Starcraft II was a huge disappointment for me. Blizzard lost all sense of what made their older games good and now they only see the single player campaign as a tutorial for multiplayer.

mockingbird, you might want to check out Wyrmsun.

isn't that literally just a repainted Freecraft that's even more derivative of WC2?

Wyrmsun indeed uses a modified Stratagus engine, and the art is consciously made in Blizzard style. However the author has put in new features like individual unit names and traits (inspired by a similar system in The Battle for Wesnoth), a turn-based Grand Strategy mode, unlockable tech tree progression etc. The game is also made to be highly moddable via Lua scripting.

mockingbird wrote:

And there's another problem with Starcraft. It has too much going on. I thought Heart Of The Swarm was already overcrowded with units, now with Legacy Of The Void, they introduced even more. Blizzard programmers are always trying to overcompensate by adding more to the game. What they don't get is that with all their efforts to micromanage unit stats with each incremental update (and by the way, Warcraft II hasn't had unit stats touched since forever and people still like it just fine), the game will never be Warcraft II, it just lacks all the charm.

The thing about Warcraft vs Starcraft is this: In Warcraft (first and second), the two races are virtually the same, except spells. There is a 1:1 match between the units and buildings of the two races, and the stats for the most part are completely equal. So there was very little to balance, and there was no need to touch stats.

In Starcraft, the three races are totally, completely different. Each plays in a very different way. Not only there is no 1:1 match between units, but even the fundamentals of the game such as unit training, building, resource management etc. are unique to each race. It takes a lot more work, trial and error, and play-testing to optimize such a game, to make it so that despite the differences, the races are balanced, and competitive with each other.

I loved both games, even though it took me some time to warm up to Stacraft. I am actually still in the middle of the Brood War campaign, and I don't think I'll get to Starcraft II in the near future, if ever.

I'm a huge Starcraft fan. What brought me in was the asymmetrical races - as dr_st said, each race is completely different, so there's essentially three different overarching play styles each with their own sub-strategies. The way Blizzard managed to balance Brood War and SC2 over the years is pretty impressive stuff, resulting in an ever-changing metagame which kept things fresh.

But I think you're right with Warcraft though - while Starcraft was deemed at the time to be "Warcraft in space", it turned out to be quite a different beast. Warcraft III will unfortunately be remembered most for a the DOTA mod that had little to do with Warcraft III at all - that says volumes about the lasting impact of War3.

yeah, when i play warcraft 3 for the 1st time, my first impression was this new warcraft game are trying to emulate starcraft.
The undead faction, how they make thier building works like a hybrid of zerg & protoss.

I totally get where you are coming from in regards to not being able to relate to the game world. It's also what stopped me playing StarCraft.
Part of me enjoys the original Warcraft with more authentic weapons and a bit of magic, vs War2 with the technology that is out of place in the middle ages like flying machines, subs, etc. but they did it with a certain charm that is does work. War2 definitely gets played more though.

I was always more of a C&C guy and really like the story in C&C but couldn't get into Tiberium Sun with the futuristic weapons. Much prefer the units in Red Alert2 where sure some of the tech wasn't available but it was the stuff they were seriously looking into during the 50's

mockingbird wrote:

When Warcraft III was announced, everyone expected a new story, new campaigns, new music (The old Warcraft II soundtrack should win an award as one of the best PC game soundtracks of all time), etc... But instead of the charming imagery of the former, we got this ugly, poorly-animated 3D, uninteresting, overrated and overhyped game that has a completely different style of gameplay and pays no homage whatsoever to its predecessor.

Warcraft 3 was awesome and has a great campaign. Blizzard already had Starcraft, which turned into their 2D RTS juggernaut, and Warcraft 3 which was their 3D RTS juggernaut. It took a while to get used to the low unit micro-esque gameplay of Warcraft 3, but once you get used to it, it becomes really fun. And the story, cut scenes, CGI and such are one of the best for its time.

I would tend to agree with your statement more along the lines of Starcraft 2 - the first campaign was good, but the Zerg campaign felt rushed and cheesy. I haven't played the Protoss one yet.

I honestly don't understand the beef people are having with Starcraft II. Here we have a total pureblood RTS game, looking as good as it possibly could and being mechanically perfect to it's intended mould. The single player campaign is HUGE, is replayable (indeed you HAVE to replay it numerous times taking different paths if you want to unlock all the medals) and is peppered with some of the best and most visceral CGI ever seen in video games. What MORE DO PEOPLE WANT?!!?! Not to mention it's multiplayer is the best RTS multiplayer ever done, and thats coming from a lifelong Total Annihilation fan who wouldn't have put Starcraft 1 even in the same league as TA.

Not to mention Heart of the Swarm, which kinda gives you exactly what some of the earlier commentors here said was their problem with Wings of Liberty (I presume) being that it focused much more on a storyline and far less on multiplayer. I mean 1/2 of the units available (and coded for) in the single player are not available in multiplayer.

Bottom line - best £34.99 I have ever spent on a game, regarding content (SOOOOO much content) and replayability.

And please ... Warcraft III was a massive step up from Warcraft II. I know a few years separated them, so it should have been, but it damn well was. Again, three HUGE campaigns with some awesome CGI and depth of characters, all intervowen with each other. Some of the best multiplayer ever seen in RTS gaming (thankyou again, Blizzard) and with Frozen Throne's extra heroes and maps, an almost endlessly fun skirmish option with different builds to try, even if you don't want to try the Battlenet servers and die within 2 minutes to a well micro'd worker rush.

I am by no means a Blizzard fanatic and RTS is not my genre of choice but ... Warcraft III is awesome, and SCII is even MORE awesome. What else is there out there? Grey Goo? Please...

Iris030380 wrote:

I honestly don't understand the beef people are having with Starcraft II.

The game play is far more restrictive than the original. Each mission is a showcase for a specific unit. You have to use that unit to win and therefore most units don't have a use outside their introductory mission. Unlike previous StarCraft where you can mix and match however you like. Research upgrades are mutually exclusive so you can only experience half of them in a single play through and cannot mix certain ones together.

The free form mission structure breaks the story. If you want to hear dialog from your adviser crew members you have to avoid the missions which cause them to leave the ship or get killed, and forgo the unit that mission introduces. Several of the cut scenes have an intended order such as the news broadcasts. However doing missions out of that order makes things rather Goofy. In my game immediately after Donny Vermillion had an on-air breakdown blaming Mensk for the death of his brother he was right back to slanting the next story in Mensk's favor. Earlier Dr. Hanson asked if the rumors about Mensk were true, with the Adjutant containing the proof standing in the corner behind her. At one point Donny Vermillion reports on Valerian's disappearance, after the next mission I played he was interviewing Valerian. Valerian's introduction didn't make sense. Surprise Raynor without hailing his ship, let him assault your Battlecruiser killing several of your personal marines, and trust that he won't shoot you in the back thinking you're Arcturus, just to talk. That doesn't instil confidence that he would make a better emperor than his father.

As for the Zerg the geek speak concerning their cellular structure made them sound more like The Thing. They incorporate other species into their genetic code. Species that would not be compatible with each other. Yet unit upgrades are mutually exclusive because they are too compatible. Abathur's explanation doesn't hold up when you think about what the Zerg are.

What I liked most about the first game was its story and game play. Neither of those held up in the sequel. Also I don't care about multiplayer, but that's all Blizzard seems to care about. When I first bought the game I couldn't get it to install. Nor could I even post on their forum to ask for help without a character associated with my account. When I asked how I get a character through chat with support they didn't answer my question. Instead they kept telling how great their online services were. Services which I couldn't use because I didn't have character, which I didn't know how to create because the game wouldn't let me install from the disc and their online installation method wasn't cooperating.

I think you are forgetting that it is a game. You cannot be bringing up your own view of genetic science regarding what the Zerg can or cannot (or should / should not) do in regard to if it's a good game or not. Back in the good old days, PC Magazines rated games on a number of key points. Visuals, sound, gameplay, replayability and originality being the main 5. They didn't say that because of a questionable use of the quantum theory of neutrons over protons discussed by a minor character in chapter 2, I think this game fucking SUCKS! 1/10...

I never had any problem installing the game. I am sure the vast majority of people didn't either, being I was active on the forums from day 1 and it wasn't really an issue that sticks out in my mind. You may well have had trouble, but again ... does that make it a bad game? HELL no. It makes you unlucky. I couldn't get RAGE running with my 6870 for a month and a half after paying full price on day one. That would warrant me to downrate the games score a little, but not legitimately.

And sure, Blizzard care about Multiplayer a lot. They went to amazing lengths, and still do today (with the countless free patches containing all kinds of tweaks etc) maintaining near perfect balance to ensure THE BEST RTS experience online has to offer. But ploughing millions into the single player campaign design, the amazing FMV, the multiple pathways through the game, the sheer size of the single player campaigns... thats not enough for you? Well then, you must be very hard to please. Is there a game out there that DOES satisfy your insanely high demands?

Starcraft 1 was a great game. I played it a lot back in the day, together with Broodwars. Never multiplayer, I only knew a few other guys who played it and they were well above my level of play. But it pales in comparison to Starcraft II in almost every single way (the soundtrack is up for debate on that one, as is the originality). I think your arguments are very personal or just nit picking.

I didn't hate Quake III arena because the Railgun was an unrealistic weapon, or the jumpads made no sense from a laws of physics point of view. And I didn't hate Jaws for having a shark eat half a ship at the end. I am here to be entertained, not educated. And Starcraft II is hugely entertaining.

Iris030380 wrote:

I think you are forgetting that it is a game. You cannot be bringing up your own view of genetic science regarding what the Zerg can or cannot (or should / should not) do in regard to if it's a good game or not.

It's also a story. One that I argue was lesser quality than the original.

Iris030380 wrote:

I never had any problem installing the game. I am sure the vast majority of people didn't either, being I was active on the forums from day 1 and it wasn't really an issue that sticks out in my mind.

So how do I make a character? Support never answered my question about posting there.

Iris030380 wrote:

You may well have had trouble, but again ... does that make it a bad game? HELL no. It makes you unlucky.

You're right, that doesn't reflect on the game. It reflects on Blizzard. Which is the point I was trying to make.

Iris030380 wrote:

But ploughing millions into the single player campaign design, the amazing FMV, the multiple pathways through the game, the sheer size of the single player campaigns... thats not enough for you? Well then, you must be very hard to please. Is there a game out there that DOES satisfy your insanely high demands?

I said it was disappointing to me. Not that it's a terrible game, just that I don't find it as good as the original. And those multiple pathways through the game was one of the problems I brought up as something that detracts from it given the poor integration with the story.

Iris030380 wrote:

But it pales in comparison to Starcraft II in almost every single way (the soundtrack is up for debate on that one, as is the originality). I think your arguments are very personal or just nit picking.

I told you what I enjoyed about the first game and gave examples where the sequel did those same aspects poorly. So you're saying it's better in almost every single way except the ways that matter to me.

Lol I was literally talking to someone about this yesterday, Warcraft 3 was basically a warm up for WOW. I totally agree War2 has no real sequel.

chinny22 wrote:

I totally get where you are coming from in regards to not being able to relate to the game world. It's also what stopped me playing StarCraft.
Part of me enjoys the original Warcraft with more authentic weapons and a bit of magic, vs War2 with the technology that is out of place in the middle ages like flying machines, subs, etc. but they did it with a certain charm that is does work. War2 definitely gets played more though.

I was always more of a C&C guy and really like the story in C&C but couldn't get into Tiberium Sun with the futuristic weapons. Much prefer the units in Red Alert2 where sure some of the tech wasn't available but it was the stuff they were seriously looking into during the 50's

Same here - C&C 1, Red Alert 1 and Total Annihilation are my favorite top down RTS games. I liked WC and SC, but not as much as the C&C series. The latest C&C game was a huge disappointment.

kanecvr wrote:

chinny22 wrote:

I totally get where you are coming from in regards to not being able to relate to the game world. It's also what stopped me playing StarCraft.
Part of me enjoys the original Warcraft with more authentic weapons and a bit of magic, vs War2 with the technology that is out of place in the middle ages like flying machines, subs, etc. but they did it with a certain charm that is does work. War2 definitely gets played more though.

I was always more of a C&C guy and really like the story in C&C but couldn't get into Tiberium Sun with the futuristic weapons. Much prefer the units in Red Alert2 where sure some of the tech wasn't available but it was the stuff they were seriously looking into during the 50's

Same here - C&C 1, Red Alert 1 and Total Annihilation are my favorite top down RTS games. I liked WC and SC, but not as much as the C&C series. The latest C&C game was a huge disappointment.

I love Total Annihilation too. I played them all back when they were new - Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Total Annihilation and while I usually give my highest accolades to Starcraft for the cool atmosphere of the different races and gameplay, from a pure RTS mass battle perspective Total Annihilation is REALLY good and probably the best of its time. Hell I STILL play it today occasionally. I have a ~330MB .zip of it I thought about handing out so we could do a spontaneuous TA match. 🤣

The thing about Starcraft 2 though, it just kind of feels like it betrayed Starcraft 1 in terms of story. It has all the usual awesome CGI stuff, the multiplayer gameplay stays true to the original, the music/visuals are good, but the way they treated the campaign wasn't right. Terran campaign was fine and seemed like it made sense, but the Zerg campaign felt rushed and weird. And Battle.net 2.0 is a piece of shit. The built in battle.net lobby the older games had feels like it belongs in those games. Kind of hard to explain but Battle.net 2.0 feels like some sort of external framework to the game that then "drops" you into a game once you find a match.

I played a lot of RTS.. begun with Dune 2 then Warcraft 2, C&C... the last of RTS, that I like, is/was Warhammer 40K series, beginning with Dawn of War.

Now a days I only (re)play Dune2, WC2 and Warhammer 40K.

Interesting development on this front:

"GAMESCOM 2015: BLIZZARD WILL 'CONSIDER WARCRAFT' RTS ONCE STARCRAFT 2 IS DONE"

http://au.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/gamesco … source=facebook

I mean, it's pretty obvious that they'll consider all of their properties before making a decision where to go next, but at least they haven't ruled it out.

what!!! no rpm racing 2!!!?
im ofiically done with bilzard!!!!!