Why do I hate all Blizzard RTS games so much?

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
4,094
123
106
I'm sorry.. I must be the only one out there who hates Warcraft and Starcraft, but I think these games suck. Sure, I enjoyed the original Starcraft a little bit when it came out in the 90's and I played it for a while, mostly in single player which was quite good actually. All that aside, I feel that multiplayer in all Blizz RTS'es is flawed. It's too focused on intense micromanagement, a quick mouse hand and quick mind.

One might argue that this is good, but it's not. It's like requiring everyone out there to run a marathon, or push a 250lb benchpress. I don't consider myself "slow" in games by any means. I was never a pro, but I am quite ok in other RTS that are not made by Blizzard.

I really dislike the old, outdated resource gathering system in both Warcraft and Starcraft. I had absolutely no issues with it back when the original SC came out, but I dont understand why Blizz still sticks to it, when other games have moved on, and when other game companies are constantly trying new ideas.

Just look at Company of Heroes and Dawn of War(both 1 and 2)... The games "feel" ages more advanced when compared to Starcraft IMO. No longer do you have to concern yourself with petty, annoying things such as monitoring the number of peasants or SCVs.... You don't have to "tend" to them constantly... You will not lose the game when someone employs a lame rush and kills them all off... why? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PEASANTS OR SCVs !!!

CoH and DoW allow the player to focus on actual strategy, instead of worrying about how many drones you have mining minerals and vespene gas... In Warcraft 3, I can lose my huge army in mere seconds simply because my enemy clicked on his hero's "ability" faster than I did.... In Starcraft, it's sorta the same except there are no heroes, but a well placed psi storm or whatever can do pretty much the same. How the fuck is that strategy?! I don't even get a chance to "manage" my army and actually fight the enemy. My army is gone by the time I get a chance to think about it.... I don't even get a chance to retreat most of the time because of the game's mechanics. Even if I chose to retreat in face of overwhelming odds at least 50% of my army will be gone anyway. In CoH, I can elect to retreat and fight another day, keeping most of my units if I do it right.

I don't see, why I need to "study" the damn game, and learn the "proper build order", and all that junk, when I want to actually PLAY and concentrate on strategy.

In CoH, there is a strategic map which you can call up and see the whole battlefield, like a map on a general's table... In Starcraft, there is no such thing! In CoH units come out in squads which again, allows you to focus on overall strategy instead of constantly pumping out dozens of units and worrying about the numbers or barracks or gateways or whatever... For crying out loud, Starcraft doesn't even have formations, when at least 90% of all RTS out there have them. Formations are not just a gimmick and they are far from trivial. They are very important for structure and order. They allow units not to get stuck on one another the way it happens in Starcraft.

There are no stupid minerals or vespene gas in CoH. Only resource points, and as long as you control them resources keep coming allowing you to PLAY and not worry about the "right amount" of SCVs...

And what about the concept of realism? Sure I understand this is a sci-fi game... But marines with gauss rifles shooting down a frigging battlecruiser that is supposed to be in space orbiting a planet? Oh wait.. I'm sorry... It conveniently swooped down low enough to be in range... and it also took down it's shields, and stripped it's armor plating which is able to withstand spaceship grade weapons, just so that marines can penetrate with their small arms.... Again... This was perfectly OK in 1998.... But in this day and age?!

I really expected Starcraft 2 to come up with something truly RADICAL, like a huge step away from the traditional formula however silly or risky that may be... When the original Starcraft came out, that is exactly what it was! It was very new, and very unlike other RTS at the time. It actually got a not-so-good grade from PC Games magazine back then.... But it didn't matter because it quickly gained a huge following when people started getting into it.

This time around, Starcraft 2 reeks of Blizzards immense arrogance. So damn proud they are of their extremely famous game and their gigantic fanbase of mindless Korean drones, that they didn't even bother to make any significant changes this time around. Apparently they think that their game is PERFECT, and there is no reason to fix what is not broken in the 1st place. I have no words to describe how frustrated I am about such thinking... just who the fuck do these guys think they are? I understand that staying with an old, proven formula is good for business.. It's all about money isn't it? This is further shown by a hefty $60 price tag. But what happened to innovation? Risk taking? Is that bound to stay in the 90's as far as Blizzard goes?

I feel that a very large part of Starcraft's popularity is the fact that it runs on a huge range of systems both old and new. This way, people who virtually cant play anything else can still play Starcraft! But I don't care about that. It's time to move on.

In a world of CoH, DoW and RUSE, Starcraft 2 is just an old, outdated game with a new "skin", a few new units and abilities. Nothing more. Hell it doesn't even retain the "feel" of the original all that well IMO.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Yes, you just like a particular type of game. Blizzard RTS games are not of that type.
You don't have to like every game of a genre. I'm sure many people who like 'racing games' actually like arcade style ones and have no interest in racing sims, and vice versa.
Some people like things such as resource gathering and the added strategy it brings.

Some of your points directly contradict your "Starcraft has a lack of strategy" claim though. Like "you will not lose the game when someone employs a lame rush and kills them all off". Attacking the enemy's economy IS a strategy. It's even been used in real wars in various ways (e.g. scorching the land so the enemy can't product, cutting off supply routes etc). Then there's the whole "do I expand or build army" issue, which can affect when you can attack, when you are weak etc, and open you up to being attacked.

And when it comes to the "oh that guy can micro better than me", same applies to Company of Heroes and such. A Stug kills a Sherman in 1v1 heads up fight, but if you micro your Sherman, you can annihilate a Stug by literally running circles around it. And tanks are quite expensive. That's micro, just like Starcraft.

A lot of your complaints seem to be about the whole mechanics of the game, complaining it feels old because it's not been super simplified. Obviously it's just not your type of game.
Something like CoH is a lot more simplified and focused in a different way, but that doesn't make it necessarily more strategic. Just differently strategic.
And in CoH you can lose your army in an instant by not clicking quickly enough, like if I call down a barrage of everything all over your army and destroy it instantly. You can't retreat from that.

The basics of both games are still strategy, you still need quick reactions, you still need to know what you are going to be up against, but one is arguably a lot simpler than the other in a great many ways (CoH) and hence the strategy aspects are a lot more apparent and accessible, while SC2 requires (in many ways) more thought and a lot more activity.

(Comparisons made between CoH and SC2 specifically because those are the two titles I have experience of, and I enjoy both)
 
Last edited:

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
You don't like the fact that you cannot just go in and randomly build crap to be good? There is a solution: don't buy the games then.
 

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
Well you answered your own question. You hate the games because you are bad at them.
The multitasking required is what separates skill levels. There are ways to get better at sc2. practice, learn counters, learn build orders, watch reps.

And don't cry about build orders. They are being used by your enemy. So if you want to cripple your early game by mucking around its on you. The point of most games is that winning will happen when you outplay your opponent. If you are lazy and just want free wins then play single player. I do not understand your attitude. There are scores of games I do not like. I wont ever start a thread about them.
 

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
4,094
123
106
But there is no reason for all that multitasking when that can be eliminated allowing the player to focus on overall strategy. You can argue that going on all fours and scrubbing your carpet with a brush is better than using a vacuum cleaner because it gives you a hell of a workout. You can even say that if I cannot physically scrub my carpet I should go and exercise.... But there is a reason a vacuum cleaner was invented, no? Simplicity is not always bad.
 

kalrith

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,628
7
81
Do you like the single-player game at all? I personally really like the single-player portion of WC3, but hate the multi-player (I also suck at it and don't put in the time to get better). I also really like the custom games (like Battle Tanks and various tower-defense games).
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
But there is no reason for all that multitasking when that can be eliminated allowing the player to focus on overall strategy. You can argue that going on all fours and scrubbing your carpet with a brush is better than using a vacuum cleaner because it gives you a hell of a workout. You can even say that if I cannot physically scrub my carpet I should go and exercise.... But there is a reason a vacuum cleaner was invented, no? Simplicity is not always bad.

Except that this simplicity you mentioned would make SC just like every other RTS on the planet. There is a large learning curve to be good at SC, but once that is overcome the matches are way better. Just because you don't want to put in the time to get good and learn about the game, doesn't mean it is outdated or overly complex.

Then again, the same thing can be said about fighting games. Almost anyone can pick up a joy stick and play them, but there will always be a huge difference between someone who is good and someone who mashes buttons.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,052
12,435
136
I'm sorry.. I must be the only one out there who hates Warcraft and Starcraft, but I think these games suck. Sure, I enjoyed the original Starcraft a little bit when it came out in the 90's and I played it for a while, mostly in single player which was quite good actually. All that aside, I feel that multiplayer in all Blizz RTS'es is flawed. It's too focused on intense micromanagement, a quick mouse hand and quick mind.

One might argue that this is good, but it's not. It's like requiring everyone out there to run a marathon, or push a 250lb benchpress. I don't consider myself "slow" in games by any means. I was never a pro, but I am quite ok in other RTS that are not made by Blizzard.

I really dislike the old, outdated resource gathering system in both Warcraft and Starcraft. I had absolutely no issues with it back when the original SC came out, but I dont understand why Blizz still sticks to it, when other games have moved on, and when other game companies are constantly trying new ideas.

why fix what isn't broken?

Just look at Company of Heroes and Dawn of War(both 1 and 2)... The games "feel" ages more advanced when compared to Starcraft IMO. No longer do you have to concern yourself with petty, annoying things such as monitoring the number of peasants or SCVs.... You don't have to "tend" to them constantly... You will not lose the game when someone employs a lame rush and kills them all off... why? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PEASANTS OR SCVs !!!

CoH and DoW allow the player to focus on actual strategy, instead of worrying about how many drones you have mining minerals and vespene gas... In Warcraft 3, I can lose my huge army in mere seconds simply because my enemy clicked on his hero's "ability" faster than I did.... In Starcraft, it's sorta the same except there are no heroes, but a well placed psi storm or whatever can do pretty much the same. How the fuck is that strategy?! I don't even get a chance to "manage" my army and actually fight the enemy. My army is gone by the time I get a chance to think about it.... I don't even get a chance to retreat most of the time because of the game's mechanics. Even if I chose to retreat in face of overwhelming odds at least 50% of my army will be gone anyway. In CoH, I can elect to retreat and fight another day, keeping most of my units if I do it right.

1)DoW and CoH give squad level control. in the real world, resourcing, economy, and supplying lines are important. attacking your enemy's economy is just as legitimate in winning as attacking his army.

2) If your army is gone before you know it, it's your fault for not scouting, being in poor position to lose your army that quickly, and not being in control/prepared to move your army.


I don't see, why I need to "study" the damn game, and learn the "proper build order", and all that junk, when I want to actually PLAY and concentrate on strategy.

In CoH, there is a strategic map which you can call up and see the whole battlefield, like a map on a general's table... In Starcraft, there is no such thing! In CoH units come out in squads which again, allows you to focus on overall strategy instead of constantly pumping out dozens of units and worrying about the numbers or barracks or gateways or whatever... For crying out loud, Starcraft doesn't even have formations, when at least 90% of all RTS out there have them. Formations are not just a gimmick and they are far from trivial. They are very important for structure and order. They allow units not to get stuck on one another the way it happens in Starcraft.

First - you learn in DoW/CoH the same way in Starcraft. Some units are better against others. You wouldn't bring out a Devastator Space Marine squad to fight against Assault Marines, now would you?
Starcraft doesn't have a supermap, but it still does have the minimap. I have no complaints.
In Starcraft, formations are up to you. Have your casters in the front lines? Well GG, they're going to get slaughtered. You need your tanking units in front. Just because it isn't obvious or readily accessible in a nice, single click format, doesn't mean formation doesn't exist or isn't important.

There are no stupid minerals or vespene gas in CoH. Only resource points, and as long as you control them resources keep coming allowing you to PLAY and not worry about the "right amount" of SCVs...

See above. Resourcing occurs in the real world.

And what about the concept of realism? Sure I understand this is a sci-fi game... But marines with gauss rifles shooting down a frigging battlecruiser that is supposed to be in space orbiting a planet? Oh wait.. I'm sorry... It conveniently swooped down low enough to be in range... and it also took down it's shields, and stripped it's armor plating which is able to withstand spaceship grade weapons, just so that marines can penetrate with their small arms.... Again... This was perfectly OK in 1998.... But in this day and age?!
Seriously? It's a goddamn game. NOTHING IS REALISTIC
I really expected Starcraft 2 to come up with something truly RADICAL, like a huge step away from the traditional formula however silly or risky that may be... When the original Starcraft came out, that is exactly what it was! It was very new, and very unlike other RTS at the time. It actually got a not-so-good grade from PC Games magazine back then.... But it didn't matter because it quickly gained a huge following when people started getting into it.

Don't fix what isn't broken. Starcraft has millions of players...unlike every other RTS out there. Blizzard would be *stupid* to radically depart from SC1

This time around, Starcraft 2 reeks of Blizzards immense arrogance. So damn proud they are of their extremely famous game and their gigantic fanbase of mindless Korean drones, that they didn't even bother to make any significant changes this time around. Apparently they think that their game is PERFECT, and there is no reason to fix what is not broken in the 1st place. I have no words to describe how frustrated I am about such thinking... just who the fuck do these guys think they are? I understand that staying with an old, proven formula is good for business.. It's all about money isn't it? This is further shown by a hefty $60 price tag. But what happened to innovation? Risk taking? Is that bound to stay in the 90's as far as Blizzard goes?

I feel that a very large part of Starcraft's popularity is the fact that it runs on a huge range of systems both old and new. This way, people who virtually cant play anything else can still play Starcraft! But I don't care about that. It's time to move on.

In a world of CoH, DoW and RUSE, Starcraft 2 is just an old, outdated game with a new "skin", a few new units and abilities. Nothing more. Hell it doesn't even retain the "feel" of the original all that well IMO.

Unlike so many other games, Starcraft has managed to achieve an extreme degree of balance at the pro and casual level. Oh, and there's the map editor, which to my knowledge, no other RTS games have in such a simple and feature rich manner. Mods for DoW are a PITA, yet I could go make a map in SC2 quite easily. That's another reason for its longevity

my responses in bold.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Uh. These are real time strategy games.

I think you're looking for not-so-real-time strategy games.
 

zebano

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2005
4,042
0
0
Those are just different types of strategy, you like one and not the other.
 

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,490
157
106
I never was a big fan of Warcraft 2 or Starcraft, but for the opposite reason as you. They really simplified the games compared to Command and Conquer, so that you only had a few strategies to take. The fast thinking wasn't nearly as important as it was in C&C, and as such I enjoyed them less.

Even so, they were fun games on their own, and were nice as a relaxing break as you could play without your hair on fire. I liked that I could play and win almost every match, even though the people I played against played much more often than me, since I was used to the hair on fire concentration the original C&C required.
 

Molondo

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2005
2,529
1
0
I don't like any of those Sim games (Sims, railroad, etc), but it doesn't mean that they suck. its a different genre and its not for everyone. Also, Single player SC2 is gonna differ significantly from Multiplayer.
 

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
SC2 will be worth every penny because of the customs. That's saying something. Custom war3 games kept me playing for years. And I hated war3 ladder play.
 

xboxist

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2002
3,017
1
81
No longer do you have to concern yourself with petty, annoying things such as monitoring the number of peasants or SCVs.... You don't have to "tend" to them constantly... You will not lose the game when someone employs a lame rush and kills them all off... why? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PEASANTS OR SCVs !!!

I wanted to cite this. You assume that others find these aspects to also be petty and annoying, when it's in fact something they rather enjoy about those games.

It's cool if you're not into that kind of game, though. Obviously. Play your own thing. Blizzard RTS-es must be doing something right considering their immense successes.
 

Majes

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,164
148
106
The reason that I like games such as Starcraft and Warcraft Three are because they give my mind a workout. I think you are missing a key point in that any part of a competitive game can be considered strategy. I am constantly amazed at the level that some people will develop their skills in order to win. The reason that I like Starcraft and Warcraft is that you actually have to provide the resource gathering. This causes you to respect and actually have a visual representation for map control. In DoW2 and other games controlling a specific area of the map gives you more resources. In SC and WC you actually have to develop that part of the map and utilize it. It's another part of the strategic game.

I do not like people ragging on the lack of formations in WC and SC. Formations are a KEY part of the game. However, they are not provided for you. You have to manage and create your own formations and positioning. This is a huge and completely overlooked part of the game. So many times I win team games with my partners simply because we know how to line up our units while the other team just sends theirs rushing into battle.

I don't like games that completely level the playing field. I also don't like games that reward people purely for the amount of time they put into the game. Warcraft and Starcraft (not WoW) tend to reward effort to learn rather than time put in.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
In other words, the OP isn't a fan of clickfests.

Ibex, have you ever considered trying Sins of a Solar Empire? It is a 4x-RTS that eliminates a huge amount of the micromanagement. There is micromanagement during combat but it is much, much easier to manage than in regular RTS games. It's a great game for online multiplayer and it has as much strategy if not far more strategy than regular RTS games because you also have to balance 4x elements and oftentimes deal team strategy-related issues since the best games are 4v4 and 5v5. The downside is that an online game can take between 1:15-1:45 to play, but it's worth it and you won't get bored.
 

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
101
you are not alone.

I like C & C games, absolutely loved Total Annihilation, but couldn't stand Starcrap and thought Warcraft 1 and 2 were ok. Absolutely thought starcraft was a steaming pile of ick though. I did play WoW for many years as well.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,052
12,435
136
This post reminded me of a recent blog post on the HAWP site, where Anthony describes how he sucks at SFIV and wants fighting games with an easier control system to baby you into learning the more advanced stuff...

http://www.heyash.com/dear-fighting-games-please-treat-me-like-an-idiot/#singleHeader

i think that guy has no concept of what a "hardcore" genre game is. he cites Bioshock as a hardcore FPS. lol - not a chance in hell. doom/quakes FTMFW

simply put, if they baby you the entire way through the game, there will be no truly competitive level play.
 

Lean L

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2009
3,685
0
0
OP simply does not know how to play games. Boo Fucking Hoo, you have to gather minerals? GAWD NOOO!
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81
All I got out of it was if I can't be world class at a game the second I pick it up the game must be terrible. How about play against people of a similiar skill rather than rage at getting beaten and how it's clearly the games fault your losing because it's just a bad game.

There's starcraft games where one pro harrasses the other to death and others where it looks like one has the edge the whole game because their harrassing the whole time only to lose because the other player just defended well enough/long enough to just have more stuff and roll him. If it was just a single point gave you resources such complexities would be lost; the game would never have the long lasting appeal (12 years?) it does now. Not every game needs to be like mario party to be good.
 

maevardabar

Member
Sep 29, 2009
26
1
0
I really expected Starcraft 2 to come up with something truly RADICAL, like a huge step away from the traditional formula however silly or risky that may be..

Blizzard stated at the beginning of development that SC2 was basically going to be SC with better graphics, and an extended single player storyline. That is what they were shooting for, and that is what they created. They met their goal, and I am not complaining in the least. They were not shooting for anything radical or new, and I am ok with that. If you did not like SC then you have no reason to play SC2.

Of course, Blizzard has the ability and creativeness to make a RTS that is new and unique. They are just making correct business decisions by doing what works, and what they know lots of people will find fun.