DescentBB

So...

Let's hear your opinions of StarCraft2's gameplay- both single and multiplayer.

Is it everything you were looking forward to in the sequel?

Funny thing is I never played the first one. But there has been so much hype over the 2nd game. I guess I'm a little curious about how it all turned out.

I'll let you know as soon as they release the linux version.

Not sure what the second one is like as they have not yet released the \"Starcraft 2 battle chest\" that includes all three campaigns for $40 or less.

I hear it is killing GPUs though. Or so the idiots think, rather than correcting their cooling issue.

Blizzard's never released a Linux version of any of their games, though I guess you knew that anyway. (There have been Mac releases on the other hand.) Most Linux users who play their games use Wine to do so from what I've heard.

The first one was fun, but there was a level of mastery I could never attain. How is it after 20 minutes the other guy has 4x the amount of soldiers I do!!!

From my understanding, the new one is very hard....

Isaac wrote:I'll let you know as soon as they release the linux version.

Works in wine if you patch. The latest git might have the patch integrated by now.

I played the Beta, and bought the game.

Single player: I've only made it through one mission. It seems more polished than SC1. If you know what you're doing with SC, it's a bit of a drag to be reigned back to one type of unit. I guess I don't have much to complain about.

Multi: I like a lot of the changes between SC1 and SC2. I'm not that good at micro, so I like the fact that I have more ability to hotkey stuff and set waypoints and such so it's easier to run things. I've gotten more into SC2 multi than anything else in the last few years. I'm feasting on the noobs that didn't get into the beta right now and have a totally bloated rank. I pretty much only play 4v4. Not sure why... guess I can screw up more and hide behind my teammates.

Look me up if you like, dsnoopy is my tag, on USeast (is it called USeast these days?). I'm not sure how the cross-region friend things works without telling you all my full name, social, address, and number of pit hairs.

Summary: I'd buy it (and did), for the multi.

final note: I run it on the lowest video settings, partly because of the cross-platform wine thing; mostly because I like the way it looks better that way.

Thenoir: if anything, I'd say that it's easier. Also, the ranking system increses the chances that your matches will be semi-even. It just takes practice to know everything you need to worry about.

Will there be a demo?

Only time will tell.

SirWinner wrote:Will there be a demo?

Only time will tell.

If you know anyone who has bought the game they can give you a temp key that will stay active for a week or so. I think it allows something like 2 or 3 hours of gameplay. Friend of mine sent one to me but I haven't tried it yet.

Snoopy, if you want to add people w\\o using your email, all you need is the username and a 3 digit code. When you press the button to add someone, you can get this code.

FYI, I've got Stroodle and 517

How do you find out your code? Is it the character ID?

dsnoopy
360

Yes, I believe so.

I'll add you snoopy. (assuming it works)

Good stuff (note: I've only tried the campaign and custom cooperative games; I'm not a fan of competitive multi in strats):

- it really feels like StarCraft. The re-imagined units feel true to the original.

- the new units are mostly pretty cool. Diamondbacks were weird and lame, but appear to be specific to a single campaign mission.

- the single player missions are fun. The varied mission objectives are actually interesting -- hold off the zombies at night and blow up their structures during the day, stay ahead of the fire wave, protect the Odin while it does its own thing, the heroic last stand, and so on.

- the storyline and cinematics are really well done. I absolutely hate Blizzard's storylines in the other games I've played, but I really enjoyed this one.

- everything is shiny. Beautiful graphics, from the units to the environment to the cutscenes.

Bad stuff:

- you end up spending a lot of time not playing. Story mode has a lot of cutscenes, dialog options, purchased upgrades, etc. that are kind of a distraction from getting in the game and blowing stuff up. Even if you skip a lot of them, they still have to load up. The closing credits have a pause key, but they didn't think to put one in the cutscenes (so I often ended up rewatching them after getting up to deal with a fussy baby.) Some of the menu screens load slow; the map list is large enough that it takes me 15-20 seconds to start a game vs. an AI. Even the install was slow (7 gig download... and get the latest directx and vid drivers... reboot... felt like 1998 all over again!)

- can't play LAN games. I'd love to be able to play games with my wife, either to test stuff out or to stomp on comps, without accumulating a battle.net record or worrying that I'll get dropped by some remote server.

It was good to read the responces here. I've been going back and forth on if I should get this game. While I never got into SC1, I do tend to be pretty addicting to this type of game.

Still havn't made up my mind.

Gooberman wrote:It was good to read the responces here. I've been going back and forth on if I should get this game. While I never got into SC1, I do tend to be pretty addicting to this type of game.

Still havn't made up my mind.

I never played SC1 (I'm a homeworld fan from way back), but I've really enjoyed the game. It's pretty easy to pick up.

Strood and I went 3/3 today in 2v2, even when I screwed up.

The fact that 2 is finally out means I might actually go back and finish broodwar. I'd always get to the part where you kidnap the matriarch and lose interest for some reason.

ThunderBunny wrote:So...

Let's hear your opinions of StarCraft2's gameplay- both single and multiplayer.

Is it everything you were looking forward to in the sequel?

The title makes it look like you're giving your own review. As soon as I saw the author I could tell exactly what it would be though...

I saw the first one when I was... nine or ten years old. A friend of mine in elementary school played it (while I played Descent.) I haven't seen the second one yet. I generally don't play RTS games (foxes don't make good gods). I would only play to see how badly I could mess up, and that's not really worth buying a game.

It's a lot of fun, been doing a lot of 1v1 ladders. It's overtaken D3 for my competitive outlet, although I'm nowhere near as good at it as I was after 10 years of Descent

Definitely has that same feeling I had as when I started Descent in 99, a very in-depth game to master and I'm starting back on square 1.

guys wanna post your tags?

I don't feel like getting really in-depth, but it has exceeded my expectations, unlike other sequels to awesome RTS games... *COUGH*SUPCOM2*COUGH*

The multiplayer is better because you can select MORE THAN 12 ★■◆●ing UNITS! In terms of everything besides that, it has the charm of the original while adding a much more varied game. I can't think of many overpowered units on their own, like the Colossus walker that is really strong but can be hit by both ground and anti-air fire.

The singleplayer is long and entertaining. I know it was at least eight hours of gameplay because I didn't get the \"beat it in under 8 hours\" achievement, although it took me at least four days to beat it. Difficulty modes add more enemies or take away units from you, unlike some games where putting it on brutal allows their Marine to kill your siege tank in one shot. It therefore makes it feel insane on higher levels, but not like the AI is cheating. The cinematics are pretty, that's for sure, in game and pre-rendered. The story doesn't disappoint, and if it feels too odd (someone does something out of character, etc) that is quickly explained.

As for lag, I can run it with everything set to maximum AND have a torrent file downloading and still run fine, with only a little bit of lag here and there. If I get rid of the torrent it runs smooth as can be.

The only issue is that you have to be online to run it, although it has an offline mode, although that prevents you from getting achievements (you can still play the game though). You can install it infinitely, or even download it from their website once you register your code. I always have mixed feeling from anything that I need to be online for, but I trust Blizzard, and it is clearly stated on all sides of the box that you need internet, and a battle.net account is required to play it.

My tag is:
Dakatsu
616

I've played first series, I couldn't play it again because I got a widescreen LCD for Christmas.

Well, in StarCraft II, textures and models improved that look really cool but movements or AI. They act like StarCraft I, units turning or spinning so fast. I watched that on GameSpot.

So, I want one. It's one rank at GameSpot.

Did you realize that the title rhymes?

Never was a huge Starcraft fan, but I may just give this one a shot now after the good things I keep hearing. And now SC2 is one of the best game and I couldnt stop playing it. Its that fun and dynamic. I'm personally very satisfied with it, tho i do feel the $60 price tag is a bit steep and I need to sacrifice not to buy wow gold for a month just to buy my own copy.

So I did end up getting it last Friday night, it took about three hours after I downloaded it to start playing with installation, patches, and then it kept saying bnet was down and I couldnt log in.

Just a few comments.

Single Player:

1. I only played through about the first 5-6 single player maps, and doubt I will continue. I do tend to lose interest quickly in SP games, I don't think I've beaten 10 single player games in my life. So this really isn't a reflection on SC2 SP, other then it wasn't able to completly suck me in. I also agree with above that the number of cutscenes is a bit excessive.

Multiplayer:

I had never got into SC1, so I am pretty green. I lost my first 10 or so matches, but now I am winning about 50/50, but still in the training mode.

1. There is alot I am missing from WC3. Mainly the ability to teleport to your base/alliance base. There are a couple of maps where my opponent is getting rushed and it takes a bit to get to him. If he doesn't know how to take care of himself, you guys can both get screwed pretty early on.

There are other maps where you are right next to eachother, and this isn't an issue. Also, teleporting was a nice way to get back to your base if you were rushing at the same time that your opponent was. Perhaps I wont feel this way once I know the game better, and learn to stop treating this like WarCraft.

2. I miss Heros. It doesn't seem like SC2 rewards you as much for winning early battles against people who rush/etc. It seems like there is less danger in doing \"risky\" moves. If that makes sense...

3. Creeping: I don't quite know what to do with my army early/mid game. In WC3 you had to go around leveling, and this forced unintentional combat with your opponent early on at times, which I liked. Perhaps this will change as I get better, but right now they are just sipping tea at the base.

4. Speed: Perhaps I am still \"doing it wrong.\" But it feels like units die to fast to be properly micromanage. When a unit gets FF'ed they die way before you can click them, let alone pull them back. I'm guessing I am too slow on their armor upgrades, but even at max it seems faster then WC3.

5. Units: I am still only Terrin, but the units feel very similar to me right now. In WC3 it seemed like you were constantly using a unit's special abilities, like bears roar, nets, poisen, blood lust, dispell, etc. Not to mention the special abilities of Heros, which were a central point of the game. In SC2 the battles seem to end so fast to be making these decisions.

Anyway, these are the things that stand out. I am definitely having fun with it, but need to learn more. My current feeling is that SC2 is more focused on \"placement and the proper choices\", rather then \"combat ability,\" which wont appeal to me as much, but never the less I am having fun with it at the moment.

Gooberman wrote:2. I miss Heros....
3. Creeping: I don't quite know what to do with my army early/mid game....
4. Speed: Perhaps I am still "doing it wrong." But it feels like units die to fast to be properly micromanage.

You just pointed out 3 things I really hated about War3. Heros+Creeping+the effectiveness of micro meant you spent a lot of in-game time grinding with your army to "level up" instead of making strategic use of your forces. I always felt like, if I wanted to grind, I'd go play Everquest or WOW or Baldur's Gate.

So what should you do with your forces? They should be scouting, probing, harassing, ambushing, deterring... basically convincing your enemy to be doing less-than-totally-effective things. Make him waste resources trying to defend things, destroy things he spent resources on when he doesn't defend them, make him build a force to counter light air when you're actually using heavy ground, provoke him into attacking when he's not ready, and so on. (Most of this works in both multi and single player.) Take all that attention you were spending on leveling up against mobs, and use it on disrupting the other guy's operations.

You're right that the units are more about placement and using the right unit mix to counter your enemy than about use of special abilities... but the special abilities definitely have a place. The right one can turn a losing fight into a win, or a narrow win into a rout. This is especially true of some of the campaign mode hero units (like the Odin's area barrage), but don't underestimate a well-placed storm, nuke, or mind control.

-----------

As a campaign-focused player, I'm still having a blast with this. I've got all the campaign achievements except for Lost Viking Gold and the Brutal set (working on it.)

I love lost viking. The intro is so awesome.

Double pulse cannon + double drones = win

Lothar wrote:So what should you do with your forces? They should be scouting, probing, harassing, ambushing, deterring... basically convincing your enemy to be doing less-than-totally-effective things. Make him waste resources trying to defend things, destroy things he spent resources on when he doesn't defend them, make him build a force to counter light air when you're actually using heavy ground, provoke him into attacking when he's not ready, and so on.

I've been having alot of fun early game now harassing with Reapers....so much so that I once took out two enemy bases in a 2v2 with only 4 reapers, got cocky and left the practice league, and I am now back at getting my ass handed to me again consistently.

Que sera sera.

Its definitely a different mindset then WC3, which I am adjusting too. I am still learning quite a bit.

Multi is totally about making the correct kind of units. I do best when I get an early scout on what they're making, and react accordingly. Lothar got it pretty well on the head- spend your attention on disrupting your enemies efforts. I play a lot of 4v4... look me up for some 2v2 or whatever if you like. Unlike WC3, it's not the end of the world to lose a few units- I think SC2 is more about resource management than it is about unit management, if you know what I mean.

Thanks Snoopy, I will later, I think right now you would just get frustrated playing with me....(I do).

I think my next hurdle is starting to play the other two races. Only then will there be any point to scouting for me.

Goober WOULD like creeping and heroes...the two things that ruined WC3. LOL

Gooberman wrote:Thanks Snoopy, I will later, I think right now you would just get frustrated playing with me....(I do).

I think my next hurdle is starting to play the other two races. Only then will there be any point to scouting for me.

I pretty much only play protoss. I've done Terran a littttle bit, and I've never done Zerg for anything beyond a couple achievements. (I love achievements) I've got all the economy, outmatched, and challenge missions ones so far. I wanted to get all the custom game ones until I realized I had to win several hundred games

Stroodles wrote:...and I've never done Zerg...

Stroodles wrote:

Gooberman wrote:Thanks Snoopy, I will later, I think right now you would just get frustrated playing with me....(I do).

I think my next hurdle is starting to play the other two races. Only then will there be any point to scouting for me.

I pretty much only play protoss. I've done Terran a littttle bit, and I've never done Zerg for anything beyond a couple achievements. (I love achievements) I've got all the economy, outmatched, and challenge missions ones so far. I wanted to get all the custom game ones until I realized I had to win several hundred games

I play primarily protoss as well, I've heard that prot is the easiest for a new player.

I started with zerg. I don't have a feel for timing with zerg yet, though.

[edit]
made diamond 4v4 as prot. Playing zerg in 3v3 (bronze). I'd be happy to match up with any of you guys. Strood is good, too.

Yay, go me.

ThunderBunny wrote:Goober WOULD like creeping and heroes...the two things that ruined WC3. LOL

Like I said, the fun part with the creeping was the fact that it introduced more random fights and forced people to leave their base throughout the game.

I can see why people wouldn't like this, but it does add another tactical position. Catching your opponents hero creeping and walking back to his base with low HP could be a huge advantage. And having people turtle up inside their base just isn't fun. You could not win in WC3 by just turtling. You *had* to take your army out of the base.

Heros, meh, they were fun. I don't care what you say. And it does make winning/losing those early battles matter quite a bit more.

I did make it to silver ranking in 3v3, I suppose I am getting better.

There does however seem to be a massive disparity between who I still get grouped with. Sometimes I get teammates that are just phenomenal and can 3v1 the other guys. Other times my teammates whom don't block and tech straight to battle cruisers...and then chew you out for not helping sufficiently when they get rushed.

It is a fun game.

Xamindar wrote:

SirWinner wrote:Will there be a demo?

Only time will tell.

If you know anyone who has bought the game they can give you a temp key that will stay active for a week or so. I think it allows something like 2 or 3 hours of gameplay. Friend of mine sent one to me but I haven't tried it yet.

2 or 3 hours? Better than nothing I guess.

That short amount of time goes by too quickly.

Prefer to play test for at least 20 to 40 hours to get a good feel for the game.

SirWinner wrote: 2 or 3 hours? Better than nothing I guess.

That short amount of time goes by too quickly.

Prefer to play test for at least 20 to 40 hours to get a good feel for the game.

Then your only options are play on a friend's computer or torrent, I mean rent it.

Gettin pretty good at zerg now, too

I've played SC1, but not a whole lot...because for some apparent reason, I can never seem to get good at it, but when I played SC2, my skills improved thanks to Warcraft 3.

I'm pretty sure Protoss is the most used race, with Terran being the 2nd, and Zerg being the least used. Sadly, there's not a whole lot of Zerg players. I think one reason is that Terran vs. Zerg matches are somewhat imbalanced, though I haven't experienced much. I started off in SC2 as a Zerg player, then friends forced me to play Protoss, and here I am - a Protoss player.

If anyone wants to add me, my username is ScalgonDelta, and my character code is 713. I'm a Gold/Platinum player, but there's a part of me where I just don't seem confident in myself. I mean, I went 15-4 at one point in 4v4 Gold league (though I mostly zealot rushed), then after I hit Platinum league, this is where I met my downfall, and since then I've taken a hiatus.

After all, it's SC2.