Gaming StarCraft 2 Beta First Impressions

Well, two things. First of all, SC2 doesn't require the latest hardware. It was made specifically with the intention that you could play it with a 3 year old machine. Second, the graphics levels are extremely varied. With a relatively powerful computer you could run it maxed out and the graphics would be a lot better than seen in the screenshots (at least from what I'm seen around the web).

 

Sigh.

Most of the comments towards Joe aren't negative because we like being asshattish trolls or huge fanboys. Maybe some of the posters here are of that group but really most of us who have actually played SC or are playing the SC2 beta are peeved because of the Joe's impressions of the game are severely skewed by his inability to play. Things like "StarCraft 2 is a strategy game which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t actually involve any real battle strategy. " or "You can have the most audacious and ingenious warplan ever plotted, but the reality is that nine times out of ten you’ll be squashed before you can very far by, what else, a Zerg rush." are simply untrue for anyone who knows how to play. If he were to do a writeup of TF2 and wrote that "Valve tried to make a large number of varied and interesting classes but really it doesn't matter because you will lose to Scouts rushing the capture points. Despite trying different things out there's nothing you can do but scout rush them back faster and this removes any of the fun in this game" I think a few of you would be irritated.

I think this quote applies here:

 

Joe, as you can see, you riled up all the Starcraft players. They've been eagerly waiting for this game for a long time. And they really want it to succeed. Maybe even get popular enough where we can have our own professional Starcraft scene and compete head-on with the koreans.

Even as I completely agree with all of the criticisms of your article among these comments, still, thanks for your honest and insightful article. To the vast majority of casual video game players, Starcraft really is indecipherable. So Joe, I don't think anyone really blames you for giving your an honest opinion after just playing the beta for a short time and getting creamed by experienced players. It's just that we love this game so goddamn much!

 

If you haven't seen it yet, Joe, this guy sums it up fairly well: http://gnews.com/entertainment/Star...-from-Zerg-Rush-of-Criticism-63104527240.html

 

I think that it is ironic that PC gamers, who tend to be on the cutting edge of technology and innovation just want the same things over and over. I can't say I didn't want Bad Company 2 to be identical to Battlefield 2, just with improved graphics. Sometimes I just think that we don't know what's good for us.

I have a friend that lives in Korea, and he basically lives off of Starcraft 1. When I spoke to him last he was concerned that they would change too much. Upon reading the impressions this clearly is not the case, so maybe he was just being too cynical. For him, this is great news, for me, not so much.

The thing that put me off the first Starcraft was the hardcoreness of it all, it really isn't an easy game to get into, and from the sounds of it the second will be no different... although I will be following it just in case.

Also, I thought the impressions article was pretty good, as Joe came at it with the same perspective as me. However the reaction to it shocked me really, it is, after all, just a game.

 

Honestly, if Blizzard not doing anything groundbreaking is a bad thing, then I don't want them to do the good thing.

After the disappointment of the SupCom2 demo, and how C&C4 is pants, and the countless other times that PC gamers have been screwed over by games changing (especially to cater to a console crowd), I am glad to see a game that sticks to what it made it's name on. I would gladly buy something from Blizzard of a high quality that is new and innovative, but I would much rather it be a new IP rather than butchering a known series.

The Tiberium universe is my favourite C&C series, but after a bit of a disappointment with Tiberium Wars, I have to say that Westwood have absolutely killed the series with 4. At least for me. It feels like a poor man's DoW2. I don't see why people get so caught up in games not changing drastically between releases. Frankly, with them being changed so much lately, I think it is actually refreshing to have a game that has not been gimped.

Obviously, those not interested in the original won't be interested in the sequel, but honestly, I think it is a small price to pay for keeping the fans happy. I'm all for them (in fact any developer) trying something drastically new, just please don't experiment with games I love!

 

Hey Joe, obviously there's a lot of flak towards you going on here, but I thought I'd like to offer a perspective from a (close to) die-hard fan's point of view:

I feel as if the very main appeal of starcraft was the simplicity and basicness of the controls. . I mean after all, the original SC WAS made in 1998, and it was indeed one of the most revolutionary and influential RTS's of the time (along with C&C, Total Annihilation), paving the way for many of the newer RTS games you mentioned in this article, but the fact that it was made way back then shows the level of development/experience they had back then, in a still relatively young genre. The true experience (and enjoyment for some) came from players who managed to crank the best out of a simple system, and completely change the pace of the game. Heavy micromanagement was required because of the simple controls, and players enjoyed it because it gave them reason to keep on their toes constantly, and in an active state of play.

As you can see, this formula was a hit, and obviously did not want to deviate from a tried-and true formula that worked so well for the last 12 years, for SC2. So now we have a huge horde of fans who are devoted to this fast-paced style of micro-play, and Blizzard's just being smart about their product, and making sure it will bid well with them.

Of course, I'm just as despondent as you are about multiplayer: 12 years of veterans storming into a completely new game, who wouldn't be scared shitless? But I'm hoping on Blizzard's new matchmaking service to hopefully balance that out for the better..

All in all, I guess Starcraft 2 was developed with their huge fanbase in mind right? The way I see it, Starcraft 2 is still that old game from 1998, just with improved graphics and a few tweaks for the new decade, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, Opinions are only opinions, I actually enjoyed seeing your point of view on this game, I actually never thought about that!

 

"So, simply put, StarCraft 2 is a strategy game which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t actually involve any real battle strategy."

"Instead, the focus of the game (at least, if you want to win a game) is pretty much solely on economic strategy – which is an admittedly odd observation to make of a game that simplifies everything in the world down into three resources. Still, it’s true. "

"You can have the most audacious and ingenious warplan ever plotted, but the reality is that nine times out of ten you’ll be squashed before you can very far by, what else, a Zerg rush."



These were the bits I really had issue with... was the game massively incomplete or something?

Anyone who has ever watched their horde of zerglings/hydralisks getting chopped to pieces by a couple of Dark Templar while you furiously try to get an Overlord across to them knows that Starcraft isn't totally bereft of strategy, as suggested by the previous sentiments.

 

It amazes me how some people never miss a chance to fulminate in public.

All you fanbois are going to buy the game whatever Joe says. Have you considered there may be people out there who haven't played the first game? Or maybe haven't even picked up an RTS before? Or maybe haven't even played a computer game, and want to know roughly what it's about? Have you maybe considered that they are the *vast* majority of people out there, and that you are a hardcore minority who, if you each wrote your own review, would argue with each other about who's perspective was more valid?

The reason Joe gets paid to write reviews and you (most probably) don't is that he's able to be objective. I thought it was a brave admission on his part to say he hadn't played the first game because I knew there would be this fanboi reaction, but that's no reason for him not to give his perspective.

Joe, great article. Well researched, lots of detail and a balanced perspective. Although I'd agree with one poster: you do need to be edited better

 

Isn't Blizzard now owned by the hated Activision? And yes, this game does look like a rehash of the original. But plenty of people will be happy enough with that I imagine. Never played it myself and nor do I intend to. The original Dune will always be my favorite RTS.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Can we just step back a little bit here.

If I see the term "fanboy" being thrown around one more time - which will happen - I think I'm going to scream. Nobody has directed anything at me specifically, but I feel like I'm being tarred with the same brush because I am a fan of StarCraft. Labelling every fan of StarCraft as a rabid drooling fanboy is almost as bad as some of the nonsense being spouted in this thread.

It's very easy to give a label to a particular "group" of people, without actually listening and sorting the wheat from the chaff. Yeah there's a lot of trolling assclowns about, but I think you'll find - as in most situations - that the sound & fury does not represent everyone: they just happen to be the ones who can shout the loudest. I have no problem with the article at all. In fact, I agree with many of the points raised. I find it very dispiriting to have my plans be smashed by an early rush. I get miffed when my carefully laid defences are easily picked apart by a superior enemy. I also know that it's very difficult for a newbie to get into it. By the time you start to get the hang of the game, you're crushed by someone who can click three times a second. If I had never played StarCraft before, I would never want to touch it after playing the beta.

Plus, most of the talk here has revolved around the multiplayer game. Am I the only one who can see that StarCraft/StarCraft 2 is not just a multiplayer game? The learning curve will be much shallower than jumping straight into an online game against experienced players; new units and abilities will be introduced over a number of missions, allowing new players to learn the strengths and weaknesses of each unit. They did this in the first game so there's no reason to assume that they will not do this in the new game. This isn't a dig at the article or author, but just trying to point out that the article described the a new player's first impressions of a multiplayer beta - it is not the finished product, and it is not a review.

 

Blizzard are (obviously) part of the group known as Activision Blizzard. However, thats pretty irrelevant as Blizzard has complete autonomy in every way, so don't go swinging the Activision bat around Blizzard's games. All the other Activision games however are fair game for the "nasty Activision" criticism.

 

So long as it stays that way. I don't want Diablo 3 being ruined...thats if it ever actually gets released

 

Ive got to admit, im not intrested in SC at all. But i found that to be a shockingly bad preview. Simply put, pick someone who has any idea of RTS to write a preview on an RTS. Because you can argue all you want that picking the person that didn't play SC was a better choice because the majority of people havn't. But you fail completely when your picking people that dont understand Rts games to review them.

If you are a regular RTS player then i find your skill questionable. For exam micro managerment of troops to all attack the same person or bringing the front line of the army back so that the enermys units chase them while being shot at. Etc. These games are far more then build a base and there is far more in "statergy" games then building a base. Im sorry to be so harsh but i actually was very intrested in this preview and im o so dissapointed now. Felt like it was wrote by someone new to the genre. Its like claiming a FPS is the same as all others because you fire a gun. The preview should of been focused about tactics/strategies, how the game plays out. The UI and whats coming up etc etc. Not a bashing of it being an RTS like all the others aparently.

As someone who has played RTS games since i was 7 competitively i expected more. Usualy bit-tech really hits the spot as well.

 

Personally I thought that the preview was very good. Though it could've been more fleshed out since this is surely one of the 2000's most anticipated games.
This game has two sides to it, both casual and hardcore-gameplay, so you can't really bash this preview for covering the casual side of it.
Maybe Bit could write another preview to accompany this one, covering the more hardcore/fastpaced side of it. Though nerdragers prolly won't get sated with anything but positive comments..

 

admittedly, i havent read all 5 pages of comments, which i had intended to do before saying anything so as not to repeat anything. i got to the end of the 2nd page and couldnt continue as its about midnight and eventually i have to do homework.
anyway, the point i intend to make is that perhaps the reason that you found that you completely hated starcraft upon playing it is merely because you havent ever played a starcraft game thats completed, and has been balanced, etc. the majority of games ppl play end almost immediatly simply because the balancing isnt quite down yet. sorry for the prior unrelated sentence. ppl who start playing starcraft 1 start immediatly into a game that was tested and proved to be extremely balanced, there are also updates to starcraft 1 periodically, some of which might make infintisimal(may be wrong word, cant think right now) tweaks to balancing. anyway, starcraft 2 doesnt have that factor yet, ppl coming to SC2 from SC enjoy playing it because its the sequel to starcraft and they know enough about balancing to kindof start off and then change it according to what works and what doesnt. SC gradually brought each different icon and unit in separatly to help ppl learn to cope with their use 1 at a time, most ppl in sc2 already know most stuff about unit use and just need to experiment a bit with the new units. someone just walking in wouldnt have the time to realize different ways to use psi storms to their upmost effectiveness(much easier in sc2 Cheesecake), or contemplate all of the potential uses for burrowed units etc. this is probably an invalid hypotheticality since you do have some background in rts games, but ... yeah. btw, about the whole flanking thing, flanking works in real life, which means that since starcraft units are individual you the theories still hold. if you have a group of like 10 units spread out in a wierd way and a few units come at you from opposite sides, but still generally from the same sort of direction, your units are going to have more troubles than if they just came at you in a ball. simply because you units will either fire at one side, or the other. this is made even more critical with focus fire, which is necessary for good micro. ugh sorry that this is so rambly. anyway, ive honestly never played command and conquer(sorry, havent gotten around to playing many rts games other than SC) so i dont know exactly how flanking works there, but in starcraft you dont get like +5 damage for coming at your enemy from an angle fof greater than 60degrees or something, it just plays true to how flanking works with real troops in real life. btw i highly respect how well you dealt with all the flaming. flaming is for losers. no offense to ppl who flame im just randomly typing. but seriously. dont do it. only you can prevent forest fires.

 

Paragraphs are your friend. Please use them.

 

Greetings!

Familiar with the concept of "wallpost"?
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2246662&postcount=93

 

@fizzban lol sorry, i was only partly conscious at the time and forgot to even try to format it

@impar ...what?