Why do I hate all Blizzard RTS games so much?

[beginner99]

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.

High APM/CPM/clicking only really is needed at very high levels which probably are like less than 1% off the total players. Of course it helps but you can also do tons of useless clicks. APm sometimes is a little e-penis like.
Also clicking fast won't mean you will automatically win if you suck in other areas.
I sometimes have an embarassingly low APM, probably because in sc i mainly played fastest maps. Still, now in SC2 in gold most players have higher APM but I can still beat them. Just make more and the right types of units.
Sometimes they are microing around crazy but leave them self vulnerable to a certain unit type or forget to expand or scout. On bigger maps just make an expansion in a "far away" corner and most players will never go look there.

Anway you can easly beat like 50% off the player with 20-30 APM. which is about a click every 3 seconds. very slow compared to fast typing.

 

[shortylickens]

I dunno about "all".
They really only have 2. With multiple versions.
Although I am still waiting for another Lost Vikings.

 

[Juddog]

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)

Actually SC2 is deeply complex but if you don't have the reflex ability you won't reach the levels where you'll see the deeper complexity.

 

[lupi]

Just finished the full campaign and expansion for starcrap 1 last weekend. Found the unlimited money cheat, macroed that on the keyboard, and the game became surprisingly better to play.

 

[Dumac]

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.

How can clicking be cheap? That doesn't even make sense.

Anyways, people beat competitors with higher actions-per-minute all the time, even at the pro level. Saying the faster clicker wins is far from the truth.

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.

Starcraft is THE most strategic RTS I've played, and I've pretty much played them all. These are SOOO many different changes...the possibilities are endless. I've yet to see a game as deep as Starcraft, and I've played almost every mainstream RTS.

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.

There ARE counters in Starcraft. For examples, a few zerglings (zergs first unit that cost 50 mins per 2) can take down a lone Immortal (protoss T2 unit that cost 250 min and 100 vesp).

I also think the ressource gathering extremely limited.

Completely disagree. Starcraft is about economy, and the way you go about it is completely flexible. When you build buildings, build more workers, expand, etc. There are so many options, and it is SOOOO much more variable than newer games that just have checkpoints you have to get (i.e. no customization or flexibility)

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)

Spoonfed? Hah. Hardly. Before you call starcraft spoonfed, how about you get out of bronze league, mmkay?

 

[coloumb]

The thing is, no one really cares that you don't like those games.

What you should have done is just stop playing the game move on to something else. Instead, you spent, i dunno, 20 minutes typing out a rant that you think matters. Again, no one cares that you hate SC or WC. Just go play something else, enjoy the game, and stop thinking that you are unique b/c you hate a mainstream title.

If nobody cared - there would be no replies...including yours.

Eh - Blizzard is sort of like Apple right now - they could paint their logo on the side of a building and a lot of people would pay good money just to have a piece of it. They know what their target audience wants in a game.

I don't have any memories of playing the demo of SC - so I probably didn't like it. I do vaguely remember playing WC3 - which means I didn't like that one either. When [and if] a demo of SC2 is released - I'll give it a try... but it'll probably end up in the perma-delete bin once I'm done.

Now that I think of it - my only memory of SC was during a business trip in China - watching a show about gamers [Asian - probably Korean] playing SC - watching them hyper click on damn near everything and moving the gaming screen all over the place. The 2 announcers were Asian but their voices were dubbed in English - that's about the only part of the show I enjoyed as I thought it was humorous.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'm with OP but I ain't even mad. I just don't play Blizzard RTSs. Or any RTSs for that matter, I pretty much suck at all of them.

Always bothered me how few units you could select at once in SC and WC3. You still limited to selecting like 8-12 units at once in SC2?

I feel the same way about fighting games. It's just too much effort for me to try to learn all the intricacies of the game (build orders + micro for RTSs, combos for fighting games). I'd rather have something relatively simple where I can just jump in and do okay. I tend to prefer shooters.

 

[Dumac]

I'm with OP but I ain't
Always bothered me how few units you could select at once in SC and WC3. You still limited to selecting like 8-12 units at once in SC2?

No, you can select as many as you want. You can also hotkey pretty much anything.

I never got too much into SC1, as it just was too unfriendly for the user. However, SC2 is SOOOO much more user friendly. It is so easy to do what you want.

 

[Glitchny]

I'm with OP but I ain't even mad. I just don't play Blizzard RTSs. Or any RTSs for that matter, I pretty much suck at all of them.

Always bothered me how few units you could select at once in SC and WC3. You still limited to selecting like 8-12 units at once in SC2?

I feel the same way about fighting games. It's just too much effort for me to try to learn all the intricacies of the game (build orders + micro for RTSs, combos for fighting games). I'd rather have something relatively simple where I can just jump in and do okay. I tend to prefer shooters.

In regard to the selection issue, the answer is no it is not limited. You can put every unit you have and every building in 1 control group if you wanted to and can just use tab to cycle through each "type" of unit to use their special abilities.

In regards to the OP. I love the mineral gathering aspect of SC and SC2, it makes for some very cool strats. Since your economy is so important you must protect it while still trying to attack and micro manage your army. One of the things I didn't like about DoW was that I just had to control a point, to me it is much more fun having to protect workers, or to use a quick drop into someones base and kill some workers to slow them down and then zip out again.

It's all a matter of opinion though so I can't really give a reason as to why you hate Blizzard RTS games other than personal preference. I for one love them, except War3 gets a little less love because hero units and supply caps are and will always be retarded.

 

[Sureshot324]

RTS's are part strategy, part action games. Just because speed and hand eye coordination are factors doesn't mean it's a bad game. If you want pure strategy go play a turn based game.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Starcraft is THE most strategic RTS I've played, and I've pretty much played them all. These are SOOO many different changes...the possibilities are endless. I've yet to see a game as deep as Starcraft, and I've played almost every mainstream RTS.

Its not as strategic as Supreme Commander simply because of its scale. StarCraft is much more tactical since individual unit orders matter more than in SC2, and for instance terrain visibility, cloaking etc, special abilities all make it more tactical than Supreme Commander, but its limited resource model makes it less strategic.

Completely disagree. Starcraft is about economy, and the way you go about it is completely flexible. When you build buildings, build more workers, expand, etc. There are so many options, and it is SOOOO much more variable than newer games that just have checkpoints you have to get (i.e. no customization or flexibility)

Economy is very important in SC2 but not very flexible. Build workers, build geysers, expand, and keep only 2-3 bases going at a time. More bases require more workers which means a smaller army.

Dont get me wrong, I'm a fan of SC2, but its more of a tactical game than Supreme Commander, which is more strategic.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

[Haven't read the thread]

You hate them because the suck. Despite their rabid fanboys, Blizzard doesn't make fun games. They haven't since Warcraft 2.

 

[HomerX]

Despite their rabid fanboys, Blizzard doesn't make fun games. They haven't since Warcraft 2.

I'm really sorry for you! the inability to enjoy Blizzard games must be horrible!
There is not a single Blizzard game i haven't enjoyed playing!

 

[evident]

[Haven't read the thread]

You hate them because you suck at the games. Despite their rabid fanboys, Blizzard doesn't make fun games. They haven't since Warcraft 2.

fixed, this is pretty much what i see from this thread

 

[EvilComputer92]

Massive rage from Blizzard fanboys in 3 2 1

I love how no one mentions the gimped camera that cant even fully rotate and zooms out to a level appropriate for a 1998 game.

 

[evident]

Massive rage from Blizzard fanboys in 3 2 1

I love how no one mentions the gimped camera that cant even fully rotate and zooms out to a level appropriate for a 1998 game.

pretty lame thing to complain about. seriously, if you have time to be rotating your screen while playing multiplayer then you're doing it wrong

 

[ibex333]

pretty lame thing to complain about. seriously, if you have time to be rotating your screen while playing multiplayer then you're doing it wrong

How it it a lame thing to be complaining about? There is simply no excuse no to have that option in a game that is supposed to be "modern". Or is it? IS IT REALLY?!

 

[LtPage1]

I've never been able to play a non-blizzard RTS. They bore the hell out of me within 5 minutes, and I can never make myself get into them.

 

[Glitchny]

How it it a lame thing to be complaining about? There is simply no excuse no to have that option in a game that is supposed to be "modern". Or is it? IS IT REALLY?!

I guess the excuse would be: Blizzard didn't feel it was necessary and the vast majority of their player base doesn't care. Is there some checklist that games have to qualify for to be considered "modern"? or are you just spouting off your opinion.

I love the "no excuse" argument because it is so weak, Blizzard makes the game, if some coveted feature isn't there then don't buy it. They are under no obligation to include features they don't consider useful to the game and therefore have no need to make up excuses. If they catered to every fan whim the game would be horrible and people would still be crying.

At no point during an online game is there enough time to waste with spinning the camera around and zooming in on things for no reason. The only use for this would maybe be replays or VOD's.

 

[Arglebargle]

Whatever it is that is the 'Blizzard Way', it is not for me. I checked out a list of Blizzard games, and found that there was not a single one that I had enjoyed. Ever.

At least I save money, I guess.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Whatever it is that is the 'Blizzard Way', it is not for me. I checked out a list of Blizzard games, and found that there was not a single one that I had enjoyed. Ever.

That's because they're not very good.

 

[Dumac]

How it it a lame thing to be complaining about? There is simply no excuse no to have that option in a game that is supposed to be "modern". Or is it? IS IT REALLY?!

You can rotate the camera 45 to -45 degrees, IIRC. Although, I don't know why you would ever do that. The maps are set up so that the default view is the best, and if you have time to dick around with rotation, as he said, you are doing it wrong.

 

[Dumac]

That's because they're not very good.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

You can claim many things about Blizzard RTS, but you can't argue that they aren't quality products

 

[Dumac]

I've never been able to play a non-blizzard RTS. They bore the hell out of me within 5 minutes, and I can never make myself get into them.

Probably a pacing issue.

Starcraft is pretty fast paced. Warcraft less so. But they are both relatively fast compared to other games in the genre.

 

[Sureshot324]

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)

This rock-paper-scissors game play (spearmen beat horsemen etc) definitely exists in Starcraft 2. What RTS would you consider more strategic than Starcraft 2 and what kind of strategies are possible that aren't in SC2?