If This Was A Different World...

David this post really did make me rethink about buying it. today I went to the mall and saw it everywhere, but debated not to buy it yet. Now I think Ive decided to wait till they release another battlechest and get all three, even if it takes them 5 years to come out with it. And if not that, at least a little while till the price drops. I love RTS games but I am terrible at most of them, including StarCraft because it takes a lot of skill, consentration and practice.

Maybe Ill save my money for Black Ops, or Reach, or maybe even Diablo 3, this is if it comes out this year which i heavily doubt.

(little typo in 3rd paragraph) I'm the same way with RTS genre myself. I see the glory but the road itself is a bit too steep to climb, where when I look to the side I see short, little 6-10 hour story hump hills to walk over.

While there is a hearty storyline, in the end these multi-player heavy games rely on time and perseverance. For myself, it was FFXI, 2142, and L4D for 1 year + minimum. Yet, it pushed me behind the curve on current/past gen (playing Bioshock for the first time now!)

The casual audience is just going to want to keep with the the changing of times, not hunker down over the game for months to be "decent" online. Few games override this, but thats mainly due to the mainstream of the series (IE: Halo).

Hopefully the RTS fans love the poop out of this game. This is really for them.

I disagree with you about the RTS genre being dead. There are tons of great RTS games on the PC that people still play to this day. It's a very competitive genre by nature, as you said in your post, but that hyper-competitive nature lends itself to a fairly sizable community who discuss news strategies and timings and tactics all the time.

As Korea has shown, RTS games are great for cybersports, even moreso than shooters and fighting games. Matches are exciting and varied, and there's plenty of depth to the genre. Korean Pro Starcraft players are the best gamers in the world, and that's because the game requires so many different things: micromanagement, base building, multitasking, anticipating your opponent.

I, too, suck at Starcraft and Starcraft II, but I'm planning on picking it up. RTS is the one genre that I've never really broken into in a big way. You're right, it will be a long road before I'm anywhere near decent at the game, but I'm going to try. I wholeheartedly understand your concerns, and other than your proclamation that RTS games are dead, I can see where you're coming from. Good post.

That may make an interesting Top 5: Top 5 games you wish had better learning curves, or maybe Top 5 games you wish you had the patience for so you could get better.

David, Starcraft 2 is actually supposed to have a REALLY good campaign this time around, it not just "Build a base and kill stuff" anymore. I'm not sure about much else but that's what I've heard so far, there are also some RPG elements as well and you get to permanently upgrade your units. If you don't want to learn how to play Multiplayer by getting your ass kicked multiple times, there is supposed to be some training mode that gives you certain restriction like not being able to use your mouse for actions and instead, be forced to use the keyboard and learn the hotkeys and other things.

I agree that RTS has a steep learning curve, but SC2 has come a long way from SC1. You may not have the insane APM that hardcore players do, but SC2 has made the game a hell of a lot easier for new players too.

I played some of the beta, and let me explain some of the new simple features:

1. Able to select squad sizes greater than 12 units, actually, you can select your entire army now.

2. Simpler micro-management. Now when you tell your Infestors to fungal growth some shit or your High Templars to storm some shit, each press, regardless of the number of units of that type in the squad, uses 1 of that squad's unit abilities, IE, if you have 10 High Templars, and you use Psi-Storm, you get exactly one Psi-Storm. The game then auto rotates between your Templars for each use of the ability so when you Psi-Storm again, it's a different unit casting it. If these spellcasting units are clumped in with other units, you can still use their abilities.

3. Rally point improvements. You can now set rallypoints for your main base straight to a mineral patch or gas extractor. The gatherers now auto harvest when you do so.

4. Auto cast added from WarCraft, where you can set things like SCVs to auto repair, so if they know they're in the vicinity of hurt mechs or buildings, they'll fix it up, without your input.

A lot of micro management in SC2 has been made easier, while not reducing the challenge that many SC veterans enjoyed. I find SC2 a lot easier to get into, and be good at, while not reducing the strategy and enjoyment that SC1 provided.

"It’s an RTS. As much as I respect and admire the original StarCraft and it’s expansion, that genre is nearly dead in the water. It’ll have a huge learning curve and I wonder how many current generation players will open themselves to the experience."

Dumbest thing I have ever read. I started playing C&C games when I was 6-7, without a problem. Starcraft 2 is as simple, of not even more simple, then Starcraft 1. They are both very simple RTS games, they are easier to learn then a 3D fps game. I know, cause I watched my 7 year old cousin playing them both for the first time.

And anyway. THE reason for getting Starcraft 2:

The editor is INSANE. We will see AMAZING maps in the coming weeks. You can even make a third person shooter with their editor. Imagine the maps we'll see a year from now. Just youtube search for Starcraft 2 maps, there are already amazing maps. See this for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rm4_T5QU9E

I agree with a lot of you're points David, ecspecially with the fact that I'm not at all great with RTS games, leading me to lose my interest in almost all RTS games and that lack of interest lead me to never playing Starcraft 1, and Starcraft 2 has really pulled me in with it's story and characters but.. where would I go with the holes in the story due to missing the first game and my lack of interest in the genre? I am still considering buying the game but im worried that this could turn out to be an hour thing and me to quickly lose interest and place it on my shelf to collect dust.

"We all know that nostalgia can fuel game sales anymore and as we’ve learned this generation, game players don’t get excited about the same things."
Actually it's the exact opposite. You see Nintendo do this with every game ever.

David there are a few reasons that you should consider getting SC2 now rather than later;

You say you're worried about the learning curve (which others have shown to be a moot point) but specifically you're worried about having to get good to be competitive and therefore have a good time with the multiplayer.

If you're worried about getting trounced by others online, then don't even think of holding off until they release a battlechest; by that time all of the beginner players and casual people will have either gotten VERY good at the game or left. It happened with Age of Mythology and pretty much every other RTS out there. Right now there are tons of people (kids) who are going to buy this game that have never played an rts or even a multiplayer game before. It's going to be a huge swelling of numbers with a good portion being beginners and people who suck at the game. Right now is the time to get it if you want to play with inexperienced people so that you can have a chance to grow in skill alongside them in fun and fair games. Sure you're going to get beaten, sometimes by a wide margin, but that problem is only going to get much much worse if you wait.

Also, since interest in the game is going to be very high, you'll have NO problem finding others in the community here that play the game and are willing to have a few casual games with you, help you with certain things etc. The most fun I've had in RTS games was when i was playing with friends, and we never spent hours trying to learn the best tactics or trying to get our actions per minute up. We never even used shortcuts! We just played the game our way and had fun.

That alone, the fact that you already have a large community willing to play should be enough, but of course there's still the editor and the fleshed out campaign. I really think you'll like it David and I hope to see you play on the feed sometime as well.

In my mind the only question for you is if you have (and are willing to spend) the money.

I feel exeactly the same way. i hate RTs, and I love story games, so heavily multiplayer based games can annoy. However, all the hype about this game, from internet and friends, made me nearly pre-order it today, one day before realeae..lol
I may even buy it tommorow...its crazy. Godamit.

I feel for you David, your missing out. I'm not a fan of RTS games and I'm not very good at them but Starcraft is just such a top of the line game and fun to play with tons of replay value, I just can't pass it up.

The main deal with the game are the custom maps, not the matchmaking multiplayer or the singleplayer. Thats what keeps players coming back for more.

Starcraft has always been about the story for me. Multiplayer was never my thing, especially when a good majority of multiplayer is a race to see who can zerg rush the other first. The single-player in the first one is also incredibly hard at points, I used cheats a good number of times to just progress through the story. Ill pick it up when they release all three campaigns together.

Cant wait for this game even though i dont really play online. I rather play the single-player campaign.

Before I pass judgement on 'episodic content' I'd like to see whether it's worth considering a full game in it's own right.

Would I consider buying this?
Well, yes, definitely.
Primarily because the online component will now include custom maps created with an editor seemingly infinitely more versatile than the Warcraft III World Editor.
The online experience doesn't have to be about matchmaking anymore, it can be about casual online gaming, one with a finite end at each map.
Where each map can be completely different to the one before it.

What I'm looking forward to, I guess, is the rumoured method of a completely distinct campaign style for each race. I think if they can extend each to be worthy of a full game, then that's brilliant, if not then they will suffer for it. Nostalgia is a double-edged sword. Old fans will simply be too disillusioned by the franchise if they're paying $60 for something which should have been in the original.

Awesome. Now that someone asks me why I'm not interested in SCII, instead of writing a huge wall of text explaining I can just point at this article and tell them to bugger off.

Just yesterday I was thinking that damn, SCII is really coming out tomorrow. Seems like there was a lot of buzz just some months ago but then it all started to avoid me it seems (or the other way around). Such a odd time of year to release a "huge" game too...

Okay, screw what I said earlier (first comment on this post, all the way at the top.). I have looked around, talked to people and done some research. I AM going to get StarCraft 2, Wings of Liberty and I think YOU should too. It will be amazing, keeping the elements of SC1 that made it fun but changing it up slightly - but not in a way that is game breaking - for the Newbs. There will be plenty of people that are getting this game and have no experience with such games that will be happy to help you out and teach you the tricks of the trade. Personally I played a lot of SC1, I wasnt especially good at it but I knew a lot of the builds for all the races and how to execute them, the trouble was if they didnt work I had no idea what to do and I got f$cked.

I'm going to buy it today, without a doubt, because I love both the story AND the multiplayer in SC2. What I don't like about SC2 is the episodic content, and no LAN availability. Even so I'm not going to pass it up. StarCraft + BW is probably my favourite game of all time. And I'm a real fan of RTS games. Many people don't like RTS and I can understand due to the learning curve etc, but I heard an analogy once, about watching RTS games contra watching f.ex Street Fighter. This was said in europe by the way, I realize that it might not work as well in the states.

"When watching street fighter, its like watching boxing, you will see who's on the losing side. Everyone gets it.

But watching RTS games is like watching baseball, its not fun until you understand the rules."

Way to cop out.

Man I love RTS, I mean I love watching... I would like to get good in RTS but when I play its so boring and I get my ass kicked all the time, its so hard for me to play, but so cool to watch