Zerg is mostly agreed to be the best race right now. If you mean they’re shit because they lack variety in their builds, then I’ll agree with you there (although this is a problem with both Terran and Zerg). Spawning creep tumors isn’t that very micro intensive at all. Not being able to select all your Larva, hit one button, and have nothing but one unit come out of all those Larva is a GOOD thing. Zerg macro in SC1 is much harder than Zerg macro in SC2. I’m not sure why anyone would complain about this.
While I too miss Lurkers, they just wouldn’t really fit in with SC2, given all the new units and changes. They would have to go through some changes themselves, but then they wouldn’t really be Lurkers. I’m pretty sure the game is going to take off, because it’s a Blizzard game. It is a weird choice to release the single player campaigns one game at a time, but I’ll tell you right now that tons of Starcraft fans will buy them for the single player as well. Many SC fans loved SC1’s story, and they have been waiting 10 years to see it continued.
I’m not sure what the hell you mean in your last post. All Zerg buildings look too familiar and you can’t get good symmetry going with your builds? What the hell does that even mean? Blizzard acting like premadonnas doesn’t make much sense either. Yes, Blizzard is slow. They’ve always been slow. They’ve always taken forever to make their games, just like Valve. Not sure why you’re surprised by this.
Overall, I think some of you guys are pretty stupid for comparing SC1, a game that went through many balance patches over ten years and has been evolving in competitive play for a long time, to SC2, a game that is not even finished yet. Your expectations are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high. The game is flawed, yes. It will take time to fix the competitive play aspect of the game. SC1 wasn’t really the pinnacle of balance or RTS when it first came out either.
This vid is like 2 hours long, but its a nice vlog on Day9’s growing up with Starcraft, its kind of like a nostalgic look through the last 10+ years of playing the game.
Sure, it’s just my gripe and I accept that. I’m not really overly worried about it and the more I think about it the more it makes sense. I guess all it takes is Spawning Pool>Lair>Hydralisk Den compared to Terran having to go Barracks>Factory>Starport (I only play Zerg, do they need the Armory too?) So I rescind my statement. However…
He’s saying that SC2 is a poorly balanced HD version of the StarCraft. He’s not complaining about StarCraft at all. His point about new game mechanics is true enough, but to be fair you can’t expect them to simply pump out sequels for every game you love. If the original StarCraft didn’t receive the amount of attention the fan base gave it over all these years we’d never appreciate the game to the level we do now. I played StarCraft online 2 months after it released. There is a drastic difference in play level between then and now. I’m sure Blizz hasn’t been working on the game since after they were done on Brood War. In that time they made D2, D2:LoD, War 3, War 3: TFT, and WoW. Come on now, their attention wasn’t addressing StarCraft because StarCraft was already so good that it had achieved the rung of NATIONAL COMPETITION. Do we televise people playing Counter-Strike while dressed up like superstars and give them gigantic playing contracts like the Koreans do? No. It’s easily the most successful competitive video game of all time, and the most financially successful game of all time is easily World of Warcraft. Some people will bitch about how that will lead Blizz to support WoW more than its other games (and they will) but in this case there’s a level of sensibility.
By waiting this long to make a SC2 they were able to see extremely advanced strategies and obtain input from extremely skilled players. Because of this, it’s also a game that many people will begrudge changing ‘too much’. In fact, I’d suspect a LOT of people would love to just have StarCraft 1 with a few more units, HD graphics, and a more streamlined interface. Since they want to make a full-fledged sequel, they’ve gotta change ‘the perfect formula’. Especially after the way War 3 went as a RTS, I think Blizzard decided to try to take a more conservative approach to designing RTS sequels. I can’t begrudge them for that.
I’m not going to comment on the number of cheese builds. To be fair, I don’t think either one of us really knows how many there are yet since the game is surely going to be patched another 500 times. Whether the game of ‘full of hard counters’ or not, it definitely has more than I would like. In terms of army composition I believe he’s referring to the over inflated purpose it can serve. Hard-counters tend to make that happen where before micro-managing the units themselves was just as vital.
Yeah I think he wants it to be more complicated, not just more tedious.
Don’t need an Armory for any unit in the Starport, but yes that is correct. Vikings can come out of a naked Starport, but Banshees need a Tech Lab.
I guess he just poorly worded his post. However, it’s not like Blizzard made BW and just left Starcraft alone after that. There has been balance patches and bug fixes, so it’s not like they’ve completely forgotten about the game (and for as big as the game is in S.Korea, why would they?)
HD Starcraft would be pretty cool, but yeah, it wouldn’t be worthy of calling it a sequel. Then people would bitch about how Starcraft II is just Stacraft HD Remix. You’re right; you can’t please everyone. IMO, the people that wanted it to be just like Starcraft but in HD were stupid and set themselves up for disappointment.
Yes, as the game is patched there will be new strategies, and with new strategies comes new cheese. It probably depends on what someone considers cheese, I guess. Mostly, cheese is considered as some sort of all in attack, whether it be some sort of timing attack, proxy, or some sort of entance bust (e.g. 3 Hatch Hydra vs Protoss FE in SC1). I would consider an all in proxy or very early attack to be cheese, rather than just some timing attack or entrance bust.
I suppose that is fair, but I’m not sure what else Blizzard could really do.
Trying to please hardcore sc fans is like trying to please hardcore mvc2 fans its just not gonna happen. Either there gonna give it a try and stick with it or there not.
Pentium D, and some 5yr old Geforce graphics card, w/ 2 gig ram… It’s bad. When I play the zerg and I morph lair into hatchery, the graphics starts to pixelate and random globs of oooze fly at me obscuring my vision…
Yeah, your both right; but, i’m going to wait a while and then splurge on a system (nothing extravagant though). I’m getting married in a month and don’t really have the extra funds around (although I could have had a new computer if I didn’t waste my money in Vegas last weekend…)
If that’s the case, you could spend like $400-600 on a mid-ranged system that can run pretty much any recent game decent to well. My $600 rig runs SC2 on max settings perfectly fine.
After a bit of a slump since patch 10, I just won 5 in a row I think that it’s because I’ve tried to step away from cheese-ing strats and just play a strong game with well timed pushes. My start BO is 8pylon12Gateway
I’m pretty sure the game is going to take off, because it’s a Blizzard game. It is a weird choice to release the single player campaigns one game at a time, but I’ll tell you right now that tons of Starcraft fans will buy them for the single player as well. Many SC fans loved SC1’s story, and they have been waiting 10 years to see it continued.
Blizzard acting like premadonnas doesn’t make much sense either. Yes, Blizzard is slow. They’ve always been slow. They’ve always taken forever to make their games, just like Valve. Not sure why you’re surprised by this.
I think that it’s because I’ve tried to step away from cheese-ing strats and just play a strong game with well timed pushes. My start BO is 8pylon12Gateway