I haven't bothered reading this thread since my last post, but I suggest people take a look at this article.

http://www.destructoid.com/ten-golden-rules-of-videogame-fanboyism-83502.phtml

Battle.net is the main reason why starcraft is so great. 50,000 people still play sc brood war and sc vanilla on battle.net just because you can create your own games by modding, triggers, and all that good stuff.

The only story line i'm fascinated with in video gaming is portal, gears of war, and half life. Sorry starcraft and sins, but one of you has crappy characters and the other has no campaign *obvious cough*.

I don't know how you can rate gear of wars storyline higher than starcraft. Some monsters who live underground want to kill all humans doesn't really go that far.

Umm i meant Sins of a SOlar empire has no campaign... and the characters in starcraft were a bit sketchy. It made every character turn on each other so you pretty much hate everyone. Protoss turns on itself and dies away... terran has a civil war AGAIN and dies away... and zerg kills everything and hides for 2 years (A.K.A dies away).

Strange, it doesn't offend me.

Yes, the characters were so great in Starcraft, like the GENERAL who is your 'enemy' for about two missions before he surrenders his entire command to you at the drop of a hat. Get real.

Haha uranium 235 is as potent as a water pistol. Or am i wrong... anyways! CHaracters in starcraft 2 anger me. Jim Rayner is a hapless drunk!?!? I thought he was the good guy... *sniffle*

I was 14 years old when i first played Starcraft, and I liked the story very much. I still like the characters and general storyline. Few decisions of some characters are kind of stupid, but storyline in the big picture is great, every unit have some importance, role and personality (unlike most of the strategies where there is few good units and a ton of crappy units that you never build).

p.s.
1.1. I don't mind when someone is saying that he doesn't like Starcraft because there is too much micromanagement and he doesn't like that kind of play.
1.2. I don't like Supreme Commander for many reasons, from economy to D-gun and more.


2.1. I hate when someone say that Starcraft is a bad game because there is too much micromanagement and that blizzard should cut the micromanagement down in Starcraft2.
2.2. I never said when they were developing Supreme Commander "It will suck because economy in TA sucked and it will suck in SC also" and I didn't call people that disagreed with me "fanboys" or other such names!

After reading over this thread in general (although I'm sure I've missed some if it) I can't help but bite, and seeing as this is my first post here, it also serves -- for me at least -- a lot of irony; namely for the fact that my first post here should be about the first game I truly "fell in love with", obviously being Starcraft. And to think that this isn't even a Starcraft forum! *shock*

What I just can't seem to understand is all the hate-on for SC that I've read in this thread and even seen in other forums, as people talk about, dream about or simply just contemplate SC and its new upcoming offspring. Mind you a lot of this boils down to the "different strokes for different folks" camp and is ultimately opinion based on age, personality and background. I'm admittedly biased toward the older more classic titles like Diablo, SC, WC(2/3 - never played 1, Icewind Dale/Baldur's Gate and so forth. Not just because I still play them today, but also because they serve to remind me of a time when gaming was classic, fun and full of nostalgia. Yes, there are many great games today too (seeing as I'm hopelessly addicted to SoaSE, and now ToTA) that can breed the same kinds of memories and nostalgia, but that's the whole point. Nostalgia of the countless hours of time you lost to these games, and the memories brought back to life again. How many of you have re-installed that same old game sitting in a closet after playing a newer title? Even now, after playing ToTA, I've started to play Alpha Centauri again, and just like SC is another game that I will always consider among the top games of all time. By today's standards, these games may be pixelated and blocky, but I don't care -- nor do I see them that way anyway, but that's beside the point -- as that's not why I play them. I play them because they're fun.

Gee, wait, there's a novel thought... play a game because it's fun. I'm sorry to say that there are a lot of people that seem to have lost the appreciation that brings, for whatever the reason may be. Granted, I don't really blame them for it, I blame the companies that continue to push out tripe these days and lure people in. The companies that don't care about gameplay or story, that only care about what new shiny graphics they can pile on to entice the masses and make a buck. The companies that release buggy and unstable games onto the public, many of which are sequels to games that were themselves buggy and should have been fixed long before, yet turn around and blame piracy or hardware for their problems. The companies that take classic franchises and completely ruin them under their new corporate umbrella (I'm looking at you EA). I could go on and on, the point is, I'm tired of all the games that are all flash, no substance. Even more so I'm tired of companies that don't care about gaming, and what it means, namely as I stated before... fun.

So is SC perfect? Absolutely not, but ultimately and honestly, what game ever can be? Humans are imperfect creatures, and it doesn't take a master philosopher or metaphysics expert to interpolate that imperfect people will create by definition, imperfect games. There were parts of SC that I thought could have been done better, but that by no means equates the game being crap. It means those are things that can be improved upon, which I'm sure Blizzard will do in spades with SC2. People have said that SC2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, or innovate. Why should it? Innovation is not the key to a good game, since if that were the case I'd say 98% of the games these days are crap. What matters is gameplay, and ultimately... yep, it's that word again, that they're fun. So what if Blizzard isn't bringing anything "new" to the table with SC2? (which I disagree with anyway, seeing as I'm a Protoss player, and am eyeing up the Zerg with a LOT of interest at this point) They don't have to. They are taking (IMO) the greatest game of its genre of all time, and bringing it back to life, including the memories and nostalgia along with it. What matters more than that? Will it have any bugs? Probably, but nothing show-stopping, and you know Blizzard won't release the game until it's ready. Will it have any unseen balance issues? Probably, and again, Blizzard will patch them as they crop up, just like they always did (and still do to this day) for their other RTS titles.

Sure, SC2 won't be perfect either, but it will be entertaining, it will be sweepingly nostalgic, and it will be fun beyond words. And in the end, call me crazy, but that is all that matters most.

Oh, where do I start? Micromanagement and strategy. This is a matter of race preference in StarCraft. As my nom-de-plume implies, I play Zerg, which is the most micro-management intensive of the StarCraft races. I find there are those who get "lazy" playing the Protoss, and just make an army and send it (carriers...). It is actually fun to show, often creating shear surprise, that due to some slick micromanagement with the Zerg, a lazily sent (and usually invincible) army will fall to the "hard to control" Zerg. It takes "skill" to manage some racial attacks/defenses, and does not detract from the strategy of the game. StarCraft - as a STRATEGY game - derives its variety of play by the differences in the races (including the amount of micromanagement needed for each race). The race differences allow the game to appeal to many levels of players, and allow players to be competitive (using race units that do not require much micromanagement) that otherwise would have bad experiences while ramping up their game play versus other, more experienced, players. Blizzard North does an excellent job of play balancing, and in using the rock/scissors/paper type of design in how combat units compare to one another. Nearly infinite possibilities arise, and also the ability to create new and unique and evolving strategies for tactical combat. After years of play, there are STILL new twists that amaze (and if you are a StarCraft fan - you might even scoff at my mention of some of them unless you saw it with your own eyes). The real time strategy genre is a mix of Strategy and Tactics. To remove tactics would lessen the game.

Eh... what I heard in an interview, was that they definitely have to make it appeal to the Korean hardcore gamers, because they are a huge market. That doesn't sound very good at all.

Koreans, and hardcore Starcraft multiplayer gamers speak of APM - Actions Per Minute. This basically translates to clicking speed. Someone who has greater manual dexterity has an advantage. In my Starcrafter days, I had heard of tournament players with over 400 APM.

The plot of Starcraft was excellently crafted -- no debate there AT ALL. But the gameplay side of it, especially multiplayer, has a adrenaline rush, "twitch" aspect to it that I don't like.

RTS's I've liked:

the myth series
the total war series, especially since they added the TBS grand strategic mode.

that's pretty much it for rts's I've *really* liked.

I *pretty much* liked the kohan and dow series' because they stepped away from some of the things I don't like about all the zillions of warcraft clones, making unit strategy a bit more important, focusing the action more on the battlefront and managing units in battle and less on the making of buildings and units while employing 1 of 3 pre-thought out strategies. I hear that company of heroes I think its called is similar in design to the dow series, so I'd probably like it too. Still, however, I liked the myth paradigm even better, but no one's tried to bring it back that I'm aware of, ever, while its developers went off to spend their lives working on halo and its descendants.

I did also like majesty. I might like this DOTA people talk about as well, but haven't tried it yet.

I do like sins, single player, but I almost don't even think of that as an rts, and I really ought to play it some more, I keep forgetting I have it until the weekend is almost over. Not this time! I will play you this weekend sins!

For the most part, its TBS for me. Eagerly awaiting disgea 3 to be released. My whole reason for finally getting one of these newer console systems. I'll probably spend a year playing through it.

MEH, thats what i think of when i play Starcraft. wheather its little 12 yeAR OLDS SPAMMING ZERGLINGS BEFORE YOU EVEN BUILD A BARRACKS (i wonder if anyone gets this reference)or those protoss players that literally make an impregnable definisive spot or evet the terrans that continnualy spam wraiths,marines,or nukes. Meh, that is my attitude toward "The greatest RTS in the past decade" MEH!!!

SC2 will be riding off the hype of its predecessor as well as the fame of its developers.

if theres anything to talk about it has to be Halo Wars or Tom Clancy's End War. at least those try to challenge the status quo. End War promises to be exactly what cscoles might want, which is actual command rather than micromanagement on the scale of other games through the X-box 360 mic set.

Halo Wars promise a cool and smooth flow of battle (reminicent of Rise of Nations:ROL)which focuses more on epic battles than base building, allowing players to raise armies faster than you can say Beans and Beef!