Many Fans Turned off by sc2. + My RANT

Ever since the announcement of Starcraft 2, I have been so excited to want to play this game as soon as it comes out. Although As more and more gets released, it almost seems that its geting worse..? I have been reading alot about the making of starcraft 2, and looking into all sorts of things. I feel Blizzard needs to do something big to turn around their fans feelings for Starcraft 2.

The only kind of feedback you get from 80% of people who I interact with on starcraft right now say, Im not going to buy it, It looks like shit, People who made WCIII are making it, so its going to look and play like WCIII, It will suck.

Unless Blizzard takes a long hard look at what Starcraft is about, and why it is differnt from warcraft. I feel they will lose Many fans at release of this game. They may attract WCIII fans, but they will just want to go back to WCIII what the makers were best at. Reasons why Starcraft 2 is no longer Starcraft.

1. Color, WCIII is fantasy colors, Starcraft2 is too bright, Original starcraft was very good Faded, and not Annoying and bright.

2. Backstabbing. The original starcraft box says.. "Your only allies ..Are your enemies." That means expect the unexpected or you lose. Anything goes in this world.

3.No HEROS, They say SC2 has no heros in multi-play. But lets take a look at the Terran Ghost. Abilities= (1. Nuke, 2, Cloak 3, Snipe, 4, Drop Pod, 5, EMP) Since when does any unit in starcraft have more than 3 abilities and not be a Story line character. Not to mention all the other units that will be hero's also Way to hard to balance a game with so many of these.

4. Sharing, Apparently You can share energy with your templars. That makes PSI-Storming a MAJOR advantage for protoss, with increased ability to storm, especally with the fact that you cannot stack storms. consider making 5 templars. use it as 1 your energy regenerates 5x faster. Too many storms to fight against.
4 b. Sharing Money, I personally dont mind this. but its not starcraft.

5. HUGE UNITS Scale this shit down, how are you gonna micro an army if it dosnt fit on your screen. Even the buildings are huge, I dont know if every screenshot they took is zoomed in, or if they are showing off detail, Who cares about perfect detail, if you zoomed it out to bein with we wouldnt see it.

6. 2 Differnt Yeilds of Minerals. I dont even know who pulled that out of thier ass. but get rid of it.

7. Im not sure, but i herd a rumor of, Choosing a skill that more defines your race towards a cetain benifit from the start.
Like UMS where you can (Build Faster) ( More HP) ( Energy Recharge) (Cheaper Costs) That makes Starcraft more of a Gamble than a Strategic Counter game. How do you counter somthing if you gamble a choice.

Im sure this is a sensitive topic, But the folks making starcraft 2 Should try to keep it as simple and similar as possible, The more they change The more it will be Warcraft 4, The harder it is to balance, Starcraft is simple Strategy game, That alone made it perfect.

 

1. I agree and I don't think I need to add anything to this. Like Sam Didier said about drawing concept art, Starcraft, as opposed to Warcraft, is more about realism and realistic features that can easily be imagined to exist somewhere at some point. I agree that less saturation and brightess is needed right now but Blizzard has already announced in a Q&A batch that they'll look into toning down those aspects of the graphics, so no need to worry.

2. No idea what you're on about with that.

3. Ever heard of balancework? Blizzard is juggling all the abilities to see which fit certain units the most. Just because the Ghost has 5 abilities doesn't mean it's going to have 5 when the game is released. Blizzard has talented employees and is able to implement any crazy idea they might think/dream about. I'm sure they already made twice as many units and abilities as SC2 will have in the end but so what? They're trying out things to avoid guessing and instead actually put it to the test in practice. And they're not reluctant to axe anything on a whim.

4. Do you know anything about Terran? Do you know anything about the Zerg? Then don't comment on the Protoss being overpowered. And again, they can axe this whenever they want to. I personally think this is a nice feature because it's just another smart thing that people with good micro management skills can put to use. And about sharing resources, I didn't know about that. It'd be nice because it would give another dimension to team games - I know that in Age of Empires it worked really well, it might just be a cool addition to SC. By the way, is this sharing from an official source? I don't remember reading about it.

5. Starcraft with it's resolution had big units with big buildings. What's your problem with having the same sizes at a greater resolution to make things smoother? I think there will be a zooming feature but I have no problem seeing everything up close. There will be quite some details that most of us will drool over and that requires close viewing - but of course I agree that those details will mean nothing when it comes to competitive play.

6. Way to support an argument. There's nothing wrong with having different types of resources, it gives a new aspect to controlling certain points of the map. New strategies will arise just from this tiny feature, which I like a lot. Maybe they plan to put a little more weight on macro management to counter the loss in micro with all the multi-building selections and auto-mining rally points features around.

7. Those only apply to campaign the mode. It gives some depth to the story and gives more control to the player. I have mixed feelings about this as I don't think it's necessary but I might get to like it over time.

I think it's way too early to judge the content of Starcraft 2. Everything will get a new meaning when you know all the features, to see the big picture. Please don't judge the project from the fragments of information that got to the public from the batches. Even the official site can't be relied on in this respect because it's been confirmed that even those units and features have a chance of being removed from the game. Give Blizzard a chance to get its aims right. They have a distinct way of doing their work by trial and error which of course includes crazy ideas that some might not like. Just be happy that they keep the public updated. They could've just admitted that they're working on the sequel without releasing any kind of information - would you prefer that?

 

To put what vasz said in a simple way.
Althought some points you made are valid, a lot of it, you don't really know what you are talking about. Just remember the game is in its early stages and certain things they throw at us can simply help them in further developments of the game and units by our reaction which ultimately makes or breaks the game.
Once a demo is released thats when these kind of arguments will be valid.

 

what are the supposed 2 different yields of minerals you're talking about? (number 6)
and is number 7 referring to the possibilities of factions?

 

in starcraft II theres yellow and blue mineral deposits.

 

You cannot claim that the ghost resembles a hero in any way.

Its just a powerful unit, which every race a few of.

Colors are still being worked on and blizzard is trying to balance too much color with not enough color to tell between different armies.

Templars being able to share energy amogst each other is a great and interesting mechanic, it gives good players another way to jump above average players. Its not OP, if 4 templars give their energy to 1 templar only that 1 temp will cast psy storms and the others wont have mana, as opposed to all 5 casting it when they have enough mana so its balanced.

There wont be any specific(C&C generals) type races i guarantee it.

 

why would it be bad if one mineral happened to be more valuable then the other? all it does is add strategic depth to the game.
i'm sure for all the strengths the ghost has, it also has a few critical flaws. Maybe its really slow(an effect of stealth?)
maybe it's really easy to kill once you find it. who knows? Those blizzard folks are crafty.

 

It would add more strategic depth. Theoretically a map would be designed to have a gold mineral patch in a more dangerous location. So it could then become player macro strategy to decide to expand to the mineral rich but dangerous expansion, or a mineral light expansion that would be relatively easy to defend. It would add alot of depth to the macro aspect of the game.

 

then how is that bad? It worked well in command and conquer. Also, it makes sense that there probably are superior quality minerals then our trusty blues.

 

1. Color. I don't see why everyone has such a problem with this. It's a game, not a movie or anything. In battles it would be good if the team colors were bright so that you'd be able to identify them quicker. If everything was dark, faded and emo, then everything would just kinda blend together.

2. Backstabbing. I too have no clue what you're trying to say here.

3.No heroes. Just because the pre-alpha stage Ghost has five abilities you're labeling it a hero? Also you clearly don't know what you're talking about when you said "Since when does any unit in starcraft have more than 3 abilities". The Queen had Ensnare, Spawn Broodling, Infest Command Center and Parasite. The Defiler had Consume, Plague, Dark Swarm and Burrow. Now... Just a sec... Just let me count those up... One, two, three... *gasp* Four abilities?! But seriously, the Ghost only has these abilities temporarily. Blizzard is just mucking around to see what abilities suit, and what is the best way to balance them.

4. Sharing. You seriously haven't thought about this either. First off, at the moment, Psionic Storm does less damage in StarCraft2. Secondly, we know nothing of Zerg, and the Terran caster units are still being experimented with. Thirdly, in StarCraft1 a fully upgraded High Templar with a full energy bar could cast three Psionic Storms at once. So seeing as in StarCraft1 five Templar could cast 15 Psionic Storms in a single hit, I don't think anyone will be worried about your five Templar channeling into one idea. Also, there are plenty of abilities to counter them, EMP and Snipe being two so far.

4b. Sharing Money. Oh now I see, just because you said it's not StarCraft, it means that it should be removed? Well your *ahem* 'knowledge' of StarCraft so far has turned out to be less than that of a clinically-dead cabbage, so how would you know if it's 'not StarCraft'? I find it to be 'very StarCraft'. StarCraft is all about strategy, and if sharing minerals/gas is implemented, then it will become crucial to team games. Rushes could become a whole lot faster, someone who has just had their economy raided could still function perfectly until they've rebuilt their workers...

5. Huge units. It was shown in the Protoss game-play video that the camera can be rotated and angled as well as being zoomed in and out. That's the point of it being 3D. Also, the more 'huge units' you have then the smaller your army is. It'd be much easier to manage massed Motherships or Thors (the largest units in the game) than it would be to manage massed Zerglings (the smallest units in the game) because there would be much less of the Motherships/Thors than there would be Zerglings.

6. Different types of minerals. I agree with kuvasz. Saying stuff like "I do not like this because this is sh!t" only further proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Having different mineral types is a great thing. It creates strategic and possibly critical points to hold where there otherwise wouldn't be (much like Dawn of War, except their system didn't always ensure that said location was actually critical or not).

7. Choosing specific skills. As kuvasz has already said (which I didn't actually know) that's for the campaign. However even if it wasn't, those choices do not make StarCraft2 a gamble. Those choices enhance the players' playing style. If a player's strategy is to rush, then they would choose the build faster option. If they wanted to mass something they would choose the cheaper costs option. If they used caster units a lot they would choose the energy recharge option. These options don't make it a gamble, they make it even more strategic.

In short, I think a more appropriate title for this thread would be "Eg-EliteGhost is turned off by sc2".

Ok, I apologize if I offended, but I am absolutely sick to death of everyone spamming how much StarCraft2 is going to suck. More often than not they don't know what they're talking about, and those who do know what they're talking about are just plain ignorant because they, of all people, should know how much a game changes from the pre-alpha stage to the final stage. I've found this site for those people about the development of StarCraft1(http://www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-evolution-12/). I can imagine everyone saying how much it will suck in it's alpha stage, and look how good it ended up. I hope that it can prove to you that StarCraft2 has a long way to go, and the only logical time to complain would be after it's released, because that's when it's finalized. Even so, they can still sort out balancing issues with patches, etc. I'd finally just like to add how much I'm looking forwards to StarCraft2. Everything about it, the graphics, unit concepts, game-play style, looks near perfect to me so far. I don't see why everyone keeps on saying that it's going to suck.

 

i agree with you ItzaHexgor. In my opinion, Starcraft 2 is starting to look nicer and nicer. I do admit i was disappointed by the vanishing of my goliaths and firebats, but the reapers look amazing, and i can say i have complaints about the vikings. Sure the ghost may be a bit over powered at the moment, but they're still playing with spells and abilities as people have said before. I think we need to come together as a community and accept that while starcraft 1 was a legend of a game, maybe its time for a change.

 

People have got to understand though, this is a sequel it's gonna be different from the original game. In my opinion its looking great so far, graphics, units, gameplay, etc.

There are gonna be differences with SC2 (I would hope so) and saying its not gonna be as good because of those differences has no weight as a argument.

You also can't say that things are gonna be overpowered and unbalanced based on how they were in SC1, this a new game, new balance, new mechanics.

Change is not always a bad thing and it can be good. I will reserve all my opinions on how "good" the game is gonna be until it is actually finished and I get a chance to play it.

 

i dont know where to start so il just go ahead with the summary.

IMO sc2 will be better than sc1 even others dont agree. =p

 

Hell, it's too early to complain or praise. Just wait for the game, have faith in Blizzard. If you don't like it, play something else, you always have that option.

 

I found funny how much people can bash on a game that is in alpha, if everyone could stop complain for once... Just wait and ull see when you'l buy it, because whatever happen ull end up buying it...

Even if this is the worst game ever who care, you are not loosing anything in this.

All hail blizz

wow, by luck this forum is not like the official one, where everyone just complaine