Apparently Jashin's not the only one who thinks Starcraft is serious business - by june gloom
Nameless Voice on 20/5/2010 at 09:33
A lot of people are worried that SC2 will just be SC1 with a new coat of paint,
They're certainly planning to stick very close to the original formula, and the basic principles are going to be the same, but they're adding new mechanics and changing/replacing a lot of the units.
A friend thinks that it won't even deserve to be called a proper sequel because it isn't changing any of the core concepts (e.g. workers still collect resources, no randomness, units only have one attack and can't fire while moving, etc.), though frankly if it changed any of those core concepts, I think it would cease to be a proper sequel and instead be an entirely different game.
Until I get to play it myself, I can't tell how similar or different it is. Some of the new concepts such as cliff-clmbing, multiple geysers per resource spot, high-yield resources, warp in and hot-swappable building addons should prove to be interesting, but I have no idea how much they'll really change the gameplay.
Shadowcat on 20/5/2010 at 11:14
You can never please everyone, I suppose.
Some people want a sequel to be the same game, but better looking.
Others think if it's the same game, but just better looking, there was no point.
I'm sure with Starcraft there's a lot of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" going on, but it's probably a safe bet that there will be plenty of complaints no matter what they do.
d0om on 20/5/2010 at 11:29
I'd like an RTS where your units weren't retards who wander off and die if you aren't paying attention. I'd like there to be no micromanagement of combat, just focus on the strategy rather than micromanaging battles.
Wounded units should retreat automatically (or at some pre-determined threshold based on your order for their squad) and units should focus fire automatically as well etc. I enjoy starcraft, other than the micromanagement in combat.
nicked on 20/5/2010 at 12:29
Maybe try a Total War game then - that's controlled at a much more macro level with sweeping battlefield strategy rather than unit point-and-click.
Jason Moyer on 20/5/2010 at 12:39
I hate RTS games, but if there were one with a realistic chain of command I think I'd be able to get into it.
Nameless Voice on 20/5/2010 at 19:35
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
You can never please everyone, I suppose.
Very true. For example, I don't think I'd really like a game like d0om is proposing there. I like to have to take individual control over the battle, and to be able to turn the tide by micromanagement. Doesn't mean I'm particularly good at it, but I still like it!
It probably goes without saying that I probably qualify as a Starcraft fanboy though.
Namdrol on 20/5/2010 at 20:04
I'd be frustrated as hell if I couldn't give direct orders during a fire fight.
I've just got the Company of Heroes Anthology for about a tenner, 6 campaigns with 100's of hrs of micro managed RTS goodness.
Nameless Voice on 20/5/2010 at 20:10
To an extent, Dawn of War's units are semi-independent, working in squads and attacking far more intelligently than e.g. Starcraft's units. They still need to be micromnanaged a bit, though.
SubJeff on 20/5/2010 at 21:36
Quote Posted by Namdrol
I've just got the Company of Heroes Anthology
Campaigns schmampaigns. This game comes alive in MP. Play the campaigns to learn about the mechanics and the units then get on the MP asap. I'll play with/against you anytime.
Trance on 21/5/2010 at 09:23
Quote Posted by Namdrol
I've just got the Company of Heroes Anthology for about a tenner, 6 campaigns with 100's of hrs of micro managed RTS goodness.
Hundreds of hours? Hardly. The three big campaigns from CoH and OF each might run you about 6 hours, and the ToV campaigns are ridiculously short (each might last an hour or so).
Like SubJeff said, MP is where it's at. You'll find the most fun against people, because the AI can get boring.
