Why do I hate all Blizzard RTS games so much?

[WhipperSnapper]

The thing is there are no pros in SoaSE. No one is getting paid to play them. There aren't huge tournaments taking place using it. It's not the national sport of some south eastern asian country. While it's a decent game, it just isn't as deep of a game as SC1 or 2 despite what one might initially assume due to it's scope; it's also just not setup in such a way that could lead to there ever being a large enough community for what depth there is in the game to ever be fully researched.

I meant "pro" in a relative sense. It should have been clear from the context. What I meant was, "You can be a very good player relative to the other players if not one of the best players without having to click 300 times per minute." My main point is that the game isn't as clickfest heavy as other RTS games. It would certainly help to be a fast clicker since you could micromanage abilities on some ships but you can do just fine without it.

 

[Dumac]

I think after DoW2 I don't like games with disposable units. Even the big units in SC2 are disposable and spam-able. I became too accustomed to building a few squads and micromanaging and babying the heck out of them the whole game. If I lose a squad my reaction is "FUCK." If I lose a blob of colossus in SC2 "lolz I'mma spam more". :awe:

The reason why I don't like blizzard RTS's as much is because they generally focus on small groups of expensive units. The loss of every unit is painful, and it is extremely difficult to come back from behind.

Starcraft is like chess, requiring a strictly defined strategy and any foul-ups essentially cost you the game immediately. RoN is more like Go where the overall strategy is more important then individual battles.

Hrmmm....

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I think after DoW2 I don't like games with disposable units. Even the big units in SC2 are disposable and spam-able. I became too accustomed to building a few squads and micromanaging and babying the heck out of them the whole game. If I lose a squad my reaction is "FUCK." If I lose a blob of colossus in SC2 "lolz I'mma spam more". :awe:

I'm in no-man's land right now. Stopped playing DoW2 but haven't quite gotten into SC2. If I go back to DoW2 I will get owned. . .

Doing something wrong if you're allowing a blob of collossus. They're expensive, and with enough pressure, there is no way the opponent would ever blob them. They're fragile as all hell without support. A few Vikings take care of them quite nicely.

 

[ChickenShwarma]

OP, I agree with you on many points.

I loved the original SC, and played the heck out of it. I think when I quit, my Battle.net record was something like 1200/300, which I don't think is too bad. But looking back, majority of those games were on BGH, and the strategy revolved around ling rush and/or countering ling rush. I'm not looking forward to that type of gameplay in SC2.

I think "strategy" is knowing as much as you can about the game and making the best of it. In SC, that translates into knowing the map, (chock points/resource points/etc), the units, and the build order. The rest of the gameplay is micromanagement, and lots of clicking. I would love to see more emphasis on the map itself, and perhaps, making the maps random each time you play to keep things fresh.

Very curious about CoH now, I have not played that game.... Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Lonyo]

Doing something wrong if you're allowing a blob of collossus. They're expensive, and with enough pressure, there is no way the opponent would ever blob them. They're fragile as all hell without support. A few Vikings take care of them quite nicely.

Depends on your own skill level.
Normally I'm not as terrible as I was today, but I sent in 6 vikings against my opponent who had 3 colossus and about 6 stalkers and managed to kill only one colossus and lost all my vikings because my control was atrocious.

Of course, like you say, if you allow them to mass that many then you are at fault yourself, but then at lower levels often you do get players massing only a single or two types of unit and just moving them against the enemy with no micro, and that's where something like mass colossus (against the right unit composition) can be utterly deadly.
In lower levels pressure seems less common which leads again to being able to mass lots of a single unit.

 

[QuantumPion]

Hrmmm....

Yeah pie does not know what he is talking about, there is no way that happens except in total noob/steamrolling matches. The only units that are expendable are zerglings, banelings, and maybe marines.

 

[evident]

lol noob

 

[dbk]

SCII is so fun.. I need to get better at micro..
The pros avg like 100 CPM... that's insane micro'ing right there.

 

[onza]

SCII is so fun.. I need to get better at micro..
The pros avg like 100 CPM... that's insane micro'ing right there.

or spamming Either way my average is at 55's. I have 55games under my belt... with 50% win / loss ratio

 

[ChaoZ]

nm

 

[VashHT]

To me base-building is the most boring part of RTS's, so I'm happy relic took some big steps in minimizing base-building in their games. I was never a big ladder player in SC, but I got really high ranked in 2v2 ladders for WC3, and I always hated the initial base-building, it just feels so easy but at the same time it's so important.

In CoH you're worrying about the build order of units mostly, and then moving those units as soon as possible to take points. Since the resource collecting is controlled by your fighting units you spend a lot more time microing your forces than worrying about securing new base locations and building expansions and stuff like that, and to me that's a lot more fun.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Yeah pie does not know what he is talking about, there is no way that happens except in total noob/steamrolling matches. The only units that are expendable are zerglings, banelings, and maybe marines.

My definition of expendable is different. In DoW2, I would only build 1 of something like a colossus and it would last me the whole match. In SC2 I would mass produce them with multiple robotics bays and send them off (along with other units of course), losing several in an attack. And while the attack was occurring I would be queueing them up back at my base, so that when my retreating units return I have a nearly-replenished army. Then I attack again, and lose more colossus. Repeat, try different things, etc. By the end of the game who knows how many colossus or equally expensive units I lost. In contrast to losing at most 1 tank in DoW2. Even losing 1 squad of what are considered cheap guardians in DoW2 is a big deal, especially if I upgraded them or if its early int he game.

 

[shortylickens]

IF you dont like Blizzard games, I recommend:

Act of War by Eugen systems. And its expansion.
Dawn of War 1, by Relic. And its multitude of expansion packs.
Total Annihilation and expansions. I like Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, but it was not popular.
Supreme Commander.
Age of Mythology by microsoft. Also Age of Empires 2.
Empire Earth 1 and 2, but NOT 3.


If you like a minimum of base-building, I recommend the above mentioned Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes, as well as World In Conflict.

My personal fave is Act Of War.

And I can understand why people might not like warcraft or starcraft.

 

[QuantumPion]

My definition of expendable is different. In DoW2, I would only build 1 of something like a colossus and it would last me the whole match. In SC2 I would mass produce them with multiple robotics bays and send them off (along with other units of course), losing several in an attack. And while the attack was occurring I would be queueing them up back at my base, so that when my retreating units return I have a nearly-replenished army. Then I attack again, and lose more colossus. Repeat, try different things, etc. By the end of the game who knows how many colossus or equally expensive units I lost. In contrast to losing at most 1 tank in DoW2. Even losing 1 squad of what are considered cheap guardians in DoW2 is a big deal, especially if I upgraded them or if its early int he game.

Multiple robo bays spamming Collosus? You are talking some serious copper league here

DoW/CoH is a bit different as you use small numbers of units but they have high longevity. The difference between those two games and RoN though is that in the Relic RTS's, your resources are dependent on your offensive action (holding territory). RoN is much more about macroing and combat over a large area with big armies.

 

[ibex333]

To me base-building is the most boring part of RTS's, so I'm happy relic took some big steps in minimizing base-building in their games. I was never a big ladder player in SC, but I got really high ranked in 2v2 ladders for WC3, and I always hated the initial base-building, it just feels so easy but at the same time it's so important.

In CoH you're worrying about the build order of units mostly, and then moving those units as soon as possible to take points. Since the resource collecting is controlled by your fighting units you spend a lot more time microing your forces than worrying about securing new base locations and building expansions and stuff like that, and to me that's a lot more fun.

This guy said it better than I did....

 

[Chaotic42]

I look at Starcraft as more of a medium for competition than as just a game. Nothing about the game is particularly entertaining except for the actual competition itself. I don't like it, but I can understand the appeal to some people.

I'm not a competative person when it comes to games. I save that for where it actually means something.

 

[Elcs]

I started off my RTS life with Dune 2, moving onto Red Alert, back to C&C Gold, onto SC, Tiberian Sun, Red Alert 2, Generals and WC3. (RA1 and SC1 were played on a LAN in multiplayer on a regular basis)

I never really understood the allure of SC1 in SP or MP, it felt lacklustre to what I termed at the time, it's immediate competition in Red Alert 1. I cannot say why I did not enjoy it as much but I did not get that enjoyment from Blizzards Sci-Fi tale.

Warcraft 3... well, it's singleplayer was great in places but monumentally dull in others. A joy to play through and I would never regret it but at times I'd feel like I was in a dentists chair grinding out a victory in a long mission. Never played this online as I quit more and more of my online play.

Moving on, I love the Dawn of War 1+2 and CoH series. They innovated, introduced new concepts and wove them into an enjoyable platform. Even though I only play singleplayer or skirmishes now and again they feel so much more fun to play as it's not a case of "Build power plant, build refinery, build X number of harvesters etc" in what was described well above, the monotony of early base building.

With C&C3, I had already enjoyed the delights of CoH and DoW1, I hated it. It felt shallow and hollow compared to what I had already played.

Whilst there are arguements for both styles of RTS, I find myself sitting deep inside Relic's camp when it comes to RTS style. Gone is my love of C&C/SC 'simplicity' and in is the feel of CoH/DoW. I don't think I can put a real arguement as to why my tastes have changed or why I favour one over the other, I just 'do'.

(opinion)

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

*cough* Myth *uncough*

 

[Dumac]

I'm not a competative person when it comes to games. I save that for where it actually means something.

Such as? What super important things do you compete in?

Doesn't Boxer make like 300k or somethhing? How much do you make in competitions?

 

[Chaotic42]

Such as? What super important things do you compete in?

Work, school (if I ever go back), etc.

Doesn't Boxer make like 300k or somethhing? How much do you make in competitions?

I don't really know what you're talking about here.

 

[Cookie Monster]

SC is truly spectacular when it comes to being a real time strategy game. The most impressive feat of the game is the fact that the strategies involved in the game has consistently been radically changing/evolving (in its 10 year lifetime) to a point that theres just "nothing more you could possibly do".

Back when SC was released, most people were just massing carriers/BCs to win without an enemy encounter for 20mins or so. But something happened that made the game way more interesting than just massing the strongest units. Competitive users started taking advantage of the early game. Harassing the enemy who has been expanding mindlessly to prepare for mass production of carriers, which soon resulted in strategies to expand and defend those expansions. This was just the beginning, since now every inch of the map had to be fought for and the movement of the enemy had to be scouted. There was no more "lets have a truce for 20mins so we can amass the strongest units and have atleast 5 bases to fund those units".

Soon units that had not been used before started being utilized , e.g dropships were mostly ignored by terran users til Lim Yo Hwan aka Slayers_Boxer came along and showed what these units were truly capable of. The most interesting thing was the fact that the game was first a micro intensive game in its early years, where a group of marines/medics could potentially rout the zerg if you had really good control. Then a new breed of users were born. They were macro intensive (production focus) and soon the micro intensive users were being steam rolled with users who would produce 3~4 times more units. Some would focus winning all the battles with small armies, but some would win the war because their defense was good and production capabilities were just superior (production in starcraft is quite difficult since you cant group multiple buildings and just press a hot key to produce the units, and most people forget to build during battles).

The game itself had so many ways of winning, whether it be taking the game to late game, trying to finish it early game, trying to win with strategies never achieved before (two starport wraiths against zerg) that it became an appeal to so many gamers on the scene. It was so dynamic because every year or so new strategies were found, new capabilities were found on units that had previously been unused, or misused due to misunderstanding of those units. Not to mention that map understanding was also a vital aspect of the game.
If you list down all the strategic aspects involved, there are just so many to write. (production of units/economy management/understanding of the terrain/how to battle effectively/formation of units/etc etc)

This is why theres such a huge SC fan base although most of the contributions come from the progaming scene in Korea. Its those guys who pretty much tapped into the hidden potential in the game. I dont even think the devs would have predicted just how complex the game strategies in SC would become.

Just wait until the progamers start migrating to SCII. We will see all sorts of untapped strategies/unit strengths/ etc etc in SCII that is just waiting to be shown.

 

[FragKrag]

I don't really know what you're talking about here.

Slayer_Boxer, a professional StarCraft player makes over $2-300,000 on SC. It's not just him either. [ReD]NaDa, sAviOr[gm] (before the scandal), By.FlaSh, n.Die)Jaedong all reported earnings of over $100,000.

I believe at one point, [ReD]NaDa signed a contract for over $500,000 a year (adjusted from Korean currency of course).

 

[Chaotic42]

Slayer_Boxer, a professional StarCraft player makes over $2-300,000 on SC. It's not just him either. [ReD]NaDa, sAviOr[gm] (before the scandal), By.FlaSh, n.Die)Jaedong all reported earnings of over $100,000.

I believe at one point, [ReD]NaDa signed a contract for over $500,000 a year (adjusted from Korean currency of course).

Yeah, I'd never, ever, ever be good enough to make money playing any video game. So I guess if you can compete on that level, more power to you.

 

[Maximilian]

SC is popular because of the customs, dunno what its like on the american gateways but on SC2 over here everyone jumped on the custom maps as soon as they came out and far less people are playing the actual game. These custom maps are pretty crap as well heh, so that says a lot about the game.

The originals did 3 things right which allowed it to last IMO:

- Battle.net, friends list, chat rooms for different purposes like clan recruitment etc, make your own chat room, kick AND ban buttons, the amount of games today that have kick but lack ban is astounding (CoH im looking at you, having to ignore someone before kicking them is not an ideal way to ban because nobody knows about it!) this was all back in 1998 as well.

- Easyish to use map editor, even the simpleist maps (OMFG the zerglings/ultras/insertunithere) that were easy to make could be immense fun, so theres always plenty of people making new maps that are fun. Even "Dont fuckin move" caught on and can be found hosted occasionally.

- Ease of distributing custom maps, join game n play, none of the go to website and download this shit then mod your game crap, this is how custom maps should be done in ALL games! Easily.

The only things that suck about SC2 so far are the music or rather the lack of the originals awesome terran tracks remixed which i really expected them to put in and battle.net 2.0 which is fixable i guess because blizz does tend to address its fans concerns.

So OP you really need to check out the customs for SC and SC2, because although everyone raves about the awesome balance and multiplayer competitiveness its the customs that have kept the game alive for the majority of people. Last time i was on SC i played on USeast and most people including myself were hosting custom map games with the occasional 3v3 zero clutter money maps, they dont give a shit about balance lol.

 

[RuNeZz]

I think ibex is right and i would even say starcraft 1-2 isn't at all an rts worth paying 60$, for. I might not have the same game mechanics reasoning, but i won't ignore the thought of playing cheap clicking and knowing all the shortcut keys for simple faster is the better player. Though i will achnowledge the fact that for many gamers its probably all part of the fun facter.

Saddly i dont find that Starcraft is a intelligent game, and i hardly think the field tactics and strategies of this game are the most advanced. But again i will say that for many people, not being very strategic like game, it may help for the fun facter.

I remembered playing games where specifique types of units had evident advantages against units that were considered strong. For exemple guys with spears just needing wood for killing cavalry, and not needing to be massively built. But thats just an idea im trying to give. I also think the ressource gathering extremely limited.

Blizzard games seem to much like pop music, being spoonfed to our mouths not leaving any place for innovation in rts gaming and taking to much space. I can't help but to compare Blizzard games to Haleandro by Lady Gaga(waste of talent or skill)