind of boring. At least it gave me the capability to give the various units/buildings/upgrades a good once-over.

[Tetsuya]

Pegasus, on 16 May 2010 - 08:55 AM, said:

Those are definitely some valid points, especially 'twitch>strategy'. I almost always feel like I'm the slowest player around, both in SC and now SC2. I guess it does have something to say when a game tracks your actions per minute as trying to show how effective you were. I suppose that's one reason I've stopped playing RTSs for the most part and went with turn-based strategy games instead. I'm still probably going to get SC2 as well, and the only multiplayer part that's really going to appeal to me is the co-op vs AI.

Tried a couple of matches against AI last night, but with the only option of it being 'very easy' in the beta it was kind of boring. At least it gave me the capability to give the various units/buildings/upgrades a good once-over.

Give Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War a try, particularly the original Single Player campaign ( a very good primer and well told story in the 40k verse) and then multiplayer (against very challenging AI opponents) with the Dark Crusade expansion - you can get the whole kit and kaboodle for peanuts these days, and its not a super demanding game and would probably even run OK in Crossover.

[badger2d]

Tetsuya, on 16 May 2010 - 08:12 AM, said:

technically, im very impressed with Starcraft 2 and feel that Blizzard outdid themselves with most things in the game - the visuals are amazing and scale down well, the sound is great, etc.  

However, the gameplay, particularly the Multiplayer, is 10+ years old and shows it.  It isnt new or innovative, and it in fact caters to the same crowd of spastic rush-rush-rush fanatics as before.  Probably 30% of the units in the game are useless in multiplayer against anyone but your friends because the game will only last long enough to build them if both players have failed totally.  

Games that came out after SC but before SC2 have done multiplayer better - removed the frenetic "did you build X building at Y seconds into the match when you had exactly Z resources?  No?  you lose.  Try again." and actually made it so you have to use all the unit types.  Starcraft 2 didnt even try - its exactly like SC1.  Build order > flexibility.  Twitch > Strategy.  

Ill play the single-player game, since it will likely be quite good, but the Multiplayer will not be something i even bother with.  I played SC1 on Battle.net for about.. two weeks before i decided that games lasting 6-8 minutes and being determined by Tier 1 units and who built the "correct" order faster held no interest for me of any kind.  I dont see that changing at all, here.

Ill just stick to Dawn of War: Dark Crusade/Soulfire, which is a MUCH better MP game that doesn't feel 10+ years old with new graphics.

This post comes across rather odd to me in places.  I don't know of a single RTS ever made, DoW very much included, in which a good efficient build order is not a critically important component of competitive play (bear with me for a moment more here please, I'm not holding this up as a virtue); what sets SC apart from the pack in this regard is just the fact that due to its role as the founder of RTS e-sport level competition, it in general attracts far more hardcore competitive players than any other RTS.

When I see you hold up DoW as a counterexample I feel that you've confused the character of the game with that of the online player-base.  The fact that you can get thoroughly mashed in short order by someone who's practiced the hell out of his build orders is characteristic of the RTS genre as a whole.  How often that will actually happen depends on the sort of players you meet.

[Whaleman]

badger2d, on 17 May 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

This post comes across rather odd to me in places.  I don't know of a single RTS ever made, DoW very much included, in which a good efficient build order is not a critically important component of competitive play

This is what made the Myth games so absolutely great. It was real time strategy without any build order maximizing, just pure strategy. But there's way too few games like that being made. I love StarCraft and Warcraft, but I never really got into the online multiplayer besides parties of friends having fun (or cooperative mods and DotA). It becomes way unfun if you're playing against people who're in it to only win.

[badger2d]

Whaleman, on 17 May 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

This is what made the Myth games so absolutely great. It was real time strategy without any build order maximizing, just pure strategy. But there's way too few games like that being made. I love StarCraft and Warcraft, but I never really got into the online multiplayer besides parties of friends having fun (or cooperative mods and DotA). It becomes way unfun if you're playing against people who're in it to only win.

Amen brotha.  Myth stills stands to me as the pinnacle of fun I've had in online gaming.  Thing is, it's pretty much unique, fundamentally doesn't belong to the RTS genre as we know it.  The ideas of Myth unfortunately just haven't been explored enough in other games to fully develop as its own genre, as it deserves.

I've kept up a secret hope all these years that Bungie would get out from underneath the Halo-de-beest stampede they brought upon themselves and return to the Myth facet of its oeuvre, in spirit anyway.  I know they don't own the Myth franchise anymore in name.

[Cougar]

BenRoethig, on 12 May 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

Honestly, I'm pretty impressed by the performance.  I wouldn't call my ALU iMac exactly cutting edge and it runs at native 1600x1080 resolution at medium quality without a hiccup.

I thought this too, then I played it in Bootcamp. Soooo much smoother.

[Tetsuya]

badger2d, on 17 May 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

This post comes across rather odd to me in places.  I don't know of a single RTS ever made, DoW very much included, in which a good efficient build order is not a critically important component of competitive play (bear with me for a moment more here please, I'm not holding this up as a virtue); what sets SC apart from the pack in this regard is just the fact that due to its role as the founder of RTS e-sport level competition, it in general attracts far more hardcore competitive players than any other RTS.

When I see you hold up DoW as a counterexample I feel that you've confused the character of the game with that of the online player-base.  The fact that you can get thoroughly mashed in short order by someone who's practiced the hell out of his build orders is characteristic of the RTS genre as a whole.  How often that will actually happen depends on the sort of players you meet.

Total War would like to speak with you.  you know, no build order or base management of any kind.  Hugely popular.  

As for DoW:  practicingyour build order is important, sure.  But in Starcraft, there  is only ONE build order.  If you aren't doing it the formula way, you're doing it wrong and will lose unless the other player is messing with you.  In DoW i can, as SM, rush scouts, get snipers, keep the other guy pinned down while i clean up capturing the strategic points.  Or i can rush Assault Marines, or, or, or....

many viable strategies vs a single one.  Also, the game forces you to use all types of units and end-game units dont magically outclass tier 1 units. There are other ways to win other than "Deathmatch".  

no matter how you cut it, SC2 multiplayer is the same as SC1 multiplayer with a slightly different unit mix.

[badger2d]

Tetsuya, on 17 May 2010 - 06:29 PM, said:

Total War would like to speak with you.  you know, no build order or base management of any kind.  Hugely popular.

I'll give you that I've barely touched the Total War series.  It was hyperbolic of me to say "I don't know of a single RTS game that..." and your one example of Total War may counter that hyperbole in a literal sense, but it could be buried under a long list of others that would leave it as the exception that proves the rule.

Not that I can be bothered to make such a list.  I get bored really fast of these types of discussions, and especially when I see remarks like the following:

Quote

in Starcraft, there  is only ONE build order.

...which is so remarkably untrue that it pretty much undercuts any possible further discussion anyway.  You and I, sir, apparently belong to different realities altogether.

Quote

no matter how you cut it, SC2 multiplayer is the same as SC1 multiplayer with a slightly different unit mix.

I can't play the beta myself due to out-of-date hardware, but this probably is true, because that's what Blizzard was going for.  It works for a lot of people.  And on the flip side of that, of course, it's usually true that if you didn't like the first you won't like the sequel either.

[Tetsuya]

badger2d, on 17 May 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

I'll give you that I've barely touched the Total War series.  It was hyperbolic of me to say "I don't know of a single RTS game that..." and your one example of Total War may counter that hyperbole in a literal sense, but it could be buried under a long list of others that would leave it as the exception that proves the rule.

Not that I can be bothered to make such a list.  I get bored really fast of these types of discussions, and especially when I see remarks like the following:

I get bored fast of copouts, so, i guess we're even.  Total War isnt just one game - there's like five of them, all insanely popular.  There's also Warhammer: Mark of Chaos (you build armies for multiplayer on points/unit, just like the table game - no base building), Myth.. there are a few others but they dont spring to mind at the moment (Company of Heroes? never played it, but i am told that DoW 2 is basically a 40k reskin of CoH and that has little to no base management of any kind).  Are there more that follow the tired old formula?  Sure.  But the really good ones allieviate the badness - take DoW from our previous example.  Build order is important to a degree, but getting terrain held is arguably more important and the exact layout of your base is almost entirely meaningless.  The addition of alternate ways to win is also a huge step up from 'kill the enemy'.

Quote

...which is so remarkably untrue that it pretty much undercuts any possible further discussion anyway.  You and I, sir, apparently belong to different realities altogether.

watch any of a few thousand videos of professional level play.  You will see almost ZERO deviation from the "best" build order for each race.  When there is deviation, that person is almost assuredly the one who loses. (ive seen a single game out of a few hundred ive watched over the years where the guy not following the "Standard" build order for Terrans or Protoss won). ive got a pair of friends who during college when SC1 was big were semi-pro gamers.  Theyll tell you the same thing.  SC1, build order is set in stone and pre-ordained.  All that matters is how well you twitch-micro and if you do it better than the other guy.  

badger2d, on 17 May 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

I can't play the beta myself due to out-of-date hardware, but this probably is true, because that's what Blizzard was going for.  It works for a lot of people.  And on the flip side of that, of course, it's usually true that if you didn't like the first you won't like the sequel either.

on the contrary, i like it.  The problem is, the part of the game i like (Tier 2 and 3 units) is pretty much impossible to reach due to shoddy game design.  You cant go online and play for a "fun" game - you run into far too many people who only define "fun" as "LOL I ROFLSTOMPED YOU YOU NEWB YOU SUCK" - usually while exploiting known bugs/overpowered/cheesy abilities or problems in the unit AI (for about 3 patches in SC1, the terran bunker-wall broke even ranged unit AI - they wouldnt fire on units on the other side of the bunker wall even if you tried to force-fire them.  Suddenly, people played a lot of Terran) The single player campaign will be amazing, im sure.

[badger2d]

Tetsuya, on 17 May 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

I get bored fast of copouts, so, i guess we're even.

OH NO YOU DIN'T! THEM'S FIGHTIN WORDS!

...oh yeah this is the internet.

So anyway, back to the regularly scheduled Starcraft 2 thread. Roaches and Stalkers and Marauders, Oh My!

[XxtraLarGe]

The beta has been a little bit of a disappointment for me too. It does seem more of the same. I am looking forward to the single player aspect though, I've always enjoyed the story lines, and the gameplay is fun against the computer.

[EVWeb]

Tetsuya, on 17 May 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

I get bored fast of copouts, so, i guess we're even.  Total War isnt just one game - there's like five of them, all insanely popular.  There's also Warhammer: Mark of Chaos (you build armies for multiplayer on points/unit, just like the table game - no base building), Myth.. there are a few others but they dont spring to mind at the moment (Company of Heroes? never played it, but i am told that DoW 2 is basically a 40k reskin of CoH and that has little to no base management of any kind).  Are there more that follow the tired old formula?  Sure.  But the really good ones allieviate the badness - take DoW from our previous example.  Build order is important to a degree, but getting terrain held is arguably more important and the exact layout of your base is almost entirely meaningless.  The addition of alternate ways to win is also a huge step up from 'kill the enemy'.

Total War is classified as a Real Time Tactics game since it doesn't have base management, while RTSs deal with base management.
Starcraft relies on many things to win, and if you bothered to watch SC Pro replays, you'd know this.  Every race has many different build orders, and people come up with new ones which then totally fire truck over the current ones, that's what makes SC so good, is that there are so many options to kill your opponent.  Things like flanking, high ground, and rushing are all important aspects of SC, and the fact you don't understand that is probably why you keep losing.

Tetsuya, on 17 May 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

watch any of a few thousand videos of professional level play.  You will see almost ZERO deviation from the "best" build order for each race.  When there is deviation, that person is almost assuredly the one who loses. (ive seen a single game out of a few hundred ive watched over the years where the guy not following the "Standard" build order for Terrans or Protoss won). ive got a pair of friends who during college when SC1 was big were semi-pro gamers.  Theyll tell you the same thing.  SC1, build order is set in stone and pre-ordained.  All that matters is how well you twitch-micro and if you do it better than the other guy.  

See above about the build orders, I've seen many players try many different build orders and win against very high level players, this isn't to say build orders aren't important, but they aren't as important as you make them out to be.  And while Micro is also very important, keeping up production and expanding is just as important to winning.

Tetsuya, on 17 May 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

on the contrary, i like it.  The problem is, the part of the game i like (Tier 2 and 3 units) is pretty much impossible to reach due to shoddy game design.  You cant go online and play for a "fun" game - you run into far too many people who only define "fun" as "LOL I ROFLSTOMPED YOU YOU NEWB YOU SUCK" - usually while exploiting known bugs/overpowered/cheesy abilities or problems in the unit AI (for about 3 patches in SC1, the terran bunker-wall broke even ranged unit AI - they wouldnt fire on units on the other side of the bunker wall even if you tried to force-fire them.  Suddenly, people played a lot of Terran) The single player campaign will be amazing, im sure.

Then you're not protecting yourself early on to get the higher tiers, as I know I can easily get to Tier 3 tech in most games as long as I get decent defenses out, or I rush the enemy to keep him on the defense.  Just because you fail early on does not make it a design flaw of SC2, it just means you need to work on defense a bit.

[bookman]

Interesting discussion.

I do think I will start blaming my futility in RTS games on the game though - THAT is a brilliant strategy  

[jrnewhouse]

Melismatic, on 08 March 2010 - 01:41 PM, said:

Hi everyone,

Just a general post about Starcraft 2 really.

Does anyone know the official release date? I've seen some youtube videos of the online play. The new Battle net looks amazing.

Also, will the online play be released when the game is released?

7/27/2010-Mac/PC Hybrid disc.

[Infinity]

I don't mean any offence Tetsuya, but it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about in terms of Starcraft/SC2. It sounds to me like you're expecting a different type of game than what is offered. The starcraft series is so competitive in part because it's incredibly fast-paced. That's just the type of game it is, nothing to do with it having outdated gameplay or something similarly silly.

Starcraft (I and II) have evolving strategies and tactics, regardless of balance changes over time. There hasn't been any real balance changes to Starcraft I in many, many years, but you will see different build orders and strategies being used by top-level gamers today than 2 years ago, simply because both the mood of the game and people's understanding of mechanics changes over time. The metagame shifts without developer interference.

Adding onto that, the notion that there is one build order or strategy that wins is simply wrong, there's no other way to put it. For example, in the recent SC2 HDH invitational we had the highest-level players duking it out as several different races (resulting in several different matchups), and each player had their own tactics, strategies, build orders, and overall playstyles. For example we saw Nony use Phoenixes in his Protoss vs. Zerg matchup to completely devastate his opponent.
There are so many different ways to win in SC2 it's impossible to list them all, but as an example I'll list some viable parts of builds for Protoss (not entire strategies; the beginning, middle and end of a strategy are generally relatively interchangeable if they don't go down too many tech trees).

You can open with a 2-gate zealot rush, the standard 3 gateway (with zealot-sentry or zealot-stalker etc), gateway-cyber-gateway-robobay-immortal, you could fast expand with a forge and cannons, etc etc. A potential midgame transition could include a Stargate for Void Rays or a Stargate for phoenixes, 2-base colossus, zealots with charge and High Templar, mass blink Stalkers, some kind of dark templar harass + any one of those, etc. etc.

I'm nowhere near a top-level player in terms of game knowledge, handspeed (which isn't actually a large part of winning), timings, or build orders, but I know enough just by playing for a couple months and watching high level games to understand that Starcraft 2 is not a linear game at all.

[Hansi]

Specs are out:

Quote

Minimum System Requirements*:

PC: Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7 (Latest Service Packs) with DirectX 9.0c
2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
128 MB PCIe NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT or ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card or better

Mac: Mac OS X 10.5.8, 10.6.2 or newer
Intel Processor
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon X1600 or better

PC/Mac: 12 GB available HD space
1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista/Windows 7 users, 2 GB for Mac users)
DVD-ROM drive
Broadband Internet connection
1024X720 minimum display resolution

*Note: Due to potential programming changes, the Minimum System Requirements for this game may change over time.

Recommended Specifications:

PC: Windows Vista/Windows 7
Dual Core 2.4Ghz Processor
2 GB RAM
512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX or ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better

Mac: Intel Core 2 Duo processor
4 GB system RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 4670 or better