1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still havn't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. We have recently started the 16th edition of the Mini Mapping Contest. The theme is mini RPG. Do check it out and have fun.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Dismiss Notice
  5. The Highway to Hell has been laid open. Come along and participate in the 5th Special Effect Contest.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Disapointments with StarCraft 2?

Discussion in 'StarCraft I & II' started by JimBob, Aug 14, 2010.

  1. Anubis_theDark

    Anubis_theDark

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I just love it how some people say that if you dont like this game you can't play multiplayer well. Not everyone who buys a game even like starcraft buys it for the sport it could be and for the posibility to show who's balls are stronger. That being said i will give my opinion on this game.
    Starcraft 2 would have been one of the most awsome games if it was released about 3 years ago. But after 7 ( SEVEN ) years of production and 12 years since the first one it offers verrrrry little in terms of content. In 7 years of production all they did is take brood war, put it in a modified warcraft 3 engine for a cvasi 3d feeling and released a game that freekin feels way to old for the year 2010. Why am i saying this. Well first of all the ui sucks imo. I now this game is like a sport for many ( hell for coreans is the national sport ), but since other people except E-sports lovers also play this game i would have expected that in 7 freekin years they would allow some sort of costumization. If you want a modern RTS and play for fun you can chose to activate a fully rotating camera, rotating structures when placing them and alot of other stuff that for example would make the game more up to date and more friendly/fun. Ofc if you are competitive you can just uncheck this options and have the game as it is now.
    Not only that but the races feel almost the same as they did 12 years ago. I played the game in multiplayer for 10 min and i already got bored. The campaign feels alot better because it offers greater unit variety. A player can chose from more units which offers a far greater variety of strategies. Atm having only a small amount of units, the game soon starts feeling boring ( unless all you want from it is endless multiplayer games with pre-defined build orders and a kazillion mouse cliks ). At least this is how i see it. I come from a strong modding community and i can say one thing from my experience - variety = more fun. You will tell me that it needs balance. And i will tell you it took them 7 years to produce it. I think that would be enough time to balance the damn thing. Another dissapointment is from the fact that i still play the same 12 years old 3 races. Tbh i really was enthuziastic about a 4th race especialy since the game took this freekin long to produce. And again you will tell me of balance. Guys relic managed to balance 9 races in their first warhammer dawn of war game ( yes they were very balanced and very fun to play ) in about half the time it took blizzard to balance 3 races.
    And the things that killed this game the most for me - the custom map support. Playing a custom game is hell, using a custom map is even worse ( especialy if you download it from a site ), and the editor itself while it might be more powerfull, for someone who has no programing experience it's hell on earth ( and i know the wc3 editor really good ). Just making a new unit ( not just model, but weapon ability etc ) takes more time than making a whole damn race in the warcraft 3 editor. This along with the battlenet 0.2 killed the custom games for me which was the primary thing i loved at blizzard games.
    My complain is not that the game as a whole sucks. It sucks for how long it took them to do it. If they'd have done it in 3 max 4 years it would be ok. But 7 ... and it's just a semi-3d brood war. This is why to me starcraft 2 is a dissapoinment.
     
  2. Gilles

    Gilles

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    8,463
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I agree with a lot of what you said Anubis, except for the Dawn of War bit. I've never seen Dawn of War properly balanced. Ever. 1st and 2nd.
     
  3. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Won't bother quoting your post, Anubis, since it's so long and jumbled.

    Not everyone plays it competitively: Yes.

    That means that you should have a rotating camera and structures: Not really. Rotating structures would be pointless (since everything is square anyways) as would a rotating camera. If you want the whole battle cam thing you really should be playing a more strategic RTS like SupCom than a tactical one like SC (well, SC is somewhere in between. I would call something more like CoH totally tactical). There's no reason for SC to imitate SupCom needlessly.

    So far, this paragraph seems to state that pointless SupCom features which wouldn't add to the game would make it more "friendly/fun".

    Races feel like SC1: That's because it's, uh, Starcraft. This should be obvious.

    You played the game in multi for 10m and got bored: Good for you, maybe the game isn't for you. The game is not SC1.5 if that's what you're trying to imply.

    Campaign feels better because of unit variety: Adding more units is not inherently better. You are really coming across as a "supcom is so awesome, every game should be like supcom" sort of person.

    More units means more strategy: No it doesn't. You may notice that many units have very similar roles in the campaign (Hellion vs Firebat, Hellion vs Vulture, Wraith vs Viking, etc).

    Pre-defined build orders: Well, some strategies are better than others. Why do people seem to think that a "strategy" game is a game in which whatever you feel like doing is viable?

    Still 3 races: There was no reason to add another one. This was meant to be a true sequel, not something like Wc3 which tried to move the genre in a new direction. It's for Starcraft fans first and foremost.

    Relic managed to balance 9 races: Not very well, and the game has much less depth than Starcraft in terms of things such as micro/macro and the races actually feeling and playing completely differently.

    Just a semi-3d Broodwar: Spoken like somebody who never actually put any effort into knowing how either game plays. Why do you think there's so much division in the SC community? Many people feel the game is too different, and I can assure you that it plays very differently.

    --

    Your post basically says "SC2 is bad because it didn't innovate" (it wasn't meant to) and then "They should have copied DoW or SupCom" (kind of hypocritical, don't you think?).
     
  4. kola

    kola

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,534
    Resources:
    121
    Icons:
    115
    Packs:
    2
    Skins:
    1
    Spells:
    3
    Resources:
    121
    You know that, they didnt developped the game for 7 years? they released other games between al these years. (talking about anubis post)
     
  5. Gilles

    Gilles

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    8,463
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I don't see why they couldn't have added another race, and how it could effect the game negatively. Seems like another race is a positive all around.

    What about adding shrubs and towers? Couldn't I say there was no reason for them to add those? The game worked perfectly well before.


    As far as I'm aware, most of Blizzards games takes about that long to make. They might not have been in full production, but they definitely have been working on SC for ages. I agree with OP, what they produced doesn't seem like it should have taken all that long at all.


    I think a lot of people (myself included) were expecting something revolutionary when SC2 was announced. Almost every game that Blizzard has made up to this point has been just. However Blizzard saw no reason to change the game (rightly so), and created a sequel, not a new game. So to speak.
     
  6. kola

    kola

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,534
    Resources:
    121
    Icons:
    115
    Packs:
    2
    Skins:
    1
    Spells:
    3
    Resources:
    121
    they made about 6 new games (7 with sc2) in 7 years. And they are all quality games. I think its very good. and i dont think they started working on sc2 just after releasing sc1 expension. Also, they worked on the Ghost game (dont remember how it was called) that they didnt released finaly.
     
  7. mrzwach

    mrzwach

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    929
    Resources:
    3
    Tutorials:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    Adding another race would make for a lot more difficulty in balancing. Shrubs and towers do not.

    If another race was added, it would likely cause much difficulty in balancing certain match ups (without imbalancing others, obv). The reason why SC is so successful is because it is so balanced.

    The campaign illustrates how more units != better gameplay. For example, hellions vs firebats - hellions are so much better at AoE anti-light that firebats are literally useless except for the mission in which you get them. They also do a far better job of harassment than vultures, and spider mines are overrated compared to bunkers/other defenses, meaning that neither new unit gets used.
     
  8. JimBob

    JimBob

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    272
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I see your point, but it is still quite different. They untied against the UED, so Kerrigan could gain more power(as we later found out), the UED had a pretty good plan to take out the Dominion, Protoss and Zerg. They weren't out for domination like the Burning Legion. They were out to destroy because they saw the alien species as threats to their existence.

    Thing with SC2 is that so far it looks like they're going to unite so they could save the universe from this power(Dark void) that is out to destroy all that exist just like the Burning legion in WC3.

    I understand that Kerrigan went from good to bad just like Arthas went from good to bad, but the way it happened was completely different. Kerrigan became bad out of the Overmind's will. Arthas became bad through his own choices. Very different if you ask me.

    WC3 story was much different story than SC1 and its expansion. Yes, a few similarities, but nothing really became a repeat. It's ok for Blizzard to get inspiration from it's own past games, but it's not ok for them to overall repeat the main story of a past game.

    {EDIT 1}
    That's a good point, however, a lot of people including myself weren't expecting anything revolutionary as far as gameplay goes. SC1 already did that. Why change a good thing? What I was expecting was a revolutionary story with good characters, missions..., especially considering that it's a trilogy. A new way of telling a video game story, so far it ain't looking good though. SC2's characters were too cliche. Too many "hollywood" lines. Again, the story so far feels like it's going to shape up to be a clash against the Burning Legion. I was hoping that Kerrigan could remain the main awesome, ruthless, deceiving, and cunning, villain she is.

    {EDIT 2}
    They started working on SC2 in 04 right after they finished TFT. They took about a year off in 05 or 06 because WoW needed some extra hands. So, really it took them about 4-5 years to make it. It just felt longer because of the delay for Battle.net 2(which apparently sucks).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2010
  9. Anubis_theDark

    Anubis_theDark

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    To Purplepoot : to me a making a .2 for a game means innovation. And i never said they should copy sup com or doW. Dunno were you got that from. Rotating structures and camera are highly useful, and this comes from somebody who played just about every damn rts since 97 till now. Sometime the angle you have dont allow you to see your units well, sometimes if you could rotate a structure you would be able to make a much better base macro. It's pure logic and there's a really good reason why this features were added into alot of the modern strategy games . And as i said they could have been player activated. And yes variety is the key to more strategy. Variety is the key to everything within the universe. It's something again ... logic. If you have only one unit for 1 purpose you have only 1 choice. I was referring to the campaign variety as an idea not to copy it's units. You can have a anti-armor unit that is cheap and light armored and one that is heavy and costly. Both of them offer different choices and you can just combine roles to offer multiple choices. And just for your own interest i do know what game producing is. I'm in my second year studying game design and i also had to work with a team for a year project.
    And i believe that the idea - if it's not broken why fix it is wrong. There's always place for better. I wonder what would you guys expect from starcraft 3 ? Same thing but full 3d ( with glasses or something ). If everything stays the same whats the point of evolution.
     
  10. gT.ReD

    gT.ReD

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    99
    Resources:
    4
    Tutorials:
    4
    Resources:
    4
    after reading the first paragraph of the OP i got really pissed off. Please give a damn warning about spoiler content, you ruined storyline for me you jerk :(
     
  11. kola

    kola

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,534
    Resources:
    121
    Icons:
    115
    Packs:
    2
    Skins:
    1
    Spells:
    3
    Resources:
    121
    hmm, what make blizzard's rts games so good is... simplicity and you don't need too much variaty to make a game that requires high skills and strategies, just an example : Chest.
     
  12. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Harder to balance, massive departure from the original game, kind of hard to work into the lore, and most importantly it's difficult to make the race not a mirror of another race or a combination of other races (note that in Warcraft some of the racial differences were strained, and much of it borrowed from Starcraft, whereas in Starcraft every race is completely different and comparisons tend to be very strained).

    Because they have nowhere near the effect of a fourth race.

    Also, interactive terrain (shrubs, xel'naga watchtowers, destructible rocks) was introduced in Starcraft (destructible buildings, antidestructible buildings (that is, areas which were open until you destroyed something, then they closed), etc) in the Korean pro maps.

    They have about a 40-person team and have done some things (such as the entire game's art) over several times, so it seems reasonable that there is some delay there. Also, for the last year or two they have been working almost exclusively on balance and the campaign.

    (Also, I believe the tally is 5 or maybe 6 years, definitely not 7)

    Yeah, they were kind of clear that they weren't trying to revolutionize the melee, and I think that many Starcraft fans (myself included) would have been very disappointed if they did. Don't get me wrong, it plays out quite differently from SC1, but the core ideas are the same. Warcraft 2 didn't have anywhere near the same following, hence why they could get away with restarting from scratch.

    --

    Anubis, I don't see how you think that rotating buildings would make any difference. Also, the reason I say that you seem to want the game to be supcom or coh is because you the things you keep saying are "missing" from SC2 are suspiciously some of the defining factors of those games.

    --

    Jim_Bob, it's so blatant that many of the missions are carbon copies of SC missions. For example, remember that Wc3 mission where Sylvanas does a surprise attack on one of two bases? Directly from SC, down to having a hero in each base which you need to deal with. At least SC2's "surprise attack" mission tried to change things up a bit, although it was still more of a homage to the original than a unique mission (unlike many of the others).
     
  13. MySpaceBarBroke

    MySpaceBarBroke

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,554
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    If it's any consolation, you didn't miss out on anything.

    Another--well, not really a complaint, but more a quirk than anything else--is the amount of game mechanics that were inspired by the Command and Conquer franchise. It's a bit of a stretch to say the reapers were taken from the rocketeers, but the vikings are much like the Mecha Tengu, Striker VX, and Sea Wings from Red Alert 3, neural parasite is not unlike the psychics from Yuri's Revenge, the changelings are similar to the spies in Red Alert, the mothership is also a unit with similar properties in Tiberian Dawn, the missile knockdown abilities were seen in Generals, void rays work like the gattling guns in Yuri's Revenge, and marauders are like every anti-tank infantry unit in every C&C game, complete with dialect.

    Maybe it's just me, or maybe RTS's are slowly mashing their game mechanics together into one large gelatinous mass. I don't know.
     
  14. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Or you could trace many of them back to SC1.

    Vikings - Siege Tanks + Goliaths.
    Neural Parasite - Mind Control? Even if you argue the other ones are C&C inspired, I don't see how you can argue this one is.
    Mothership - Arbiter.
    Missile knockdown ability - Not really sure what you mean by this.
    Marauders - Essentially just a Dragoon without the antiair (stats are very similar, too, and damage is the same).

    As for the others which are more relevant, Dustin Browder did work on C&C.
     
  15. FelFox

    FelFox

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    Don't forget to mention that minerals are tiberium with a different name. Blizzard has never been terribly original.
    Anyway, my number one complaint about SC2 is the amount of things they screwed up custom mapwise and battle-net wise. While there are massive improvements in the field of the editor and dialogs and whatnot, a lot of things feel like a massive step backwards. For example, the 0.0625 trigger interval, the 2^21 bug, the lack of local player or hashtables or GetHandleID, the unexplained removal of pointers. On the data editor side, everything is 10x more complicated. Granted, it's 10x more powerful but it also takes 10x more time to grasp and understand how to make stuff. For the majority of all mapmaking purposes, the editor is a downgrade in terms of usability.

    Battlenet 2.0. Surely I do not need to explain, as merely being acquainted with Bnet 2.0 versus Bnet 1.0 is enough for anyone to deduce how backwards they made it. But I'll explain what I hate anyway.

    1- Portraits are even more intrusive than WC3, but they're no longer animated. A minor quibble I guess but I don't like the concept of portraits anyway, and all I've ever really seen them do is take up slot-space in lobby. By the way, slot spaces in lobby are ridiculously large.
    2- Needless achievements. I guess this would be a criticism of the gaming industry in general, which seems to think achievements always improve a game. It's also very annoying to be told that your friend has just earned an achievement, because honestly I do not care. And a special menu bar ingame at all times just to view achievements that nobody will care about a month from now is aggravatingly bad UI design.
    3. The popularity system is the worst idea ever conceived in terms of custom mapping. Nothing more needs to be said.
    4. No channels, friends list is stupid and feels tacked on, no clans, etc. You can say "they're adding channels in a later patch!" but these are things which should have been in the freaking release.
    5. Oh good, now Blizzard hosts all SC2 games. That's nice and all, but I'd much prefer to also have the option to play locally hosted games, because I don't always want to have to play with the Battle.net minimum 125 MS ping. Blizzard hosting is a step forward, but local play is nice too. But maybe they didn't want to do that because...
    6. SC2 has no LAN support, and you must log in to play single player or custom maps or whatever. Ugghh.
    7. "Hey mapmakers, you're limited to 20 MB or 5 maps, whichever comes first! Oh and you can't spread your maps to other regions without an account there, sorry! Have fun."
    In terms of the story: The campaign's story is absolutely rubbish. Blizzard should hire someone who actually knows how to write without resorting to every cliche they can find on TV tropes.
    In terms of the graphics: The lack of anti aliasing makes SC2 look like something straight out of 2003, especially in the ingame-rendered cutscenes. For those of you not spoiled in 8x MSAA, don't judge me because you don't understand what it's like to go from crisp graphics to sloshy pixels everywhere.
    In terms of the melee: I don't care about melee so I have nothing to say here.
    In terms of the community management: We now have the Blizzard Moral Police and braindead community managers. I look forward to their pointless reign of terror.
    In terms of expansions: It's nice to know that the full game might run you $180 and that you have to wait 4 years for it. Regardless, it wouldn't be that bad but it means that the SC2 community will be split two times, and it just gives me this "Blizzard is milking us for cash" feeling.
    In terms of the main screen, and I know this might be a nitpick, but it's kind of disturbing to stare at Raynor's sweaty face every time I boot up the game.

    I think that's all I can recall off the top of my head. And despite all this, I am having some fun with SC2. The campaign maps were a blast, and some of the custom maps on Bnet aren't too bad to play once or twice. Emphasis on the once or twice, the popular maps are all frankly horrible.
     
  16. MySpaceBarBroke

    MySpaceBarBroke

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,554
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Yes, there can be more than one inspiration and raison d'ĂȘtre for a single unit. Of course Blizzard wouldn't outright rip something out.

    And missile knockdown ability as in the Point Defense Drone.
    K.
    When you play the game on higher settings, you'll get 3D portraits. And they're absolute sex.
    The user portraits are really no different from the user icons in WC3.
     
  17. FelFox

    FelFox

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    I know, I'm referring to the portraits you earn from doing achievements or whatever. I didn't like them much back in WC3 and they're just larger and more static now. It's going to hurt staring at random goatee guy's face for the next 4 years.
    The 3D portraits look mostly amazing though.
     
  18. TwentyThree

    TwentyThree

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    105
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    um, excuse me if im retarded, but isn't blizzard being told what to do and how much to sell things for by another company or something? And if anyone could make that amount of money with three very good parts of a game, they most likely would!
     
  19. Gilles

    Gilles

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    8,463
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Blizzard does an amazing job at balancing their games. They did well with wc3 and WoW, both who would seem to have more balancing to do than SC would. I have no doubt they'd be able to balance a fourth race.

    Guess it's simply personal preference here, I would just prefer to see more races. I have no issue with similarities between them.

    For all that time, I'm pretty disappointed with the campaign.
     
  20. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Kachinsky is awesome.

    It's only about the most awesome campaign for anything ever. Say what you want about the story, the level design and mission design are amazing and a great departure from previous RTS.

    --

    Also, "more races with similarities" just isn't Starcraft. Part of what makes it so different is the fact that it doesn't just have a blob of visually different races that play similarly--its races are so completely, totally, utterly different that the best player in the world playing one race is only really good playing another (and that "really good" comes down to their mechanics, not their strategy).