What's so great about Starcraft 2?

[Unarmed]

I am wondering about this a long time. I don't understand why Starcraft 2 is rated so high and why it is so popular. Could anybody enlighten me?

No offense, but if I judge on the reviews I read and the videos I have seen I'm like, hmmm... seems well-made, but not great. I can't even enjoy watching Starcraft 2 matches, something I can do with other games I don't own like Dawn of War 2.

Where are the revolutionary new features? Is this game so well-made that it does not need them?

Not to upset fans of this game, but I am honestly curious. To me it looks like a decent game for it's kind, but not great.

If somebody knows a great review that explains this or can tell me clearly. Much appreciated.

I'm going to do another search again, because I'm really curious.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unarmed

[Shield Bearer]

I didn't find StarCraft II all that great. It has some unique civs and all, but in my opinion things could have been done much better. The first StarCraft still shines for me though.

[Unarmed]

I didn't find StarCraft II all that great. It has some unique civs and all, but in my opinion things could have been done much better. The first StarCraft still shines for me though.

Thinking of trying out the first one if there's a demo. Only really know Starcraft from greatest strategies of all time where it was ranked very high and Korea TV. All of my friends that liked strategy games played Age of Empires 1 & 2 back in the day. I've never heard them talking about Starcraft.

I watched this. The combat looks horrible to be honest compared to Dawn of War 2 (the effects are nice, but not the actual combat). But that's coming from a Company of Heroes player. It's funny, I read some critical reviews and a lot of them were Company of Hero players that complain about there not being cover. I don't think that's a fair critique, not all games must have a cover system. But something like units only being able to fire stationary I agree on, that's really something of the past in my opinion. It looks very silly. (I guess 0 A.D. has this, hehe, but that's different, it's not a commercial project and I think it is already exceptionally great for a voluntary project) But maybe this is done for gameplay reasons.

A lot of critical reviews are garbage, complaining about minor things. There are also quite some reviews that say the game is basicly the original but with better graphics. Sort of what I thought.

This game does not look bad at all to me, but I'm not sure if it deserves a 9, a 7 or 8 seems much more fair. Some games are punished by reviewers for not being revolutionary and refreshing (think the Worms series I enjoy, but I only play Armageddon).

It's a smart move from Blizzard though to not change the game too much. That makes it so great for E-sports I think. Some changes can go very wrong, like CnC 4.

[RedFox]

Having played all the AoE series games and also all the Starcraft series games, I must say that where AoE series tries to immerse in the epic history of mankind, Starcraft focuses on unprecedentedly fluent and balanced gameplay. This is why there are so many tournaments for even Starcraft - Brood War, which is 13 years old.

Combat itself isn't horrible at all. It's actually very well balanced in the sense of every unit having some sort of counter unit. Due to this you can formulate a strategy or 'build' for your game. Learning to improve and adapt this makes for great strategic play.

What makes it fun to watch is the quick pace of the game - the early pushes usually happen around 4-5 minutes into the game. So it's not about turtling. It's about great tactics and strategic decisions - making it very fun to watch if you can follow what's going on.

In the end of the day though, all people have different tastes. I personally really enjoy all sorts of different strategy games - all for different reasons. For me comparing AoE vs Starcraft is like comparing Rome - Total War vs Total Annihilation.

[alpha123]

One of the things that makes Starcraft (both 1 & 2) great is that it's extremely simple. It's a fast-paced game of strategy and skill, which makes it both fun to watch and fun to play. There are no complicated rules to keep in mind, but the game is still very difficult to play. In particular, Starcraft 2 makes macro as skillful as micro (this wasn't the case in Brood War, where do to all the oddities of the engine good micro was extremely difficult) which is something I haven't seen in other RTS games. Each race in Starcraft has its own "macro mechanic," which adds a lot of extra skill to the game. Being able to inject larvae or chrono boost extra Colossi while in a heated battle separates the good players from the weak ones. Age of Empires-type games have nothing like this; just keep your buildings training and claim new resource locations occasionally and you'll be fine.

Another thing is that every unit has its use. Even the earliest units are useful until the end of the game. Also, each unit has a counter, so if you can scout your opponent and see what units they are making you can create units to destroy those easily. This makes scouting more important in Starcraft than most games, and finding and killing enemy spies (such as Observers or Changelings) is very important. Continually gathering intelligence on the enemy and making sure they can't do the same to you is difficult yet necessary to be a strong player. I've even seen some pros fake out the opponent, making them build units to counter a specific build when in fact the player did something entirely different.

Then of course there are the completely different and yet well-balanced races. I haven't seen another RTS that pulls this off half as well as Starcraft 2 (which IMO didn't pull it off quite as well as SC:BW).

Really there's nothing novel about Starcraft (except possibly its treatment of high ground and cliffs), but the execution is almost flawless. The simplicity combined with strategic depth makes Starcraft fun to play and fun to watch.

[Unarmed]

Combat itself isn't horrible at all. It's actually very well balanced in the sense of every unit having some sort of counter unit. Due to this you can formulate a strategy or 'build' for your game. Learning to improve and adapt this makes for great strategic play.

Well I mean the combat looks visually really bad. Units go into eachother, it doesn't look like they are fighting with eachother etc. I guess it's not really important for such a game but it does bother me. It's important to get immersed into the game and make the game feel authentic, though I guess Starcraft is more a game game that does not try to feel "real".

That said, I don't like the combat. Even like you described it. I dislike rock paper sciccors, if it is like; A will always beat C.

That's why I was a fan of the Total Annihilation demo and am a big fan of Company of Heroes; they are different. Since I only played the demo and read about the system of Annihilation I can't really speak about that. But Company of Heroes has rock paper sciccors; anti-tank is good against anti-tank, anti-infantry is good against infantry. In that game you can't use a anti-tank gun to counter a bunch of infantry. But if you want to destroy a tank, you have so much options.

Even in Company of Heroes there are tons of strategies and openings I'm sure Starcraft 2 has. But in Company of Heroes it is not a game winner. It's all about how you use your units. Someone with two panthers and a tiger (strong and heavy tanks if you are not familiar with it) can still lose from me with a bunch of infantry and several anti-tank guns. I get a kick out of that. I never play strategies in Company of Heroes, well only for the openings, and did have more wins as losses but note that I was never very high ranked.

Maybe I misunderstood. Building a bunch of units and keeping in check what they counter is fine. But the idea of having to build a particular unit because my opponent makes a particular unit seems like very boring. But that's just my personal opinion.

Anyway, that's not why I'm wondering why this game is so high rated. Different games appeal to different people. But how can a game that does nothing new get more as a 9? That baffles me, since so many games are punished for not being refreshing or revolutionary.

In the end of the day though, all people have different tastes. I personally really enjoy all sorts of different strategy games - all for different reasons. For me comparing AoE vs Starcraft is like comparing Rome - Total War vs Total Annihilation.

Well I wasn't really comparing, but since I have played mainly Age of Empires games and on the other side Company of Heroes, I will likely compare without actually comparing (I couldn't remember the word to describe this)

What I don't get is that it offers nothing new, yet it is rated very high.

Total Annihilation was a great game, though I've only played the demo. It looked great, was different, the combat was great. Supreme Commander tried at least to get bigger, while Starcraft 2 seems like it is just the same game with a few new gimmicks and enhanced graphics.

I'm not really questioning why Starcraft 2 is enjoyable, but I'm questioning why it is rated so high when it does nothing really new. It seems to me it just:

-graphics enhanced

-a few units added

-some rpg elements added

-new campaign

I watched to video reviews and appearently they made some great variation in missions. I think that surely deserve some points. (it makes me remember Seven Kingdoms missions which were also very diverse, inspires me to make scenarios for 0 A.D. that would be very different than we have now) The campaign also seems really well-done (except for the story).

Really there's nothing novel about Starcraft (except possibly its treatment of high ground and cliffs), but the execution is almost flawless. The simplicity combined with strategic depth makes Starcraft fun to play and fun to watch.

On the other hand, alpha123, you make it very clear to me, that Starcraft 2 could not really add anything new or revolutionary. On the other hand, I haven't read of new game modes or co-op missions or stuff like that (things that do not change the gameplay but do add to the game).

So I'm still confused why this is not a 8.5 but a 9.5 according to most.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unarmed

[RedFox]

So I'm still confused why this is not a 8.5 but a 9.5 according to most.

That's probably because StarCraft II is a very well polished game. Everything about it is fluent, smooth and logical. There are no obvious glitches, performance issues or gameplay annoyances. It just feels natural? Now that's a very very well designed game. That's why it got 9.5.

We can weight the pros/cons all day, but unless you actually play it, you won't ever really know.

So my suggestion: play the game. That way you'll have a definite experience to compare against other titles.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I would call Starcraft an "arcade RTS" or "action RTS." Super-fast clicking and hotkey management, insane battle micro, and simplistic build orders and countering. It's all meant to push the player into a frenzy of break-neck decisions that, to me, puts it into a kind of "arcade" category. Yes, there can be complex tactics and strategies, but those usually only come to play in the long game where players are evenly matched. In reality, most matches only last maybe 10-20 minutes and one side gets completely annihilated very quickly by the other side because the winning side executes the right build order with fewer mistakes. Resources and maps are also very very symmetrical and are specifically designed for tournament play. HuskyStarcraft game casts aren't good examples for what actually happens in most games between most players because these professional casters only cast the very best match-ups with evenly-matched top tier players. Starcraft is all about action and a few simple mistakes makes you very very dead. In Starcraft's chosen type of gameplay, you won't find a much better example.

Whether all of this is good or bad depends on what kind of player you are and what you want from a strategy game. I think it all works just fine for the genre and theme of the game: fantasy/sci-fi, but doesn't work well for an historically-themed game like Age of Empires or 0 A.D. I suggest those who want to play a Starcraft-style game to go ahead and go play Starcraft. 0 A.D. is meant to be a game where you build towns and cities, grab territory, and progress through stages of development. I generally feel very cheated if an Age of Kings or 0 A.D. match lasts less than 20 minutes, but 20 minutes seems to be around the upper range for a Starcraft match. That's not to say we couldn't learn any lessons from Starcraft's game design and gameplay. The balance is excellent, even with unique races, so there are lessons to be gleaned there.

[Pureon]

All I know is it was overheating my computer more than any other game has since, so I had to stop playing it after a few days. Shame I wasted my £30.

It's got a good story, very unique civs, nice graphics, and is easily mod-able. It has a lot going for it.

[Unarmed]

That's probably because StarCraft II is a very well polished game. Everything about it is fluent, smooth and logical. There are no obvious glitches, performance issues or gameplay annoyances. It just feels natural? Now that's a very very well designed game. That's why it got 9.5.

Yeah, for example Company of Heroes. I love the game, great campaign, great game design, great gameplay. However;

The factions are poorly designed in my opinion, and there are balance issues. One thing I hated (yes hated, because it can be frustating in competive play), is how one faction could buy experience while others needed to gain it. It wouldn't be that bad but the elite units are super humans, making it very hard to beat this faction late game.

So I guess Starcraft 2 could get another 0.5, but what about the other 0.5?

and is easily mod-able.

Fun fact: I always first check out if there are plenty of mods for a game before I buy it. One of the reasons I bought Battlefield 2 and Company of Heroes was this.

I would call Starcraft an "arcade RTS" or "action RTS." Super-fast clicking and hotkey management, insane battle micro, and simplistic build orders and countering. It's all meant to push the player into a frenzy of break-neck decisions that, to me, puts it into a kind of "arcade" category. Yes, there can be complex tactics and strategies, but those usually only come to play in the long game where players are evenly matched. In reality, most matches only last maybe 10-20 minutes and one side gets completely annihilated very quickly by the other side because the winning side executes the right build order with fewer mistakes. Resources and maps are also very very symmetrical and are specifically designed for tournament play. HuskyStarcraft game casts aren't good examples for what actually happens in most games between most players because these professional casters only cast the very best match-ups with evenly-matched top tier players. Starcraft is all about action and a few simple mistakes makes you very very dead. In Starcraft's chosen type of gameplay, you won't find a much better example.

It's very game-like, not immersive like you would want a historical game to be. I'm not sure what you can compare it to, maybe something like ping-pong.

And yeah I've watched Koreans play this, and I got the same impression while I haven't played it. In Company of Heroes I need to be fast, but I can't imagine myself playing Starcraft 2 with pro-gamers. I guess though you can choose to play with less serious players to make it not too much like what you described.

It does not appeal to me, but I can understand it appeals to others. (though I should really try out the demo!) I guess I can understand it's popularity, but not it's critical rating.

And for 0 A.D. I would personally like it to be neither like Starcraft or Company of Heroes. But instead take inspiration, and features from it what could work for 0 A.D. Like you said Mythos:

Whether all of this is good or bad depends on what kind of player you are and what you want from a strategy game. I think it all works just fine for the genre and theme of the game: fantasy/sci-fi, but doesn't work well for an historically-themed game like Age of Empires or 0 A.D. I suggest those who want to play a Starcraft-style game to go ahead and go play Starcraft. 0 A.D. is meant to be a game where you build towns and cities, grab territory, and progress through stages of development. I generally feel very cheated if an Age of Kings or 0 A.D. match lasts less than 20 minutes, but 20 minutes seems to be around the upper range for a Starcraft match. That's not to say we couldn't learn any lessons from Starcraft's game design and gameplay. The balance is excellent, even with unique races, so there are lessons to be gleaned there.

I imagine 0 A.D. to be Age of Kings at it's core, but with features taken from other games like I saw in the design document (if it wasn't in the design document I would have suggested it, but since I played other games, I would have came up with different ones), and of course original ideas. And compared to Age of Kings it becomes much more immersive and authentic; with authentic real-like maps (but fun maps if you like) and historical accurate factions and unique factions.

I personally prefer it more like; "you win how you use units" instead of "you win what you build". I guess a healthy middleground is the best. And I feel like some fields could be explored more, like diplomacy (something that you don't want in Starcraft). And with a team lock option this should not be a issue.

It's going to be really interesting to see what kind of non-total conversion mods become popular when 0 A.D. reaches it's release date. Realism? Competitive (balance)?

For Battlefield 2, the most popular mod was a realistic mod. For Company of Heroes it is a mod with a added faction. Guess what the most popular mod on Moddb right now is... a mod with scarcely clad women for Rome Total War. Though I guess it's much more than that.

I see Starcraft 2 has a demo, will try it out when my computer is back.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

The special bailie set are for me the best and graphics animation in Sc2 like Zealots cut off terrant body parts. The abilities like charges of zealots, The ghost abilities sniper ability, I like special ops units. May we can have assassins and spy and have other units like engineers they have abilities to build siege bolt shooters in the battlefield. The game have very good art. I mean visual effects. The deaths are adequately with the attack. Example if you are burned by unit the death animations is fire and units fall burned.

I love map design of the game very balanced and some simetrical in multiplayer a maps.

Transport units aren't based in units number , are based in size of the units. Even Carriers can imitates with throw boxes or barrels with bees inside, that unconventional war.

Of course, there are plenty of instances when bees have been used in the more obvious way, as "meat-seeking missiles". The Romans, for instance, having prudently learned not to exact a tax of honey in Asia Minor also learned, in the great Roman tradition of imitation and innovation, to use bees in the wars they waged. They were less deceptive in this than the Heptakometes, however, and instead of employing the subterfuge of poisoned honey they simply sent beehives catapulting into the ranks or fortifications of their enemies. The unleashed fury of the bees, enraged when their hives were smashed, is credited with being the decisive stroke of more than one battle. Turn-about being fair play the Dacians, of what is today Romania, defeated the armored legions of Rome, at least temporarily, with their own salvo of skeps

sorry for the topic off.

and Mythos is exactly good review, is Action arcade style no too much realistic and very fast. Is boring if you play many matches, repetitive that why is good propose alternative gameplay, many ways to win a match. Even Diplomacy, the Diplomacy is the weakness of this game.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Unarmed]

The special bailie set are for me the best and graphics animation in Sc2 like Zealots cut off terrant body parts. The abilities like charges of zealots, The ghost abilities sniper ability, I like special ops units. May we can have assassins and spy and have other units like engineers they have abilities to build siege bolt shooters in the battlefield. The game have very good art. I mean visual effects. The deaths are adequately with the attack. Example if you are burned by unit the death animations is fire and units fall burned.

I love map design of the game very balanced and some simetrical in multiplayer a maps.

Transport units aren't based in units number , are based in size of the units. Even Carriers can imitates with throw boxes or barrels with bees inside, that unconventional war.

sorry for the topic off.

and Mythos is exactly good review, is Action arcade style no too much realistic and very fast. Is boring if you play many matches, repetitive that why is good propose alternative gameplay, many ways to win a match. Even Diplomacy, the Diplomacy is the weakness of this game.

No I don't mind the off-topic since this is the off-topic section anyway. And I went off-topic myself too.

Unless we go really off-topic I'm not bothered.

You give some nice points what makes Starcraft 2 enjoyable. Though I can't figure out why it is rated so high. Even the first game was not rated a 9.

Yet this one is pretty much the same (not to say the improvements aren't good), and is rated very high.

The bees, funny that you mention that. I was almost going to buy a book called "Sixth Legged Soldiers" which was about insects used in war. I read reviews and parts of the book that were free to read and bees was one of the things. I read that because of the Romans, the bee population started to shrink.

Have you heard of the snakes and scorpions in pots used on ships? Hannibal was the one using poisonous snakes.

Bees would be very nice to have and unique by the way.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The animation can be Particle , if you remember the Prophet in Empire Earth is almost similar animation that I have in mind.

Terran and zergs have mobile buildings, very similar to idea of barbarian Nomad buildings.

The terrant mule is very interesting unit, some time ago imagine that units as a possible slave unit. Die after a few minutes, but works more faster.

And final feature that work here, is Terran attached buildings thinks in farmstead attached with a mill in some faction. Or attach a training camp to have double units like Terran barracks. Attach defenses for civic centre. Or attach spikes to palisades (in atlas are actually some spikes as eyecandy) or attach other buildings in order have a bonus in storehouse a Lumberjack building or mining buildings. 5% and a limit of 7.

[FeXoR]

Having played all the AoE series games and also all the Starcraft series games, I must say that where AoE series tries to immerse in the epic history of mankind, Starcraft focuses on unprecedentedly fluent and balanced gameplay. This is why there are so many tournaments for even Starcraft - Brood War, which is 13 years old.

Combat itself isn't horrible at all. It's actually very well balanced in the sense of every unit having some sort of counter unit. Due to this you can formulate a strategy or 'build' for your game. Learning to improve and adapt this makes for great strategic play.

What makes it fun to watch is the quick pace of the game - the early pushes usually happen around 4-5 minutes into the game. So it's not about turtling. It's about great tactics and strategic decisions - making it very fun to watch if you can follow what's going on.

In the end of the day though, all people have different tastes. I personally really enjoy all sorts of different strategy games - all for different reasons. For me comparing AoE vs Starcraft is like comparing Rome - Total War vs Total Annihilation.

I was thinking of answering this topic but you more or less hit what I had to say.

Anyway, some additions:

The priority of Blizzard RTS games (with it's maximum at Starcraft - Broodwars) is set to fluid gameplay, faction diversity and balance, modability, a mixed micro and macro management play style and action from about minute 5 to 30 (30 min is about the time a game lasts, so quite fast for an RTS game).

To enable the developers to reach these goals things has to be kept simple. This includes the game rules (no arbitrary or extreme bonuses but bonuses based on size (starcraft) or armor type (warcraft) of about 25%), the "physics" (all projectiles are "missiles" even arrows and all melee attacks hit despite the distance to the target when the damage is calculated - physics are only used for graphic representation), maps (all blizzard games are tile based, buildings are placed on a grid to enable the player to fast and accurate build his base, map "topology" (for gameplay) only depends on cliff height - the "topology" is only for visuals again) and viewport (despite the fact they are 3D they still "lock" the camera to a specific angle to not confuse the player) so gameplay and graphics are as far as possible "unlinked".The Number of different things that can be build per faction is high enough to have great diversity but as low as possible so they can still be balanced - about 8 buildings and 12 units.

Before Starcraft the general RTS game experience for developers was not high enough to do those things. After starcraft things went 3D - which was maybe necessary to fulfill the mainstreams demands but quite questionable in sense of gameplay. However, Warcraft III (Blizzards first 3D RTS) had much lower population cap than any other RTS I know to keep things fluent - the game is in average won with only 15 combat units. That way micro management became much more vital. The map editor of WC3 on the other hand made a huge jump - by far the most powerful game tool I have seen until that time and still only met by the starcraft II map editor.

However, those are games much different from 0 A.D. and that's good! 0 A.D. is a build up strategy game as Age of empires II - Age of Kings/Age of Conquerors (the best of it's type until now IMO) and not an action RTS game like those of blizzard.

Edited July 2, 2013 by FeXoR

[Unarmed]

So let's summarize: It's a completely different game, so I should not try to compare it. For it's kind it is, exceptionally great. The game is balanced and has little issues.

But why the high rating from critics? From fans I can understand, but if say Team17 made a true sequel to Worms: Armageddon.

And this game is totally flawless, better graphics, everything from the original game and a few gameplay additions. I think the fans would be pleased since to the majority and also me Worms: Armageddon is flawless, and so even I might buy it.

But I can imagine the review titles like I have seen with Worms Revolution and Worms Reloaded "Worms X, more of the same" "Worms X, solid but nothing new". Now these games actually removed some features from Worms: Armageddon, so I can understand the reviewers gave them not very high ratings. But even so, most critics complain that the Worms series does nothing new.

Why is it okay for Starcraft to stay pretty much the same but is the Worms series punished for being nothing new? True, the newest of the Worms series do not have such high quality as Starcraft 2.

However it still puzzles me.

[Mythos_Ruler]

It's just very polished and fast-paced and balanced and has flashy graphics. That's the summary.

[Unarmed]

It's just very polished and fast-paced and balanced and has flashy graphics. That's the summary.

I guess that's it. I may never understand it, but I suppose that's the best answer I'll get!

[Don]

I showed StarCraft to some friends at a LAN party once. That was at noon. We finally went home at about 11 p.m. having played nonstop the whole time, and then our host stayed up all night playing after we left. There's just something about it. I never felt I had more than scratched the surface of all the available strategies.

Since all my previous RTS experience has been with Blizzard games, the hardest thing to get used to in 0ad has been the fact that I don't get killed in the first ten minutes.

[Lion.Kanzen]

When first time I was play Starcraft, a friend tell me : Starcraft is not a defensive game, don't waste time building defensive structures.

[eduh]

Many of you don't really understand about what Starcraft 2 is about.

The story is just an excuse to create a Sport. A mental sport, like chess. Pros go like to 350 actions per minute, and they can multitask up to maybe 7 different things in one minute, especially zergs, (larva inject, expand creep, upgrade, create and administrate bases and drones, making and most importantly Moving units, spy, check the mini-map, etc.)

You can't compare this RTS to the others. Not on races, artwork, etc..

I personally rediscovered the concept of SPEED with SC2. Not knowing the keyboard shortcuts is out of the question. And that's all what is about.

When you play with the outstanding smoothness, incredible pathfinding, impressive micro potential playing games like AoE2 turns out to be like 'clumsy'.

[Lion.Kanzen]

That is one feature I love, play fast, happens in 0Ad too. Learning to buildings and train fast in ordered to survive a rush.

[Zeta1127]

I have only played StarCraft and Brood War, since I don't have a computer capable of handling StarCraft II, though I have been following it very closely and definitely want to play it. I enjoy the StarCraft universe a lot, especially several of the StarCraft II tie-in short stories, namely Broken Wide, Acid Burns, Stealing Thunder, The Fightin' Sceevees, and all of the Protoss stories. I wouldn't be very concerned about being competitive at StarCraft, since I suck against people and haven't even beat all of the StarCraft and Brood War campaigns.

[fcxSanya]

All I know is it was overheating my computer more than any other game has since, so I had to stop playing it after a few days.

Did you try solutions from this page, in particular "Setting the Framerate Cap" one? It is usually quoted on the forums/blogs as the answer to overheating issue, not sure how much it actually helps though.

[MoLAoS]

StarCraft is an APM and Build Order game. That is all you need to know. Brood War players refer to keeping every barracks type building 1 unit and 1 unit only all the time as macro. Its honestly ridiculous.

Personally I feel that strategy games should be about intellectual capacity and not finger speed. Arcade-RTS is one of many good names for the kind of game SC is.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree with you Molaos, SC is a game very action, never stop to think, the same strategies and same gameplay, with new engine, probably the fall of Age empires instilled fear to them.

And I forget other thing to nice have, when player loses his/her base their units can be spoten. Many times I hate when a units survives in a border map.