Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty

[Solmyr]

Since our previous topic got locked (probably due to its length), let us continue our discussion here.

I've never been rushed by a planetary fortress, but god how I hate it when a terran upgrades his natural expand in front of his base into one. Makes attacking even harder.

As cheese rushes go, toss cannon rush from low to high ground remains one of the best I've seen. Works in team matches as well.

[Alcibiades]

I guess it's not possible to do the planetary fortress rush against a zerg, eh. Because of the creep.

[Poobah]

So I'm sitting here on my laptop over 400 miles away from my PC, and realising that this laptop that played the beta fine on medium is struggling immensely to play the release even on low... wtf.

[Spring Bass]

So I'm sitting here on my laptop over 400 miles away from my PC, and realising that this laptop that played the beta fine on medium is struggling immensely to play the release even on low... wtf.

I was kind of surprised myself that the graphical and system requirements were so high for Starcraft 2. Original Starcraft was a lot more flexible - it came out in 1998, but you could run it fine on Windows 95, and it didn't take up a lot of hard drive space.

[Emery Silverstein]

I purchased this over the weekend and even though I suck something awful and get my ass handed to me, I am still having a great time.

[Emery Silverstein]

I purchased this over the weekend and even though I suck something awful and get my ass handed to me, I am still having a great time.

[Poobah]

I was kind of surprised myself that the graphical and system requirements were so high for Starcraft 2. Original Starcraft was a lot more flexible - it came out in 1998, but you could run it fine on Windows 95, and it didn't take up a lot of hard drive space.

Yeah.

This game also, judging by their tech forums, seems to cause a lot of overheating issues on even high end machines/cards. Seems like there may possibly be some performance related issue that can be patched out there.

[Alcibiades]

I'm having performance issues too, but it's mostly apple's fault. I took my laptop from 2 to 4 gigs, which helped a lot. Now I just need for apple to hurry up and get the gfx fix and driver update out.

[Jon AS]

The crazy world of Starcraft online matches isn't for me, but I very much enjoyed the campaign. The plot and writing are certainly nothing special (and reading the link someone posted about the ultimate bad guy of the games made me cringe). Of course, apart from the writing the storytelling isn't helped by the fact that ultimately the gameplay is stuck at the Dune 2 paradigm. A more innovative approach to RTS gaming would have helped immensely, but of course Blizzard doesn't really do innovation and there is no way they could have gotten away with changing the game in such a fashion anyway.

Since I couldn't start the secret mission after finishing the campaign, I had to start over and became somewhat obsessed with achievements. The one that's giving me real trouble is the last Mar Sara mission, Zero Hour. I simply can't seem to find a way to destroy those Zerg bases. I can produce a ton of marines, but when I march up to any of the bases they get stuck at the entrance, beset on all sides by zerglings and hydralisks while the spine crawlers do damage from the rear. Even if I manage to destroy 1 base I lose way too many in the process to be able to take on any of the others. Does anyone have suggestions on how to do this? I feel rather stupid since tactical options in that level are quite limited...

Yeah.

This game also, judging by their tech forums, seems to cause a lot of overheating issues on even high end machines/cards. Seems like there may possibly be some performance related issue that can be patched out there.

I thought the overheating had to do with the menu screens not being frame rate locked? I know that the fans on my card start spinning like crazy if I let the game sit on one for a minute or so. It's a bug, but not really performance related.

[Solmyr]

Hmm, am I the only one who runs sc2 on a 3+ year old laptop and is satisfied with the performance 99% of the time? :D

To be more precise: 2gb ram (old, crappy), 1.86ghz core duo, gforce 7600go 256mb.

That lovely piece of junk runs all the games for me and although I will soon have the money I cannot even contemplate the idea of upgrading to a new laptop. We have history ... :ohwell:

Ofc, everything is on low and sometimes when I haven't restarted for 24+ hours and have firefox with infinity+ tabs open and some other crap running I feel delays in 4v4 game battles. Apart from that it's fine.

The moral is, most pcs have the hardware capacity to run sc2, but you need to pay attention software-wise. If your laptop lacks ram, downgrade to XP (Vista and 7 are bullshit!), if you lack processor power - clean your damn fan. You'll see a difference ;). If you lack video card power (even on low) - upgrade. No way around this.

On a more sc2 related note, I haven't played for 5 days now. I have to log and check how far back in the ladder I've fallen. If they've kicked me from diamond I'm gonna be pissed :angry2:

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Blizzard doesn't really do innovation

Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 would like to have a word with you.

[Alcibiades]

Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 would like to have a word with you.

Ha. Diablo 1 might have been innovative. That's about it. Blizzard is mostly about refining existing concepts.

[jurble]

Dunno War 3 was completely different than other RTS's.

[The Pita]

After a lot more play and a lot more reading, I've gotten to the conclusion that, for now, SC2 isn't as good as SC1+BW.

You're a lot less involved in this campaign than you were in the previous one. The really important things happen in cutscenes (Raynor leaving the planet, Raynor meeting Valerian) unlike the previous game, in which you did epic things in the mission, like destroying the overmind or the Ion Cannon, or stealing the Ghost data from the Amerigo. The cinematics either showed an additional dimension to what you did (like Tassadar killing the Overmind) or another plot point that they couldn't have in a mission (Fenix getting killed by Hydralisks, Mengsk's Inaugural speech). Also, the dialogue in the new game is horrifying compared to the older one (The best line in SC2 is without a doubt "I will rule this sector or see it burned to ashes around me", which was a direct quote from SC). The older campaign is a little disjointed, but so is the new one. I did the missions for each person in order. First the Hanson missions, then the Horner missions, then Tosh, then Tychus, and it was still very disjointed. I imagine the effect is even worse if you mix it up.

The old game is much more balanced than the new one, although I fully understand that was the product of 10 years of work and that when it came out it was unbalanced like the new one.

I also really miss Lurkers. Roaches suck. They should've just brought Lurkers back.

And the Battle Net... the less said, the better.

The cool things about the new one are some of the new units (Roaches suck, and corruptors aren't as cool as Devourers, but Brood Lords and Infestors are frickin awesome, Banelings are cool, and I'm in love with Thors. THOH IS HE-AH! Both cliffwalkers are awesome for different reasons) and some of the updates to old maps, like Special Forces.

Of course, this is only as far as Zerg or Protoss are concerned. Terran is kind of ridiculously awesome now, what with the Tech Lab/Reactor addition, some of the most awesome new units (Thor, Reaper, Viking), and the fact that they removed Vultures, for which I have an unnatural hate. Don't know why.

[Jon AS]

Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 would like to have a word with you.

Diablo is the only one of those games that deserves to be called "innovative". The other two series are just refinements of a formula established in Dune 2, or possibly an earlier game I'm not aware of.

Innovation isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes ot video games. Starcraft 2 is a perfect example for a quality game that presents not much more than cosmetic changes when compared to its predecessor. I'm just saying that there are instances in the game where this lack of innovation is more apparent than others, and in those instances it feels like the game is limited by the established formula.

[Tyrellius]

Blizzard doesn't really do innovation and there is no way they could have gotten away with changing the game in such a fashion anyway.

Gotta agree with the emboldened part, Starcraft II wouldnt have been the game to introduce new ways of gathering. Give us minerals, probes, vespene gas and toys to throw at each other.

I would have been miffed if SC2 had been a different game.

Played a lot of 1vs1 and 2vs2 this weekend, 1vs1 did pretty damn well till I hit a series of zerg players that 6pooled me while I was trying to rush out voidrays. In fact I lost so many matches to that cheese I always zealot/stalker up when playing zerg nowadays.

2vs2 I am only bronze, you'd think you'd be able to steam through bronze matches, but the biggest handicap in bronze 2vs2, is the other player. Best matches in 2s I've had is when my team mate dc'es in the first couple of minutes.

3's and 4's are always good fun, feel I should be doing better in 2's though :/

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, I think Tycho had a good post about this on Penny Arcade a little while back:

I eventually played enough Starcraft that I wanted to try Company of Heroes Online or reinstall one of the Dawn of War games, which I'm sure is an act of villainy. It's very difficult not to be tantalized (read: manipulated) by the presentation of this software, and I've chosen to be manipulated for my own entertainment, enjoyment, and return on investment, but that is is a matter quite apart from being ignorant of the gulf between Starcraft II and what constitutes the state of the art.

Again: you can't not like it. I'm not an absolute jerk. They've leveraged the oldest verbs of RTS to give us a highly calculated, almost algorithmically "satisfying" form of amusement. But to the extent that the game is different - outside of the Wing Commander cribbing and the rancid script - those differences are beyond my level of play.

Warcraft III was, by comparison, chockablock with innovations and crazy bullshit - the sort of prayerful long pass that a company with Blizzard's talent and resources can bring to fruition. I don't know who else is supposed to take these chances. Beyond its narrative strengths, which were manifold, its technological and philosophical bones gave rise to Defense of the Ancients, which I've argued constitutes an entirely new genre. It was a game so bold that it contained games within it. Where is that bold heart?

For the consumer, maybe "polish" is - as an ideal - the highest calling of the medium. I'm not satisfied with that. At our best we advocate with our selections, curating it thereby. In that spirit, let us be clear with one another. We may call Starcraft II "old school," the electronic equivalent of comfort food, and these things are not untrue in the particulars. But there is a safety in thought and deed here that borders on cowardice.

And War3 is usually considered Blizzard's weakest RTS offering. Every patch diminished the importance of creeping with your hero. At the end, it was just RTS with fewer units, plus the heroes.

[jurble]

Diablo is the only one of those games that deserves to be called "innovative". The other two series are just refinements of a formula established in Dune 2, or possibly an earlier game I'm not aware of.

Innovation isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes ot video games. Starcraft 2 is a perfect example for a quality game that presents not much more than cosmetic changes when compared to its predecessor. I'm just saying that there are instances in the game where this lack of innovation is more apparent than others, and in those instances it feels like the game is limited by the established formula.

Diablo is just a Roguelike clone, it's the least innovative of all the games Blizzard did. The difference between StarCraft and Dune 2 is massive. Unit control, organization, control groups, queuing, etc made StarCraft completely different than previous rts's. Warcraft 2's unit control was awful, and it was pretty much Dune 2 in Fantasy-land.

WarCraft 3 was massive change in RTS's, with the hero, and creep grinding. WarCraft 3 is the most micro intensive RTS ever.

[Solmyr]

I agree with almost everything, but this ...

Roaches suck, and corruptors aren't as cool as Devourers

... gives me the chills. Have you actually tried those 2 units in multiplayer? They are probably the most useful 2 in the entire zerg arsenal.

Roaches is too easy - anyone can give you the theory why they own (zerg needed such a unit).

Corruptors are much more awesome than devourers. Compare the cost. Then compare when the unit can be produced (spire VS greater spire). Then add the active ability, which allows several corruptors to overwhelm a few large aircrafts (b-cruisers, carriers, colossi) without sustaining losses due to focus fire and kiting. And as soon as you clear the air you morph into the incredible brood lords and clear the ground as well. The only thing missing is the devourer passive ability, but it rarely came in useful, since you needed to stack devourers, which was nearly impossible in 1v1.

How many races have a unit like the corruptor? The only comparable unit in terms of awesomeness is the Viking, but stacking vikings rarely pays off, not to mention terran cannot produce them as fast as a zerg can corruptors, if the need arises. Toss doesn't have any equivalent.

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, Devourers were near useless. I rarely saw them in pro SC1 play. Sometimes you'd see them, but when you did, it was usually someone really working outside established zerg norms. Part of this might have been because mutalisks were so great in sc1. Corrupters, however, hard counter colossi, a unit you'll often see in ZvP.