I can imagine that. That's why I play chess no more.

CnC3 is really cool. I like it very much. But I can hardly play it. I am not fast enough with the mouse. And I can not play it in a bed or in the train. That is why I like turn based strategies like GCII.

i'd say that's an out-growth of FPS fans, with additional contribution from flight sim and racing gamers. personally i've liked a few good flight/race games, but back on consoles (i own MarioKart 64).

when it comes to strat games, graphical performance has a different meaning for me. for me the biggest issue is being able to comprehend what i'm seeing. SMAC was kind of frustrating to me because it was somewhat hard to tell how a unit was armed. GC2 actually has similar challenges. GC2 however gets bonus points for having totally custom ships and so much that can be mod'ed.

from the previews i've seen of SC2, i'm more than satisfied with its graphics. RTS and TBS games are more cerebral than FPS and other games that are more about reflexes. the more info you can clearly and quickly pass on to the human player, the easier it'll be for the player to enjoy the game.

Starcraft is a cool game, but it did not stand the test of time with me. A few months ago I tried to play it again, but could not get interested in it.

I would not say its Over-rated as the people that give it high praise and having fun playing it and that is what counts.I can pop in C&C Tiberium Sun and still have a blast have a blast with it.

I think its all in the mind of the beholder, as long as you enjoy the game thats what counts. But if you play the game just cause its popular and you are NOT having fun, then you need get a new hobby.

Personaly im sick and tired of graphics being #1 in a make for a game. I play for the gameplay not pretty backgrounds that make my computer, xbox, ps lag to shit while I play. I like the challenges that some games bring but far to many the past years have been nothing but fancy graphics showing off how pretty they can make backgrounds, character seem more real life. KUF:COD for the Xbox360 is a perfect point. Starcraft was and still is a smooth game made for competive gameplay and they made sure the story would be fun to play through. Starcraft2 could be a disapointment like halo3 but im hoping for more of that great competive and good story from it once again.

RTS games are 'cerebral' and not about 'reflexes'? Have you ever PLAYED an RTS?

1) Just about every RTS game is about build orders, speed, and spam. Not much different from an FPS.

2) Competitive starcraft play isn't about 'strategy', it's about getting to a point of victory faster than your enemy. They don't send Observers to the enemy base to see if they have stealth-detecting units, and then decide to send Dark Templar or not - they just send a shitload of them anyway.

Ok your somewhat odd resentment of Blizzard aside have you actually played Starcraft?

It seems to me that the majority of posters who comment negatively about Starcraft don't even know how to play it to any average competency. You can't possibly fault other people's perception of a game ("over-rated") if you can't even play with the small boys, let alone the big boys.


Do the graphics suck? For a 10 year old game, no. In fact, the art direction and graphical focus was pretty good for its time. It made the units appear distinct, and the colors were spot-on for spotting (or not spotting) the units. Form follows function. The function of the graphics in this game is to tell you about the game state. Anything other than that is just gravy. This type of game is targeted squarely at people who think that the old Gettysberg is still a great game - the graphics really isn't important beyond game function. If machine-demanding graphics matters to you, you can't understand why this game is hailed as much as it is.

For what it does, it's unrivaled, even today. I've played the C&C games through to completion and MP a lot and it's all quite one dimensional. SC is not the same.




Technically, it wasn't more or less balanced until about 6 months after the release of Brood Wars around version 1.6 or 1.7. Latter game patches were responses to high level players taking advantage of particular game mechanics to destroy the game's strategic viability. If your APS isn't over 60, you needn't bother - they didn't usually apply to you.



SC's merits go beyond mere popularity. It's not good because it's popular. It became popular because it was good.

Last time I looked, Korea wasn't a third world country and they're highly selective about which games they spent time on, since they usually spent a lot of time on them. The fact that many Koreans don't spend as much time on the latter-released Warcraft3 is indicative of this finicky nature.

You can't just make any random game and expect Koreans to wow themselves over it.

I've played SC extensively on MP and even played against some Koreans. Those guys are tough cookies.

It's not about rushing, and it's not about reflexes. APS counts for a big deal, but that's as much power of concentration as it is finger speed. A high APS doesn't matter if you're not doing anything with it.

Rushing gets done a lot to newbies the same way ground cheese gets done a lot to Tekken newbies. It's a cheap shot, and lots of people fall for it, but you can't get good if you keep falling for the cheap shots.

The only way to get through it is to lose and learn. A lot. I rushed and got rushed in my time, and in time, one gets to the point where you learn that rushing is just a cheap shot - you won't win a lot of mid level games with it, and if that's all you know how to do, you're going to have to be prepared to lose a lot - again.

Competitive SC IS about strategy - it's just that the strategies have all been worked out before.

I can tell where on a map my enemy might be based on what time his worker comes along to scout me out. Most mid level players can. When I was better at it, I could tell the neighborhood of your probable tech and army strength just from looking at what you have. I don't need to scout your base - I can predict what's in it just from the time and your army composition!

That's how hard core high level SC play is. It's not about Cannon rushing or Zealot rushing, although those have their place, too. For instance, if you know that your opponent is a better strategic player, you can rush him out with Zealot or Zerglings if you know that you have an APS advantage. If you're on the APS disadvantage, you opt for a defensive strategy to bring you superior tech planning to bear.

Would I bring a "shitload" of DTs to my enemy's base? Depends on what I see with my initial worker and the map size. DT rushing just isn't feasible against certain players and certain maps. Also, you can't do it too soon or it might fizzle, nor too late or you tip your hand to little effect. As a Protoss player, I know that teching to DTs within a particular time frame precludes teching to, say, Reavers.

Of course, DT's aren't really what you would consider a proper "rush" in the first place since getting a sizable number of them requires a good amount of tech. Saying the DT attack is a real "rush" is like saying that GalCiv's Planetary Invasion is a "rush" tactic.

To be perfectly fair, there's a certain kind of skill and type-limit to the kind of shenanigans you could pull in SC. Past a certain skill level in the newbie, rushing said newbie with SCVs ceases to be effective.

Finally someone agrees with me.

I've played World of Warcraft at my friends house, at it is so gay! The only good thing about Blizzard's games is the hype. Their gameplay and graphics suck.

Also, people, this is a thread where we talk about whether starcraft is over rated; its not a starcraft strategy thread. Thanks

Etrius

Zerg unstoppable? Fielding in so many Overlords that your enemy can't target? What the heck?

That's brainless stuff. If you play an enemy worth fighting, you'd think twice about getting those Overlords in there. Heck, you might not even HAVE Overlords to make units with - that's classic, relentless Overlord hunting.

Carriers? From Protoss? Spore Colonies 8 and 9 deep? Yow. If you tried that against a decent player, you'd get beaten to a bloody pulp. Carriers are usable, but they're not exactly what you would call the most-used Protoss unit. Only newbies use those, and mostly on money maps. There's not a lot of strategic depth there. If there's mineral fields everywhere and unlimited money, then a lot of it becomes just a crapshoot. Not totally, of course, but the APS difference and tech-planning doesn't count for as much in a map with unlimited money and big distances.

I can understand where a lot of people might not appreciate Starcraft if they can't play it. It's hard to appreciate art when you can't tell the difference between a masterpiece and milk carton. So yes, if you think Starcraft is overrated, you probably can't play it very well.

Different races, eh?

Well, check out a little something called Universe at War: Earth Assault.

Roxlimn, you are making the mistake of assuming that I have not taken out some of the best players in the game (and I have). From your comments, I take your skill level is really not in the top echelons of the game, or you are making some gross assumptions about the maps. ----- As for GeneralEtrius, you make a thread asking if StarCraft is over-rated, and then attack when examples of the opinion of it "not" being over-rated are given. Just stating an opinion is not enough - you must provide substance. I suggest next time you call your thread "StarCraft is over-rated" rather than "Starcraft: Is it over-rated?". The thread name you used does open the door to those who have a different opinion than you. ----- Also, this is a forum for GalCiv, and I did make sure to temper any comments I have with showing some of the positive aspects of GalCiv that have provided me with similar enjoyment to what I achieved with StarCraft. Please keep this is mind.