bit-gamer.net

StarCraft 2 Beta First Impressions

Comments 1 to 25 of 121

Reply
vanu 9th March 2010, 08:45 Quote
it seems so unappropriate for someone who hasn't played SC to make a comparison between the two games. You say there is nothing new. Why would you change a formula that has worked for more than 10 years? The SC community expected exactly this, some eye candy, new units, great balance. Not to mention the story behind the game, one of the best stories ever (you are somehow free of accusations on this point since it's only a multiplayer beta).
To sum it up - you're obviously not a RTS player therefore this article has no value whatsoever.
spectre456 9th March 2010, 09:07 Quote
I'm not really excited by this since it seems to be just the same as SC1, which i played. i personally, find the series too micromanagement intensive as opposed to tactically inclined. As you said, it's all about who spams the most of a particular unit to overwhelm your opponent coupled with reflexes of a Korean player. I personally prefer company of heroes since that game rewards tactics and unit preservation (most of the time), more so than SC does, thanks to veterency and a retreat mechanic.

However, i most definitely respect Blizzard for making a game that the fans want as opposed to f***ing them over by getting people who don't even like the series to play by dumbing it all down. This is true fan service IMO.
Jezcentral 9th March 2010, 09:18 Quote
I must be one of the few people who want the game to continue the story. We want to find out what happens next!

I don't care about the multi-player, I want to see how Jim Raynor saves the galaxy.
Jamie 9th March 2010, 09:39 Quote
Having played this beta it was exactly what I expected. Identical to Warcraft 3 in pretty much every way but based in the Scarcraft universe. It is yet another RTS that is won or lost by build order and uber micro.
Artanix 9th March 2010, 09:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jezcentral
I must be one of the few people who want the game to continue the story. We want to find out what happens next!

I don't care about the multi-player, I want to see how Jim Raynor saves the galaxy.

this, i want to know what kerrigan has been up to all those years, as its what, 10 years after the events of SC1? Also want to know if Protoss are still arrogant as hell even when facing extinction lol.
CardJoe 9th March 2010, 09:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanu
it seems so unappropriate for someone who hasn't played SC to make a comparison between the two games. You say there is nothing new. Why would you change a formula that has worked for more than 10 years? The SC community expected exactly this, some eye candy, new units, great balance. Not to mention the story behind the game, one of the best stories ever (you are somehow free of accusations on this point since it's only a multiplayer beta).
To sum it up - you're obviously not a RTS player therefore this article has no value whatsoever.

You've obviously not really read the article, since that's something I talk specifically about - the fact that it wasn't broke and didn't need fixing.

And playing the first game doesn't suddenly qualify or validate someone's opinion. You might not have played all the Hitman games, for example, but I'd still give consideration to your point of view if you said that Hitman: Contracts was rubbish.

You're obviously a hardcore SC fan and I'm obviously not - but that doesn't mean my opinion is wholly and objectively meritless. That's just moronic.
tad2008 9th March 2010, 09:52 Quote
I didn't play SC1 either and yet from these first impressions all I can see is yet another cloned variation of Command & Conquer and Blizzard's own World of Warcraft series set in a different environment. Both allowed you to build attacking units quickly and go and attack your opponents early on in the game and C&C was notorious for having a build system that once understood allowed you to work up to Nuke your opponent in a very short space of time.

To wait 10 years for a sequel is just plain dumb, for Blizzard to wait 10 years to come back to an old game and give it the no. 2 moniker only says to me that they must be out of any really original ideas.
Ph4ZeD 9th March 2010, 10:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tad2008
I didn't play SC1 either and yet from these first impressions all I can see is yet another cloned variation of Command & Conquer and Blizzard's own World of Warcraft series set in a different environment. Both allowed you to build attacking units quickly and go and attack your opponents early on in the game and C&C was notorious for having a build system that once understood allowed you to work up to Nuke your opponent in a very short space of time.

To wait 10 years for a sequel is just plain dumb, for Blizzard to wait 10 years to come back to an old game and give it the no. 2 moniker only says to me that they must be out of any really original ideas.

Or maybe they are giving people what they want.
Dreaming 9th March 2010, 10:20 Quote
The replays on youtube etc. aren't as zoomed in as your screenshots.

I wonder why. Maybe it makes a difference depending on what resolution you play at?
GFC 9th March 2010, 10:30 Quote
Best rts game ever. All there is to it.
jsheff 9th March 2010, 10:33 Quote
To be honest Joe, I much appreciated that you were the one to preview the beta. I am in a similar position myself, I never really got what people loved about Starcraft, and similarly with Warcraft 3, it never seemed to be about battle tactics. If you're a hardcore Starcraft player, I respect that you might want "one of your own" to preview the beta, but the vast majority of us either lost interest a long time ago or never had any in the first place. I have vague interest in Starcraft 2, merely from all the hype surrounding it, so I'd prefer an opinion based on the game's own merit rather than nostalgia for times gone by.

That being said, I'll likely wait until the single player reviews appear before making my decision. Multiplayer Starcraft 2 will be a no-go. I prefer the long, drawn out tactical all out warfare over getting beaten by a small handful of the weakest units within 30 seconds.
Yemerich 9th March 2010, 10:36 Quote
If you read the impressions of a new player to the SC world like Joe is you will understand didn't need to be changed. The game is kind of a clone of C&C, wich was a clone of Dune 2. But still one of the best RTS ever made (imo the best ever is "men of war").

I hope they do the same with Diablo III.

PS: What happened to "Starcraft: Ghost"?
CardJoe 9th March 2010, 10:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
Best rts game ever. All there is to it.

It's not even finished or out yet....
Digi 9th March 2010, 10:50 Quote
It sounds very much like Blizzard again to me. They are very light on innovation in my opinion and very afraid of making changes. They always implement 'soft touch' updates that seem like they change a lot but in fact do almost nothing and usually include a healthy dose of dumbing-down.

With that said it's hard to say they are dumbing SC2 down - but they are definitely not trying to make any big changes or innovate and evolve and I think that's rather rubbish.

I am willing to believe however that loads of SC1 players won't think the same as me and Blizzard knows this.
wuyanxu 9th March 2010, 10:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
Having played this beta it was exactly what I expected. Identical to Warcraft 3 in pretty much every way but based in the Scarcraft universe. It is yet another RTS that is won or lost by build order and uber micro.
that's the bit i really don't like. the player, as commander of an army, should not worry about unit actions, when they should stop to fire, which route they should take, what special ability they should use.

it should be about the larger picture. building an army, creating building sized units to crash the enemy, strength in strategy and technology. Supreme Commander 2 anyone?

don't get me wrong, micromanagement is great if done right, such as Company of Hero (not DoW2) perfect balanced of base building and unit-management. Starcraft just requires you to work so hard at 2 fronts.
D-Cyph3r 9th March 2010, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
Best rts game ever. All there is to it.

Incorrect. SupCom shows this up as the ancient rehash it is.
idontwannaknow 9th March 2010, 11:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
You've obviously not really read the article, since that's something I talk specifically about - the fact that it wasn't broke and didn't need fixing.

And playing the first game doesn't suddenly qualify or validate someone's opinion. You might not have played all the Hitman games, for example, but I'd still give consideration to your point of view if you said that Hitman: Contracts was rubbish.

You're obviously a hardcore SC fan and I'm obviously not - but that doesn't mean my opinion is wholly and objectively meritless. That's just moronic.
You opinion IS wholly and objectively meritless, when it is not only wrong, but uninformed and (let's use your term) moronic as well (yes you can qualify an opinion; don't hide behind subjective nature of opinions, everyone's right to have one and similar cliches).

Let me point just a few stupidities:

Basic gameplay is like in all other RTS games? In what way? You use the mouse to move the units around? How is gameplay in SC2 similar to CoH or WaW or TW or Dow2?

So the gameplay is similar to all the other RTS games (which you must have played to draw that conclusion, I presume) and yet it took you 10-15 minutes to get a hang of the Terran interface? Did you need an all-nighter to figure out the Zerg interface?

You never played SC and needed 15 minutes to figure out the interface for the "vanilla" race. You play a game and can't defend from an early attack. So, naturally, you conclude that the game is just about who can train the most low level units first. Makes sense.

The differences between races are mostly cosmetic? What is this... I don't even... Are you trolling again? That wonderful piece of rhetoric about older games being rubbish was much better. This is just too obvious. (PROTIP: You should have mentioned blocky unit models, works every time!)
oMonarca 9th March 2010, 11:05 Quote
This game is great for people that have fun competing. Care bears that can't play without "blue shells" or won't youtube some commented replays in order to learn the game should just wait for the singleplayer.

Yes, it's beastly hard to learn properly. But once you do, it is extremely gratifying.
FelixTech 9th March 2010, 11:06 Quote
I didn't enjoy the first game very much so it doesn't look like this is going to be much better. While my brother seemed to enjoy SC1 (in single player anyway), I found that it simply just wasn't very fun!

I'd like to know why both C&C and SC2 seem to prevent players zooming out as far as they would like. While it's nice to be able to zoom in and look at the destruction in detail sometimes, it is also nice to be able to zoom out far enough to get a good view of your surroundings.
iwog 9th March 2010, 11:11 Quote
Holy crap this is exactly like reading every other Blizzard based forum. You get the mods and the intelligent people trying to discus like adults and then everyone else talking crap and forgetting that a reasoned argument is best. I don't know what magic Blizz has but its got to be on a par with that of Apple.

Joe I think as someone who isn't besotted by the first game you're a great choice to preview the current beta, however I would hope that someone else be handed the final review so that you original impression don't taint the review.

To all those who say you cant draw parallels between the original and the 2nd without playing the original first, I say to you there is another documentation out there that an accurate depiction of the original can be achieved. Hell I bet even a cursory glance at the unit list and it similarity could give you an idea of how little the core of the game has changed.

@Digi, I would't say Blizzard are afraid to be innovative, they are just afraid of the ire that they would receive from the fans if it did anything other then pay the utmost respect to a well loved franchise. Their secret 4th project (the others being WoW: Catclysm, Diablo and SC2) will be the one to show their real power to be creative.
GFC 9th March 2010, 11:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
Best rts game ever. All there is to it.

Incorrect. SupCom shows this up as the ancient rehash it is.
SupCom has nothing on starcraft.
Quote:
It's not even finished or out yet....
And your point is? I've played it, I can tell you that it's ALREADY better than any RTS released in the last 10 years.
smc8788 9th March 2010, 11:18 Quote
Wow, the level of SC snobbery in this thread is epic.
Stewb 9th March 2010, 11:26 Quote
Just a point. You can rotate the camera, insert and delete rotate it through about 30 degrees each way. Not proper I know, but you can do it slightly.

EDIT: Not really much of a SC fan (not very good :p), but you seem to be bashing it for what the game is, and what it is designed to be. What's the problem with being beaten by a player that has controlled their economy more efficiently? What is excactly wrong with being beaten by a zerg rush if you haven't started well? Its another layer of strategy, in well, a strategy game.
CardJoe 9th March 2010, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by idontwannaknow
rant

Don't make the mistake of inferring my entire experience with the game from the few stories I relate in the article, where I also mention how I continued playing the game, discussed the series with experience players at length, read up on the history of the series and even went so far as to invite experienced players to play the beta while I watched.

Also, don't dismiss an opinion on the grounds of objective flaw without pulling up valid examples. You say my opinion is meritless for being objectively wrong, but then none of the examples you pull up actually are objective statements - and most are overreaction.

For example, you get incensed and angry about me saying that the game is the same as other RTS titles without backing it up, when if you actually judge that remark within context then you can see that it's there to help easily summarise the type of RTS that StarCraft 2 is to new players. I.e., it's a traditional RTS where you construct buildings, spew out armies and then navigate across a fixed arena to defeat an enemy.

That might seem like an inane point to make, but consider the spate of different RTS games we've seen in the last few years. Dawn of War, with it's small squads and RPG systems. World in Conflict with it's dribbled resources and no buildings. C&C4, with it's mobile bases and co-op campaigns. An aside and brief attempt to illustrate that SC2 is fairly traditional (which is in no way a bad thing) compared to these titles is neither objectively wrong, a major point of the article, nor something that's worth getting so incensed about.

Not that I'm having a go. I fully accept that your opinion may be different - and since you're probably a hardcore SC2 stalwart I'd actually expect that - but if you're going to allege factual inaccuracies then that's something I have to address for obvious reasons above and beyond the fact that you disagree with my first impressions of an incomplete, unreleased sequel. Factual inaccuracies are something we take seriously and will always address, but every point you raise has a subjective basis, contrary to what you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewb
Just a point. You can rotate the camera, insert and delete rotate it through about 30 degrees each way. Not proper I know, but you can do it slightly.

That's a factual inaccuracy - thanks for pointing that out, I must have missed that one. I'll update the article to suit.
Pete J 9th March 2010, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Wow, the level of SC snobbery in this thread is epic.
+1

I personally didn't get why Starcraft was, and continues to be, so popular (cue fanboi rage). It was just another generic RTS which had some good artwork. Isn't Starcraft 2 about 4 years overdue anyway?

This article seems to confirm what I thought: if you were a fan of the original, go buy it; if you thought the original was distinctly average then this will offer nothing new.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums