Gaming StarCraft 2 Beta First Impressions

Holy crap this is exactly like reading every other Blizzard based forum. You get the mods and the intelligent people trying to discus like adults and then everyone else talking crap and forgetting that a reasoned argument is best. I don't know what magic Blizz has but its got to be on a par with that of Apple.

Joe I think as someone who isn't besotted by the first game you're a great choice to preview the current beta, however I would hope that someone else be handed the final review so that you original impression don't taint the review.

To all those who say you cant draw parallels between the original and the 2nd without playing the original first, I say to you there is another documentation out there that an accurate depiction of the original can be achieved. Hell I bet even a cursory glance at the unit list and it similarity could give you an idea of how little the core of the game has changed.

@Digi, I would't say Blizzard are afraid to be innovative, they are just afraid of the ire that they would receive from the fans if it did anything other then pay the utmost respect to a well loved franchise. Their secret 4th project (the others being WoW: Catclysm, Diablo and SC2) will be the one to show their real power to be creative.

 

SupCom has nothing on starcraft.

And your point is? I've played it, I can tell you that it's ALREADY better than any RTS released in the last 10 years.

 

Wow, the level of SC snobbery in this thread is epic.

 

Just a point. You can rotate the camera, insert and delete rotate it through about 30 degrees each way. Not proper I know, but you can do it slightly.

EDIT: Not really much of a SC fan (not very good ), but you seem to be bashing it for what the game is, and what it is designed to be. What's the problem with being beaten by a player that has controlled their economy more efficiently? What is excactly wrong with being beaten by a zerg rush if you haven't started well? Its another layer of strategy, in well, a strategy game.

 

Don't make the mistake of inferring my entire experience with the game from the few stories I relate in the article, where I also mention how I continued playing the game, discussed the series with experience players at length, read up on the history of the series and even went so far as to invite experienced players to play the beta while I watched.

Also, don't dismiss an opinion on the grounds of objective flaw without pulling up valid examples. You say my opinion is meritless for being objectively wrong, but then none of the examples you pull up actually are objective statements - and most are overreaction.

For example, you get incensed and angry about me saying that the game is the same as other RTS titles without backing it up, when if you actually judge that remark within context then you can see that it's there to help easily summarise the type of RTS that StarCraft 2 is to new players. I.e., it's a traditional RTS where you construct buildings, spew out armies and then navigate across a fixed arena to defeat an enemy.

That might seem like an inane point to make, but consider the spate of different RTS games we've seen in the last few years. Dawn of War, with it's small squads and RPG systems. World in Conflict with it's dribbled resources and no buildings. C&C4, with it's mobile bases and co-op campaigns. An aside and brief attempt to illustrate that SC2 is fairly traditional (which is in no way a bad thing) compared to these titles is neither objectively wrong, a major point of the article, nor something that's worth getting so incensed about.

Not that I'm having a go. I fully accept that your opinion may be different - and since you're probably a hardcore SC2 stalwart I'd actually expect that - but if you're going to allege factual inaccuracies then that's something I have to address for obvious reasons above and beyond the fact that you disagree with my first impressions of an incomplete, unreleased sequel. Factual inaccuracies are something we take seriously and will always address, but every point you raise has a subjective basis, contrary to what you say.

That's a factual inaccuracy - thanks for pointing that out, I must have missed that one. I'll update the article to suit.

 

+1

I personally didn't get why Starcraft was, and continues to be, so popular (cue fanboi rage). It was just another generic RTS which had some good artwork. Isn't Starcraft 2 about 4 years overdue anyway?

This article seems to confirm what I thought: if you were a fan of the original, go buy it; if you thought the original was distinctly average then this will offer nothing new.

 

Joe, you are clearly not Korean enough to appreciate StarCraft - please fix this.

 

Didn't mean to bash it. Simply wanted to point out that that's the type of game it is. I tried pretty hard to put the point across that

A) That's a valid design
B) Lots of people like it
C) I don't like it, in fact I hated it
D) There'll be an awful lot of other people who feel the same as me

 

Well. I got an invite to the beta a few days ago, and have played it rather a lot.

I am what you could call a pretty die hard StarCraft fan, but I found this beta a little disappointing in some areas. Yes the game is still based on the same basic mechanics as the original, but the multiplayer kind of lets it down for me. I was never really into multiplayer StarCraft, because I'd get my ass kicked far too quickly - I don't enjoy playing the game like that, because it's over before it starts. I used to play against my mates, but we never really used the "3-minute zerg rush" tactic; it wasn't so much an unspoken rule as just the way we all played the game. Admittedly the matches would turn into three/four hour epics, but I still found/find that fun. The first few times I played the SC2 beta, I nearly gave up on it - matches would last no more than 5 minutes ending with a complete thrashing before I'd even had a chance to get used to the new units. I didn't actually realise at first that you could create a game and add only AI opponents - effectively making it single player. Playing it against AI opponents was a lot more fun, as I actually got a chance to explore the new races, but the AI is far too easy; it's locked to "Very Easy", and "Very Easy" really doesn't begin to come close to describing how easy it is. I have to play against 2 opponents in order to have at least something resembling a challenge.

As the article points out, this is still only multiplayer beta - i.e. an unfinished game - we've seen nothing of the singleplayer game outside of Blizzard's statements/videos, etc. I think it will be the singleplayer game where we'll the big differences, but it's probably too early to form an independent opinion.

Having said all that, the beta is all that I and many fans need to see. Frankly, I would have loved SC2 no matter what they did with the game. I know the series has it's flaws - some of them are very big, especially in multiplayer - but that's fine by me. It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game.

 

its starcraft, and it will sell millions period.

 

It's Starcraft, me and my brother still play this over the internet toghether despite now having played the campaign many times over and the game itself being stuck at 640x480 natively. Preordered 2 copies without reading any information about it, I already know it's going to be good

 

This (deliberately) being the first bit of SC2 i see, I would venture as far as to say that the dispute going on here was inevitable.
I am a HUGE SC fan. I have owned 3 copies of it, and recently bought another one, just because I gave mine to a mate who didn't have it. I've played it since it came out, and I STILL play it against my mates, although I am not very good at it.
It was logical that, given that I am not the only person that feels strongly about SC - Korea is really the proof there).
There was always going to be one piece of the community that wouldn't be as happy as the other.
For example: in order to make the perfect SC game for me, update the graphics to run 1900*1200, add 6 new units, ship.
In order to attract a new crowd, they need to change it up a bit, and keep with the times more.

That being said, i think Joe was the perfect person to write the preview, as he wrote it from another perspective, giving me a bit of hope that the game might appeal to me, which is a fear of mine and the reason for me avoiding as much SC2 info as possible.

 

I like how this parallels the other SC2 which was released recently. Here, people wanted basically the same game with better graphics, but the core gameplay intact. Blizzard took 10 years to do this, but it seems people are pretty happy with the result nonetheless. People wanted similar things from Supreme Commander 2, yet GPG completely redesigned the gameplay, game engine and multiplayer matchmaking so it ran better than the old game, yet people hated it.

I guess not all change is for the better, but I'd still rather see developers innovating and trying new ideas rather than churning out the same repetitive sequels all the time.

 

Played the beta and the close up perspective really fails to utilise any progress that has been made in stratergy in the last 10 years.

 

Why not simply let someone with previous experience do the preview? Do you think it's more important to talk at length about some vague characteristics of the game than to mention some cool units and possible tactics, maybe include some exciting "war story", other than "I got rushed! Thees gaem iz teh suck!". You can't tell me that you didn't find Mothership cool when you saw it cloak units AND buildings the first time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxF4XWtj4g, 6 minute mark). Or the way transport picks up the Thor rather than loading it in? Or maybe the warp-in-to-anywhere-there-is-pylon-power mechanic for Protoss? Maybe Nydus Worm that can pop anywhere?

Did you not get the check from Activision on time? Did it have one to few zeroes for Bit-tech to post a decent preview? If so, I can relate. Weren't we all underbribed at times and wanted to "express our opinion"? Say no more, comrade!

I don't agree with this, but I can see your point. There is so much of half-truths and generalizations, that I would have to quote line by line and add corrections. Obviously, I don't get paid to do your job, and won't do that (if I had any sense I would just drop this futile argument, but unfortunately it seems I don't). Here are a few obvious ones:

"The third resource type dictates how large your army can be through the number of command units you have. At the start of each game you only have one command unit, which is different for each race, and that limits how big you can get. As you grow your army you need to periodically built more of them to increase your output."

This seems somewhat correct, but really it's wrong, on many levels. It's like you never even played the game, let alone consulted "experts" and whatnot. It's really the most basic of things and you get it wrong. There are no "command units" and you do not start with one. There is an overlord that grants supply to Zerg, pylon that provides energy (grid where you can construct buildings) and supply for Protoss and "regular" supply depot for Terrans. Main buildings also provide supply. Now you're probably going to claim that you "dumbed it down" so everyone can understand, but that's just ********.

"Beyond that, the basic gameplay is almost exactly as you’d expect to see in any other strategy game, though with minor changes for each race. You create a barracks and create basic infantry. Tech labs and their analogues allow upgrades. Factories bestow vehicles. It goes on, allowing for cosmetic differences.

Or, at least, mostly cosmetic. The alien Zerg forces may be all gooey-looking and focus on ‘mutations’ rather than construction, but they also create a generally faster and melee-focused breed of warriors. Likewise, the cybernetic Protoss are slower to spawn on the whole but get some wonderful power-ups and ranged units as a result of their advanced tech. Terrans straddle the fence like bullied youngsters, creating all-round units that uncomfortably exist between specialties."

This is so obviously wrong to anyone who has ever played SC. I don't even know where to begin. One could write this by going to youtube and fast forwarding through a couple of games (it's never too late to come clean, Joe).

For one, it doesn't say much about differences of the races (except the superfluous). Why not mention the most obvious difference: building placement (Terrans build anywhere, Protoss on Pylon powered area, Zerg on creep)? Or a "doctrine" difference: Zerg produce all units from "main" building and do so in parallel (enabling them to spawn large armies quickly and shift strategies quickly)? They do not have to build multiple "barracks", but only one for each desired unit type. You could mention that all of 50ish units are different among races and cater to different tactics and uses (and are not just reskinned and stat-tweaked clones).

I did not get "incesed and angry" just more and more dumbfounded by the ridiculously badly written preview. The point is that SC2 is different from all (almost) other new RTS games by sticking to the "traditional" formula. You did not write "traditional RTS where you construct buildings, spew out armies and then navigate across a fixed arena to defeat an enemy", but "the basic gameplay is almost exactly as you’d expect to see in any other strategy game". You do realize that strategy game is much broader term than RTS game? I gave you examples of strategy games (and I wasn't even a smart-ass and included Civilization or similar game) that are completely different than SC2. Don't you see your mistake?

Look, Joe, you can write whatever you want (and somehow get paid to do it). Including an opinion about the SC2 Beta. That's cool by me. But don't you see how stupid the things you wrote are? Just read what you wrote again (you might catch some typos this time too) and tell me the preview is good. I could write opinion on new techniques of brain surgery, with my previous knowledge of the matter consisting of me watching SAW series and Chicago Hope. I can even "consult the experts" and throw some vague descriptions. It's still going to completely suck.

People (I would assume) expect to be told what's new and exciting and better than before. It's, of course, ok (and even encouraged) to summarize the basics for newcomers, point some obvious (or potential) flaws, but not to devote the whole article to bitching about rushing and inane ramblings of a first time player.

For the record, I'm not a hardcore SC player at all. I played and enjoyed it, but I prefer TBS games (can't wait for Civilization 5). Please let someone who played previous iterations and is a competent player do that preview.

 

OK, misinterpreted then. Just read through again (this time remembering that it is purely multiplayer), and realised that I actually do agree in parts. I solely play the original on campaign and against the AI. Simply becuase I am not good enough to play against other humans (except friends), and stand no chance. So i can really see where the problem comes from. Campaign should be good thiugh and that is what I'll buy it for

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the review and thank you. However...does the fact that the game is in Beta mean that your editing never left the Beta stage? No offense, but there are quite a number of grammatical errors and even missing words in your article. FOR SHAME!!!!!! Anyways, again, thanks for the review, I will very likely be getting this game. I loves mah RTS's!

 

Wow, that guy is almost as stubborn as me.

I liked playing SC single player, but it was so unforgiving in MP to new players that I wasn't interested (though to be fair, most RTS games suffer this issue). I might pick this up when they release all 3 games together in 1 pack. And it's cheaper.

Total Annihilation still gets my vote as best all-round RTS.

 

In a perfect world, you would have two individuals do the review. A person who has never played the original and someone who did. That way you get a fresh, unbiased viewpoint, and a fans perspective. As it stands, I'm guessing they don't have the time to devote to that and, all things being equal, the former is more valuable to a larger audience.