By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 11 August 2010
Edit Thread
vlad321 said:
theprof00 said:

ah ok, I see where most of you are coming from now. You are long term fans from way back.

So am I though. But, I choose to rate the game based on what competition is available and what I can do with the game.

The variation in the unit strategies and yomi is far higher than it was in sc1. In SC1, you almost had to do a certain strategy against a certain race. If it was zerg, you go marines, science vessels, and seige tanks. If it was protoss, you go marines and goliaths science vessels and ghosts. Now it's so much more situational. And the micro is still very very important, it's just easier now that you can set a string of orders. But don't think that takes away from the talent needed. Koreans are going to have strings of orders on every single unit, and probably only play with orders.

And I'll tell you, anyone that attack-moves against me with their army dies very quickly.

What else out there offers the same kind of gameplay? WC3 is out of contol right now. It is so imbalanced and there are so many useless units, there's no point in playing. SC1 is barren in mid-tier. The only people who still play are casuals and hardcore.

The only other RTS I would say is worth purchase is dawn of war 2, but even then the MP is still very imbalanced. Also the Total War games are quite good, but the MP sucks.

Anyway, I don't get how some of you can say sc1s campaign was better. Every single mission was "kill all the x", or "kill a specific x". At least there is variety here. I really think some of you should go back and play the sc1 campaigns because it seems to me that nostalgia is setting in.

The story was good. SC1 story was very good, and the movies were pretty cool, but the campaign missions themselves were redundant and often took in excess of an hour for each one.

In the end though, SC2 is basically Brood Wars for noobs. I'm not even good at BW and I can tell you that SC2 is just dumbed down and noobified.

As for the campaign, it was barely varied at all. Just about all the missions were "build up a base and defend it while building a small strike force to wipe out the rest." Some missions were even just "defend your base, period." As for the random missions here and there, like Tosh's last one, they had those sneaky infiltration missions in SC1 as well. As I said, the most "wow" part of the campaign was the "Lost Viking" arcade. Furthermore to win each mission you basically just had to spam the unit you unlocked at that mission and you usually won. Like the one where you ahd to kill buildings before Kerrigan does, just build a few medivacs and you can skip just about all the zerg forces.

 

Also to the above post, there are some new mechanics, biggest one being no LOS when something is shooting you from a cliff, but again anything that is born that's creative Blizzard usually patches out. Granted that was mostly in the beta, but I don't see how retail will be any different.


I think Blizzard was trying to get the player to understand how different units worked. And in that they were successful. A lot of the brutal missions I've beaten are due to the abilities of the units that I would have only known about had I really needed to use them.

EDIT: Just to add on a little bit.

Brutal mode I think is what really helps me enjoy the single player. In most every level, you simply cannot kill the enemy, and have to think of creative ways to win. So far in Brutal, the levels that have really been tough and very strategy and tactic reliant have been welcome to the jungle, supernova, the one where tychus gets a thor, and the final prophecy mission. You really have to know unit strengths and weaknesses in order to even get halfway through the level.