lets address some of the issues with SC2

theres alot of you guys that are upset about the direction blizzard is taking with starcraft 2. many of you have lost alot of faith in blizzard, primarily in the fact that starcraft 2 doesnt look like it will be as competitive as the original. lets talk about some of the issues people bring up:

1. rock paper scissors gameplay - blizzard has shown us a couple of examples of rock paper scissors gamplay in starcraft 2 example: siege tanks activating immortals shields. i dont think that blizzard is getting too extreme with this subject. i see only a few examples of units that are good against others. what may make people think theres too much is the simple fact that MOST of the units in SC2 have new abilities and tricks up there sleeves. i mean the scouts in the first game werent anything special at all but the new phoenix can overload and kill muties and smaller fliers with ease if used properly. i dont truely believe theres a major rock paper scissors aspect, i just think that each unit has there own unique dimension that if used properly, can be devastating to enemy players.

2. flashy graphics make micro too hard - this one i strongly disagree on. theres a few things that need to be taken into consideration. one, all the units weve seen in gameplay footage using micro, are dumbed down youtube videos which may just be completely hard to spot a certain unit you would micro if you were playing the game. I remember all the flashy graphics added to WC3. whenever i see a battle in warcraft 3 all i could ever see were auras and snow storms and fire and all these flashy things flying back and forth to make a huge mess. HOWEVER, i have friends to are really competitive with warcraft 3 and have no problem micro'ing in that game. even in the dumbed down korean gameplay footage of starcraft 2, it looks far easier to the eyes and much easier to spot something you need even in a cluster of units. the other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the video settings. remember that SC2 is 3d, which is very flexible in the respect that you can tinker around with your graphics to fit your style of gameplay. players need to withhold judgement on the game dynamics and micro management until after theyve played the game. too flashy? turn that sucker down.

3. mothership - i do somewhat agree that the mothership may not quite fit into SC2 like a few other new units introduced, but what does the mothership replace from SC1? the arbiter. they both have cloaking fields, an array of useful abilities at their disposal, and on top of that, you didnt need a huge number of them. although the mothership is strong, its costly and u can only have one. i believe the mothership is balanced enough that it can be a welcome unit to the starcraft franchise.

4. crucio siege tank - face it. its been 10 years since the last starcraft, designs are going to change, its inevitable. its all a matter of taste, and im really digging the artillery look of the siege tank. but thats just me.

5. ninja zealots - i really wonder about this complaint. what makes people think that zealots look too much like ninjas? they have the same weaponry, the only difference is the fact that the new zealots actually run and can charge like a real warrior and not speed-walk like the old zealot. its really more or less the transition from 2d to 3d that makes the concept seem different, because if the original starcraft was 3d, im sure they would look like a bunch of "ninjas" too.

6. the whole cartoony aspect - i dont think blizzard is going out of hand with the cartoony looks. and in my opinion, i only think starcraft 1 wasnt cartoony AT ALL because of the 2d graphics. 2d doesnt really open the doors to cartoony graphics at all. now that blizzard has stepped into the third dimension, i think they add the toony looks because they can. i dont think it goes anywhere near Warcraft 3 Toony, but its there because well, who would play a video game that didnt look visually great? i know thats not all thats important about a game, especially a highly anticipated RTS, but you cant lie, you play games because they look good to play. i think blizzard knows what theyre doing with the designs of their masterpiece. Me? I say leave the stupidly realistic graphics to games like Crysis, Half life 2, and all those games. but again, thats just me.

7. shielded marines - yea seems kinda warcrafty to me too, but what i think blizzard is trying to do is make marines more useable throughout the whole match. see i didnt see marines as useful throughout the whole match in the first game. good for the start but they would get owned later throughout the match by stronger units. blizzard probably wants marines to be used much more than before because, well, theyre marines. they come to mind swiftly when you think of starcraft. long live marines.

Last but not least, remember the first gameplay video featuring the protoss? the narrator even said "NOTHING that we show you here is final". blizzard is hard at work to balance the game out and make it fun and competitive for every starcraft fanatic out there. its been a year since they announced it, they originally started working on starcraft 2 just after WC3 shipped out, and they still dont have a release date. yea i dont think EA has spent half as much time on their command and conquer series as blizzard has spent on the starcraft franchise.

does anyone have any other issues? i know theres new units that dont look like theyll be used much, but there were plenty of units in the first game that were rarely used on battle net

 

removal of all the cool units,
though that happens in the developing of every game

 

Too slow paced.

 

how is starcraft 2 too slow paced?
it is paced faster than sc1

 

There are too many abilities. Sometimes people might just get 100 of a unit just to use an ability it has like the ghost's lockdown in SC1. Although they had ghosts, they never tried to nuke or use them in battle, just for lockdowns.

 

There is no umph, when you saw 20 Dragoons marching to your base, it was like **** thats a lot of units. Now everything just seems less pronounded, like a mass of Carriers looks soft compared to Sc1.

 

Riiiiight, like in SC 1 when they all meld together to look like 1 carrier.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I disagree.

 

to be honest i think they took out all the uncool ones and kept most of the classic ones. only exceptions i can think of are firebats, arbiter, reaver??? (seen gameplay pics but dont seem to be in the latest build) and maybe a couple others, but they get replaced by some sweet looking units in my own opinion (firebats to reapers, wraiths to banshees, goliaths/valkyries to vikings, arbiters to mothership, etc.)

 

I will miss the Reaver, Reaver drop FTW.

 

You completly missed the point. Shame on you.

Play some Sc and you will feel the power and immensity of the units on your screen, watch Sc2 and that same feeling isn't there. It seems too soft.

 

It only feels soft because you're not playing the game. The reason you feel intimidated by mass Carriers is because you're gonna think, "****, I'm ****ed." or "****, these guys are ****ed." You just don't feel that because you're not the one playing. Personally I think a group of 6+ Colossi will be more intimidating than some 20 dragoons.

 

Well if i compare it by playing then that is unfair comparison as it is 2 different forms of interaction with the game. I'm sure when you actually PLAY SC2 it will seem a bit more intense.

 

Most people responded that you did not play any games in SC2 to feel the same effect as SC1 gave you. I do agree with them.

But I may have another explanation for this. I think that the new graphics have to do a lot more than we think. SC2 is now a lot smoother on animation than SC. We saw 1 mass Ultralisk in a game of SC2 and even if the Terran got raped big time, we did not get the old feeling, since the unit moved/died more smoothly and less mechanically.

The key term is mechanically here.

In movies to get a stronger effect in a scene they rough out and change the screen position more often. To have a Zen effect they smooth out and slowly change the frame with another. This is only an example on how smoothing makes all the difference. In the SC2 case the change is a lot less drastic, but the engine needed to smooth out the animation a little to make a good looking transition to 3D.

I understand that you think it is soft, but once you play the game and get use to the new engine, you will fear the same mass Carrier as you used too.

 

Those Ultralisks would scare me if i see them, they are tougher. And we all need to play SC2 and start to say if its soft or not
Nothing here is final

 

The members that have been saying it doesn't feel soft- they're right. I can't say I actually think SC1 feels "rough," but having played SC2 (albeit, a year ago) whatever SC1 feels like to you- you're going to get the same general feeling from SC2. Your video card won't get the same general feeling, but your brain will.

If nothing, by the looks of it, SC2 will end up being a lot "tougher" than SC1, and you'll be feeling a lot more visceral fear at things like highly mobile units suddenly appearing in your base, the slithery animations of the Zerg, the gritty textures of the Terran, and the furious, bright beams of energy of the Protoss.

 

Ever played SC1? Storm pawned MM, Vultures pawned HT´s, etc. etc.
There was rock, paper, scissors gameplay in Starcraft 1 too, and I cant see whats wrong with it? In Starcraft 1 some units where completly uselesss, but now in Starcraft 2 you will need a balanced army with many different units to win.
Starcraft 1 PvT was often: Dragoons + Zealots + HT´s vs ST´s + Vultures (and perhaps some casters/carriers) on both sites.
Starcraft 2 will be different: PvT: Stalkers, Immortals, Zealots, HT´s vs ST´s, Cobras/Jackals, MM, Vikings
The units each counters each other, and will therefore result in some very intresting micro battles. In starcraft 1 we just saw some units that countered nothing, that wasnt very exciting.
There are two reasons why a lot of units got new abbilities:
- To make them usefull
- With the faster gameplay and the easier macro BLizzard feared the game would turn into a macro war, so they added more abbilities making it more micro focused again.

No one compares Warcraft 3 with Starcraft 2 IMO. Ive been playing Warcraft 3 on a high lvl, and I know its easy to micro even thought the grafics are too sweet. But the difference is that in Warcraft 3 the biggest battles are 20 unit against 20 units, but in Starcraft its 100 units against 100 units, and thats a lot of explosions.