Disapointments with StarCraft 2?

[JimBob]

Spoilers, be warned.


Just for fun. No game is perfect. Anything about this game kind of let you down? Anything bother you that you didn't mind too much or did mind a lot? Was it what you thought it would be?

Personally, my disappointments were-

Single Player campaign story- I didn't like how Kerrigan became human again. Although, I was surprised that Tych was actually going to kill Kerrigan instead of Raynor. Still, I think Kerrigan was best as the villain. I thought she was a hopeless case for Raynor. I consider the "real" Kerrigan to have died on Tarsonis. I really hope this is just some other scheme by her to gain more power and that she is still evil. If not I will be disappointed in Blizzard, making Kerrigan good again is like bringing her back from the dead.

My other disappointment was in the story as a whole. It feels like a repeat of WC3. Just watch, all the races have to unite to defeat the Hybrids in order to save the world(this time worlds because it's starcraft). Where is the creativity? In less they have some twist in which this time they fail and the "bad guy" wins than I'd be ok with it, but that would mean no more Starcraft. If this really becomes a repeat of WC3 than I think I'm done playing Blizzard games for their story. I'd play them for other reasons like Multy-player, editor and gameplay, but not story.

Another disappointment that is not necessarily my own, but a lot of people had said this, was the TV Media in the Cantina. They didn't like how it was aimed to make you laugh and not after realism. You think the Dominion would be smart enough to also buy the reporter as well? You think people are that stupid to believe that propaganda? Of course not, but to me I realized that Blizzard was just using it as humor. I didn't mind it personally, but I could understand that some people playing Raynor really wanted to feel that everybody in the Dominion thought they were evil despite their good doings.

All in all, I'm not pleased with the story so far, but who knows? Maybe what we find out in Heart of the Swarm will be pretty awesome and unexpected?

As far as other disappointments go, I didn't like how they didn't include formations like in WC3. I don't like how the units are bunched up together. It's easier to spot them when they are in lines looking like an army instead of looking like an unorganized big crowd where you can't find anybody. I didn't mind this much enough to ruin my experience, but it is a notable concern.

We could get a nice conversation out of this. Your turn, but don't say "no LAN", we already know.

 

[JimBob]

My disappointment is that there are too many whiners for such a great game.

So you just going to whine about that?


Dude, I've heard that one before. No game is perfect. I didn't say it wasn't great. If you think it's perfect than you've got nothing to say here.

This is just all for fun, not necessarily bashing SC2.

 

[JimBob]

I'm not a blind fan of Blizzard, I did criticize them for the bnet features and they read my lines well, and I dont mean you. The beta forums were full of whine for completely useless things.

Well, there are a lot of people like that on those forums.

I think the story is a primary concern. I feel like that they could have done better, but I understand they're only 1/3 of the way through. I hope it turns out great and not how I think it's going to turn out.

 

[kewlthis]

My disappointment is that there are too many whiners for such a great game.

How small minded can you be?


I think sc2 is far from perfect. I played like 10 missions of the campaign and then I got pretty much bored...It just didnt give any challenge. Alltought I only used normal difficulty (dunno what hard would be like). The AI just didnt seem to do anything. You could take your time and mass units with pretty much every mission and that gives easy win.

And the bnet system...whats up with that? I want channels and custom map creation!!! How can you mess up the most important part of sc2 for me. Custom games, multiplayer experience...so much to improve.

I still think its a good game, yet it has some flaws.

 

[JimBob]

How small minded can you be?


I think sc2 is far from perfect. I played like 10 missions of the campaign and then I got pretty much bored...It just didnt give any challenge. Alltought I only used normal difficulty (dunno what hard would be like). The AI just didnt seem to do anything. You could take your time and mass units with pretty much every mission and that gives easy win.

And the bnet system...whats up with that? I want channels and custom map creation!!! How can you mess up the most important part of sc2 for me. Custom games, multiplayer experience...so much to improve.

I still think its a good game, yet it has some flaws.

I guarantee that Blizzard will make some changes eventually.

As for the single-player, just increase the difficulty. Normal is actually easy, but I don't have a problem with it. Just play it on hard.

 

[PurplePoot]

The best part about people complaining about the fact that the SC2 storyline is "too similar to wc3" is that they don't realize that Wc3's storyline is almost carbon copied from SC (and no, SC was not carbon copied from Wc2) and thus this is not particularly surprising.

 

[kola]

My disappointment is that there are too many whiners for such a great game.

agree.

people that fails at being good players in Bnet just start saying playing starcraft is boring. (Not everyone, lots still like to play it and try to become better players)

As far as other disappointments go, I didn't like how they didn't include formations like in WC3. I don't like how the units are bunched up together. It's easier to spot them when they are in lines looking like an army instead of looking like an unorganized big crowd where you can't find anybody. I didn't mind this much enough to ruin my experience, but it is a notable concern.

if they made it like this (Unorganized units), its for a better SC gameplay cause in WC, all single units are important (they all have lots of Hp and Attack) and you need to keep them alive cause you dont have big armies, but in SC, single units arent very important (lets say that Thors and such units are important even alone) but units like Mutalisk, Marines and others like this are important when they are in group if they are separated, they all become useless and easy targets for the opponent.

If you are at the start of the game then yes, every units are very important to survive.

 

[PurplePoot]

SC armies are too big for formations to be practical.

 

[mrzwach]

I think sc2 is far from perfect. I played like 10 missions of the campaign and then I got pretty much bored...It just didnt give any challenge. Alltought I only used normal difficulty (dunno what hard would be like). The AI just didnt seem to do anything. You could take your time and mass units with pretty much every mission and that gives easy win.

"the campaign was too easy for me on the second easiest difficulty"

really, haven't you ever heard of increasing the difficulty?

@kerrigan becoming good, probably a setup for heart of the swarm. With the supreme leader of the zerg no longer the supreme leader, it would allow for new zerg characters to rise up and such. but eh.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

To start off, I'd suggest warning people of upcoming spoilers. Not all of us can be lucky enough to get the game this quickly.

That being said, here are some things that disappointed me, despite how sexy this game is:

• Kerrigan is nothing but a plot device and a pinup girl. All her cunning and betrayal that made her the Bitch Queen of the Universe is gone, and she's only really there as some kind of generic brand villain.
• The game and its characters are cliched as hell, and the plot is boring and unremarkable.
• The game turkey-bastes en masse a horde of characters that you might have heard of if you read Starcraft-related books or something like that, but you would never be familiar with having only played the previous game. A Kingdom Hearts-esque continuity jump where Jim Raynor calls everyone his old pal, and we just have to take his word for it.
• They actually managed to make Battle.net 2.0 worse than the original. Everything's so fucking streamlined. You can't find individual games; maps are organized by priority so Nexus Wars is going to be eclipsing some new, innovative map for the next century or so; it takes 30 seconds to prepare for a map in case you planned on making a pre-game milkshake; and chat channels are only going to be implemented in an upcoming patch, so socializing is out of the question. There are some things they did better, but honestly, I just want the old Battle.net.
• Half the Terran accents are some variant of the Deep Southerner, as if this is some kind of alternate timeline in which the Confederate States of America won the American Civil War and then proceeded to take over the rest of the earth. Which would explain their flag.
• I really wanted to see the spectres replace ghosts in melee. Not really a complaint as much as a personal preference.

 

[TerranDominion]

Back in sc1,wasn't Tassadar wanted kerrrigan to be destroyed? I just don't get the story.I though their going to get revaluation .We sorted have clue for starcraft 2.The Hybrid could be the new race mix zerg/protoss.makes
2 race.Terran and Hybrid.But ,aren't got to be 4 race in SC3.In the next 12 years?

 

[kblood]

I played through the campaign on hard. I liked the missions, and also doing the achievements is where it really gets challenging. There are players who try to complete the game on insane, AND doing the achievements on that difficulty as well. But playing on normal, is asking not to be challenged by the game, and making it very possible to complete each mission in first try.

As for the story. Yea, Kerrigan is of course going to be the focus in Heart of the Swarm. Some say it will be lame if she is to become Zerg again. I would think it would be cool if she did so by her own choosing, maybe because she figured she needed the power to save the galaxy from the other hybrids. Some say it will be about her regaining control of the zerg again, she still has her Zerg hair, and it is said that it is psi antennas for controlling the Zerg. But I would find human Kerrigan controlling the Zerg, not being evil in any way, would be more lame than her becoming the Queen of Blades again. But no matter where the story goes, I will probably like it, as long as there keep being lots of powerful characters.

 

[Dr Super Good]

A short comming I find is the lack of polish to the engine.

When playing coop occasionally the status on finding games fails to appear.
You can end up in a locked state when joining games for no reason so you are not in a game, but neithor can you join one until you and everyone in your party relogs into the game.
If you alt+tab while a map is loading, you will hang at 80% indefinatly despite the game still remaining responsive so you have to alt+ctrl+del the game to shut it off.

 

[mrzwach]

@MSBB, spectres would be imba in melee, even with just the ultrasonic pulse ability and cloak. Also, ghosts are kind of iconic to the series, so :|

 

[JimBob]

if they made it like this (Unorganized units), its for a better SC gameplay cause in WC, all single units are important (they all have lots of Hp and Attack) and you need to keep them alive cause you dont have big armies, but in SC, single units arent very important (lets say that Thors and such units are important even alone) but units like Mutalisk, Marines and others like this are important when they are in group if they are separated, they all become useless and easy targets for the opponent.

If you are at the start of the game then yes, every units are very important to survive.

Thanks, I understand why they didn't include that now.

{EDIT 1}

To start off, I'd suggest warning people of upcoming spoilers. Not all of us can be lucky enough to get the game this quickly.

That being said, here are some things that disappointed me, despite how sexy this game is:

* Kerrigan is nothing but a plot device and a pinup girl. All her cunning and betrayal that made her the Bitch Queen of the Universe is gone, and she's only really there as some kind of generic brand villain.
* The game and its characters are cliched as hell, and the plot is boring and unremarkable.
* The game turkey-bastes en masse a horde of characters that you might have heard of if you read Starcraft-related books or something like that, but you would never be familiar with having only played the previous game. A Kingdom Hearts-esque continuity jump where Jim Raynor calls everyone his old pal, and we just have to take his word for it.
* They actually managed to make Battle.net 2.0 worse than the original. Everything's so fucking streamlined. You can't find individual games; maps are organized by priority so Nexus Wars is going to be eclipsing some new, innovative map for the next century or so; it takes 30 seconds to prepare for a map in case you planned on making a pre-game milkshake; and chat channels are only going to be implemented in an upcoming patch, so socializing is out of the question. There are some things they did better, but honestly, I just want the old Battle.net.
* Half the Terran accents are some variant of the Deep Southerner, as if this is some kind of alternate timeline in which the Confederate States of America won the American Civil War and then proceeded to take over the rest of the earth. Which would explain their flag.
* I really wanted to see the spectres replace ghosts in melee. Not really a complaint as much as a personal preference.

You make some good points. I haven't tried Battle.net yet(still upgrading my computer), so in the mean time I've just stuck to single player and editor.

As for the Terran/southern American comparison, that's how it was in the first game. However, that's not how it happened. The UED to took over the Earth. The Terrans in the Korprul sector are based off the Southern Americans. In Brood War, some of the UED characters and one of the units had Russian accents.

{EDIT 2}

The best part about people complaining about the fact that the SC2 storyline is "too similar to wc3" is that they don't realize that Wc3's storyline is almost carbon copied from SC (and no, SC was not carbon copied from Wc2) and thus this is not particularly surprising.

Really, I didn't see many comparisons? You aren't one of those people where everything has to be different in order to be different are you?

WC3 had a very deep story with many sub-stories. I can't think of any comparisons, honestly.

By the way, I played WC2 and SC1 as well as Brood War and the Diablo games. Blizzard's story creativity has gone downhill since WoW(I don't play it, but that's what I've heard form a lot of people who are into the lore). I was hoping SC2 could redeem them, but so far the story looks too cliche.

 

[PurplePoot]

Play SC1's campaign and Wc3's campaign back to back some time.

 

[StormWarriors2]

I really liked the story. And considering it was actually pretty good for a blizzard game.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

How small minded can you be?


I think sc2 is far from perfect. I played like 10 missions of the campaign and then I got pretty much bored...It just didnt give any challenge. Alltought I only used normal difficulty (dunno what hard would be like). The AI just didnt seem to do anything. You could take your time and mass units with pretty much every mission and that gives easy win.

And the bnet system...whats up with that? I want channels and custom map creation!!! How can you mess up the most important part of sc2 for me. Custom games, multiplayer experience...so much to improve.

I still think its a good game, yet it has some flaws.

If you had been here in May you would've seen how 'small minded' I was when I exploded several forums with long reasons for the lack of important bnet features. But they will be added.

You don't play hardest and claim missions are no challenge? You say it while not playing hardest... I'll lower unit handicap to say 60-70% and play at hardest, then I could say it is easy but that as playing it the hard way.

The features that I dislike and Im not sure Blizzard will change is the ridiculous divisions and/or leagues. Single ladder would be better, or single league ladders...And achievements are silly 1 win = achievement that's bs. Achievement must be: winner of a Blizzard mapmaking contest, winner of a tournament, that should be noted, unique and rare to achieve, not some 1 win, 10 wins, completed campaign and crap like that.

 

[Rui]

The large number of races in Warcraft III make it easier to create substories. As for the main plot, if I were to resume it in only a few words, I'd say it's mostly about slaying Zerg and stealing artifacts from Protoss.
I liked the plot of the Colonist missions. The Prophecy missions were also somewhat interesting lore-wise and gameplay-wise (the lightning and reflections of the terrain on Aiur were SO beautiful!). But I grew bored of the others.
I preferred Warcraft III's plot, but I'm a suspect for preferring medieval and fantasy. I found it pretty lame how the Hyperion, a huge mass of metal, could simply get out of a planet's orbit in less than a second. Only teleportation is faster than that.

Races uniting seems to be a thing to remain in Blizzard's missions. =P I read that Raynor, Kerrigan and Zeratul united for a while against the United Earth Directorate (Terran faction). If this was a playable mission in Brood War, I bet it was something similar to Archimonde's ascent (instead of unsummoning structures, Terran can lift them off =P).

 

[Just_Spectating]

To start off, I'd suggest warning people of upcoming spoilers. Not all of us can be lucky enough to get the game this quickly.

too late :[

i read it and was like (thanks for ruining it jackass)

 

[Anubis_theDark]

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.

 

[Gilles]

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.

 

[PurplePoot]

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?).

 

[kola]

You know that, they didnt developped the game for 7 years? they released other games between al these years. (talking about anubis post)

 

[Gilles]

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.

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.

You know that, they didnt developped the game for 7 years? they released other games between al these years. (talking about anubis post)

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.

 

[kola]

most of Blizzards games takes about that long to make.

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.

 

[mrzwach]

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.

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 feels alot better because it offers greater unit variety. A player can chose from more units which offers a far greater variety of strategies.

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.

 

[JimBob]

Play SC1's campaign and Wc3's campaign back to back some time.

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}

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.

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 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.

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).

 

[Anubis_theDark]

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.

 

[gT.ReD]

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

 

[kola]

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.

 

[PurplePoot]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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).

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

too late :[

i read it and was like (thanks for ruining it jackass)

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.

 

[PurplePoot]

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.

 

[FelFox]

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.

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.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

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).

Yes, there can be more than one inspiration and raison d'être for a single unit. Of course Blizzard wouldn't outright rip something out.

And missile knockdown ability as in the Point Defense Drone.

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

K.

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.

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.

 

[FelFox]

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.

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.

 

[TwentyThree]

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.

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!

 

[Gilles]

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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

 

[PurplePoot]

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.

Kachinsky is awesome.

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

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).

 

[Anubis_theDark]

While the campaign ( mechanics that is ) is indeed really good, it is killed by the shity story. They have more cliches in it than another stupid teenage comedy movie, and the whole story makes no sense. For example the whole freekin dominion is looking for raynor and they cannot find him ( hell a ghost could kill him and make it look like a simple accident ), while every low life in the galaxy seems to have no problem in finding him. Then comes the end part. The dominion has a huge fleet and a massive army but they don't invade char. They wait until the zerg cripple them, and they take only half of what ever is left of the fleet to invade char. If this makes any sense to anyone pls explain why ? I love sci-fi and have read crap loads of sci-fi books ( a book is much better than tv shows ), and the story of starcraft feels like it's been done by a 7 years old kid trying to write it's own little fiction with 'bad boys' heroes that are saving their love and wars that make no sense when they happen.

 

[Fussiler1]

While the campaign ( mechanics that is ) is indeed really good, it is killed by the shity story. They have more cliches in it than another stupid teenage comedy movie, and the whole story makes no sense. For example the whole freekin dominion is looking for raynor and they cannot find him ( hell a ghost could kill him and make it look like a simple accident )

Mengsk is afraid he'll turn into a martyr.

Then comes the end part. The dominion has a huge fleet and a massive army but they don't invade char. They wait until the zerg cripple them, and they take only half of what ever is left of the fleet to invade char.

Because invading Char would be theoretically, impossible? After most of her Zerg forces were gone, then it would've been possible, which happened.

Sorry if I'm wrong.

 

[Rui]

I think Raynor and Mengsk had a little incident where Raynor saved Mengsk's life. Since then, for the sake of old rivalry or just the Hyperion, which was originally Mengsk's cruiser, Mengsk makes propaganda against Raynor, but isn't really out to get him.
As for the Dominion invading Char, it doesn't seem like a very viable option. First, because you see how the Zerg started invading multiple planets simultaneously at the start of the campaign. If you watched the UNN Studios news in the final missions, you'll also know that the Zerg withdraw from those planets and begin concentrating at Char. The Swarm should outnumber the Dominion easily; plus, if the Dominion lost the battle, who would defend their cities? They had too much to lose. Raynor went there because of the chance to save Kerrigan.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

When I said beta forums were flooded by useless whine, here it's becoming the same. The only reasonable complaints are the bnet ones, including hosting, popularity lists and such.

Im a war3 player for 7 years and im used to that game, I've played SC in the 90s and in 2000. I dont cry that SC1 has only 3 races, it is too fast, no heroes, you can't rotate buildings and bs like that. And it isnt just me, no normal player has such complaints, they just play the damn game. I also accept it as it is, because this is Starcraft, not war3 or DoW (please dont even mention that name).

@Anubis: If you want to rotate buildings press Delete or Insert and camera rotates. problem solved, dont whine. This is SC, it's made like it, so if you come from non-blizzard RTS, stay there, no need to complain over something accepted by all for years already. SC and war3 has a lot more competitiveness that some special camera 3D RPG style moments or things like that. SC doesnt care about it, SC cares about micro, macro and things that are a lot more important than other games. Im not gonna argue with such cause arguing with them is just pointless, like talking to a tree, they just say what they want and stick to it. And i've heard such whines like hundreds of times.

@Gilles: As I said, this is SC. As Purple said above, do you know how hard it is to balance, not to say a whole new race? However, for campaign they could make a 4th, 5th etc, race like the Naga for war3.

@Just_Spectating - I think seeing the movies is worse. I came across Kerrigan story and she's made hot and cool, felt sad in what I saw, but it also included some videos apparently from the campaign and I didnt start it. That also ruined it for me but, there comes this: watching once you won't remember what they say, how it happened so, it isn't ruining that much. Wait till you forget it and start campaign, it won't be that different from never seeing/reading about it.

Whining over the campaign? I won't comment it. Unfortunately I saw the videos a little in advance but I dont remember what they said, so Im pretty sure it will be like new next time I see them, though I liked it very much, so I think it's made great, dont whine.

 

[mrzwach]

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.

1. I like the portraits, they look cool and are a neat addition. The fact that the slots in the lobby are so large you have to scroll is pretty retarded, I must admit.

2. Lots of people actually like achievements, they are fun little things to try and get. Don't speak for yourself then claim it as the majority opinion.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Just a note on portraits: Why aren't they animated like in war3? I asked Blizz once but they ignored that. I also want them animated. It seems they chose quantity over quality. Better make animated or they are already in the MPQ.. than tons of pictures.. See again? The prob remains in bnet, not campaign or others, the rest is just useless crying.

I also said that achievements should be rare to achieve and should be like - blizz map contest winner, tournament winner, these are just pointless but I ignore them, since they are made for the 'YAY I WON!' idiots.

 

[mrzwach]

IMO, they should make the achievements actually have points equivalent to how difficult they are to achieve.

In example, you get just 80 achievement points for winning one thousand melee games as one race. I think I got more than that just for playing three missions in the campaign. I mean, seriously?

Also, some of them are just retarded, ie the one for killing 5 changelings. Good luck, better find a 1v1 opponent who really fucking likes using changelings.

 

[PurplePoot]

If you don't like toasts (notification that your friend just got some achievement) then turn them off?

Also, achievements are fun. Some friends and I try to farm as many as possible just to see how many we can get. We are all around 2500 points right now.

 

[kola]

hmm, i rly dont see what is the problem with achievements. its just FUN. not usefull, fun.

Also, for anubis that was complaining about the 3 games u need to buy for the complete races, You know that Sc2 : Terrans had the same number of campaigns as Wc3. So selling them all separated is very normal. (they could sell it all in one but it the cost would be the same : 180$)

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

In example, you get just 80 achievement points for winning one thousand melee games as one race. I think I got more than that just for playing three missions in the campaign. I mean, seriously?

Also, some of them are just retarded, ie the one for killing 5 changelings. Good luck, better find a 1v1 opponent who really fucking likes using changelings.

Exactly, the achievements are not even fun to achieve in their retardation. And since you achieve them inevitably, the best cure is to ignore.

I think icons were just fine for say 25, 100,150 wins, not for 10 20 30 and such. achievements... Now that you can't change accounts, or create new, you will end up spamming games anyway, something I dislike but anyway, fact for why not make things harder. This bnet just has things to fix, like ladder divisions, and such.

Also I really want animated portraits for some reason, make them 10-20 instead of 100 unanimated, just pictures, what were they thinking.