StarCraft 2 - Announced May 19th?

[bluef0x]

....and that is why you're seen as a retard in this thread.

You said WC3:SC::Glitter(sucks):GreatestMovierEVAARRR. Just quit with the analogies, you are horrible at them.

Playing BGH/UMS/Melee/7v1/2v2/1v1 doesn't matter. IT'S STARCRAFT. Shut the [censored] up with your high-and-mighty "I only play it pure." Only playing ladder is the same as only playing BGH. SC is much bigger than your favorite mode, like it or not.

[frozzor]

i will become the best starcraft 2 player in the world
mark my words

p.s. only for like a year or two, getting old -_-

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

You're more than welcome to play whatever you want, even if that thing is unmittigated crap (like a Britney Spears CD or BGH)


[/ QUOTE ]

temple for life. holla

[sightless]

Seriosly WC3 was a VERY GOOD game but far from what what SC was.


I mean what was a better game warcraft 2 or warcraft 3...

[JackWilson]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon guys, heroes making WC3 a "shallow strategic" game and "the gayest thing to happen to RTS"? I've played more than my fair share of both games and I love them both. The heroes and the smaller armies made the battles in WC3 very intense with huge amounts of micromanagement involved. Calling them shallow and claiming they ruin a game is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I don't understand why developers get crucified for trying something completely new and what turned out to be a very good game, just because it's nothing like their previous smash hit RTS.

[mrcoughman]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a subjective element to it but also a more "official" stamp as well.

A great example would be movies

Some people might really love the movie, say Glitter (staring Mariah Carey), to them it might be the greatest movie ever made.

That's all well and good, they aren't "wrong" per say, they enjoy the movie, that's fine.

However the general consensus is that it sucks.

While this is an extreme example, you get the point. Different people like different things, but a consensus opinion among the people in the know is how something is judged historically.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are "wrong" per say. But it doesn't matter because nobody liked glitter not even mariah carrey.

Oh and starcraft 2 will be pretty cool...can't wait, even though I'll probably have to for a very long time

[Dromar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
C'mon guys, heroes making WC3 a "shallow strategic" game and "the gayest thing to happen to RTS"? I've played more than my fair share of both games and I love them both. The heroes and the smaller armies made the battles in WC3 very intense with huge amounts of micromanagement involved. Calling them shallow and claiming they ruin a game is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I don't understand why developers get crucified for trying something completely new and what turned out to be a very good game, just because it's nothing like their previous smash hit RTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I understand, the reason that WC3 wasn't as well liked as it could (or should) have been is because people wanted SC2 for quite some time. When Blizzard came out with WC3, people tried to sate their SC2 hunger with WC3, and it's a much different taste. So they threw up.

I think WC3 is a great game, but I much prefer the play style of Starcraft, and I think that, in general, most gamers agree.

[UATrewqaz]

http://www.starcraftnews.com/2007/05...-gameplay.html

Details talks with several key Blizzard guys, including Rob Pardo.

[ QUOTE ]
Pardo explained that the original Starcraft arose from the team's desire to create a fast-paced real-time strategy game like Warcraft II, but in a different universe, then described how Blizzard's subsequent RTS project, 2002's Warcraft III, took a very different approach by offering slower-paced gameplay with smaller armies, hero units, and many units with activatable abilities to appeal to "the average gamer."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Pardo also suggested that Warcraft III might have been a more forgiving game for beginners--differences in skill levels seemed less pronounced in that game. The VP said that in Starcraft II, there will be many more nuances that will separate highly skilled players from beginners, and good players from great ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

And alot more if you wanna read it

[capone0]

I can see where this is coming from. I was a good maybe above average SC player back in the day. I mostly played melee games, but 1 time I recruited a guy to play in a 3v3, well a couple of times, he went by the name of Grrrr.... at the time and he has had multiple different names as well, I think he plays on Stars now but the guy pulled out moves I had never seen before. His skill level compared to us was rediculous and this is before he went pro. I don't ever imagine become rediculous at SC b/c I probally wouldn't have a social life or goto work if I did try, but I know of a huge gap in skill level between the good players and the GOSU players, they were sick in SC. I'm not as familar with WC3, but the nuances that the pros use in comparison to the noobs and even the good players is huge.

[AJFenix]

WC3 was solid, plus it spawned DOTA which I play religiously. Starcraft was the better RTS in most people's opinions, and skill edge was bigger. Bigger army with intricate abilities obv gonna be more involved and more potential to outplay opponent than smaller army with intricate abilities. SC definitely wasn't as pure macro as some people are making it out to be, its just the vast majority severely lacked micro skills in SC (even some of the "best") and those that didn't really shined. I'm kinda tired of RTS in general, but no way I'm not gonna play SC2 -_-