Lol talking about SC2 as micro… SC2 is macro fest. War3 also used mechanics over strategy, micro heavy and is great… until they killed it too with their excuse of reforged. So no, choosing these elements over pure strategy does not make a game bad.
For the record I was fan of old fighting games, now I see they added a lot more depth or complexity to increase the space for mastering the game. Nothing wrong with it, the beauty is to see the players juggle with their skill or do it yourself…
SC2 became bad and ‘for pros only’ because it has really poor unit designs (shooting pylons, blinking DTs, widow mines) - and matchups - kill race before they get late game etc, I consider war3 a lot more balanced for 4 races than sc2 is for 3
Actually i beat Warcraft 2 and its expansion Beyond the Dark Portal quite recently after about 15 years. When i was a teenager i was obsessed with Warcraft 2, i replayed both campaigns over and over so that i could beat this game nearly with my eyes closed. Now i realized that i cannot play this game anymore - mechanics are just ridiculously bad - 9 unit selection, buggy a-move, you need to use patrol command instead, necessity to click EVERY single unit in order to cast a spell, even if you have selected all units of the same type. The game is now complete relict of the past. Sure its atmosphere, graphics were unmatched back in the 90’s but now for me the game is almost completely unplayable.
Even sc1 balance was…not very good. Like, in the OG SC and BW, spells were insanely busted and the only saving grace was you didn’t have smart cast - which you bypassed by using 1 control group per spell caster.
Blizzard has always been dismal at multiplayer balance but they do generally provide a bug-free quality product with sc2’s release being one of the few launches they botched (as the GUI was really, really bad - to the point of them taking years to implement purchasable skins).
At this point, for me, the only RTS game I’ll play is Total Warhammer 2. Now that’s a fun RTS that’s fairly well balanced.
Total War is not RTS, it is Turn Based Strategy and Real Time Tactics.
There is no strategy in the Real Time portion of the game, just Tactics.
It is, however, a great game. Far better than most actual RTS games.
Turns out that people want to command big armies, not 12 units like in Warcraft 3.
Also, TWW does spells and artillery right. A cannon should just lay waste to a line of infantry, and Magicks should be army breaking abilities that brutally shift balance.
How many active players are there for sc2 right now? All I can see is that there’s 400k ranked teams this season, so I’m guessing sc2’s numbers are still higher.
The campaign is turn-based but that’s an entirely different beast. In any other mode than co-op, it’s a Real Time Strategy game as there is *le gasp * Real time and strategy involved.
In TWW, artillery and magic is game breaking, if used correctly but they aren’t auto win scenarios nor do you have 0.5 seconds to adjust your formations in order to not auto lose. It’s a nice balance imo as each player has options to adjust the dynamic of magic and artillery using good positioning.
Warhammer 3 was…ugh…it had a lot more problems than super small armies. Remember Druid of the I do freaking everything? Or how Blade Master is effectively the dumbest cheese hero ever - and single handedly makes the entire game state revolve around him? Or how Wisps; freaking workers; hard counter summoned and mana-based units.
Game was a disaster and it’s only saving grace was the robust Arcade system which they butchered. They even went as far as to potentially do something illegal by stripping features out of the base game. That’s a really good way to set precedent in court…
lol I’ve been saying this since LotV came out and was met with nothing but trolls and hostile fan boys.
SC2 is about worker harass and mutli tasking, there isn’t really much strategy involved outside of executing your build and hiding it from your opponent who will always have a chance to scout you no matter what. As a shock to no one, people do not find this type of gameplay enjoyable. It is far more on the frustrating side of the spectrum which is why people stop playing the game in the first place.
Please don’t confuse the Activision era with Blizzard era. Activision’s only crowning jewel is Call of Duty (if memory serves). Blizzard was the one which got you the 3 major franchises:
Warcraft
Starcraft
Diablo
During those days, there wasn’t anything to copy from. As compared to games of today, where new content is scarce and pretty much non-existent. The frequent ways that companies attempt to still earn enough is to remaster old games.
Oh please, let’s throw this whole balance argument out of the window.
War3 and SC2 are equally well balanced as well (along with many other games in the Blizzard franchises). Blizzard’s games are renowned for their balance compared to many other games. Never perfect (because different people have different opinions), but still one of the best in the industry hands down.
All these talk about nerf and buff on these forums are all BS. For those who want those changes, stop trying to change the game to suit your play style and actually learn how to master a game instead.
As I always say:
I’m curious as to which RTS game you can find where defender’s advantage doesn’t exist. And as long as it exists, you can always draw out a game longer, though ‘too long’ is something subjective to individuals.
Ah, but to be fair, nobody expected DOTA to grow out of the War3 client. Hindsight is always 20/20. Just as nobody expected:
Apple to come back and clinch the top.
Uber to compete against taxis without cars.
AirBnB to be so popular.
But it happened. It was just a business mistake (though a pretty common one) because nobody can predict the future. We can make calculated guesses at best.
By the time DOTA was on its own client, there was pretty much nothing else the company can do. It is out of their hands. Activision is fearful of such mistakes, and therefore has implemented the T&C where all maps and IP belong to them (started since War3:RF).
There is no truer RTS or not. It is just a different style of playing. If SC2 followed what C&C or AoE are doing, then you are basically getting another C&C or AoE (just in a different form).
Many times we hear people saying how game A should be like game B. If an RTS game intends to stand out, it has to have mechanics that other do not have (and it applies both ways to SC2 and other RTS games). Otherwise, if it is similar, then isn’t it the same as playing game B instead.
All Blizzard’s RTSes are intended to be easy to pick up, but difficult to master. I don’t think it is just SC2 becoming ‘for pros only’. Even in War3 I have seen pro players build 1 of each unit and micro the hell out of them to win. SC2’s patches (at least from how I have seen in the recent years) are intended to reward people if they are able to put more effort into the unit (e.g. micro).
Logging in and checking your chat box will show the no. of active players and games (assuming if it is accurate).
Compare it to SC2. You can have games from 5 mins to 20 mins. In AOE 2? Maybe I’m not the most experienced, but I feel like games can easily go over an hour. Obviously, defender’s advantage is a part of every(?) RTS, but if a game regularly hits the 50 minute mark, that’s ridiculous IMO. Like you said, it’s subjective, just throwing out how I feel about it.
There’s some serious potential in SC2. Direct Strike (literally a better and more balanced version of auto chess), SC2 RPG games, even RTS within RTS. So many defense games too. Even in 2011 they had the co-op/campaign thing down when they made Night 2 Die, but they never did anything beyond that until they officially made co-op much later. They also very recently started advertising co-op campaign missions that have been around for a while in the arcade. So many beautiful, community-made games. And that’s not even going into all the community-run tournaments and clans that Blizzard has never bothered sponsoring. Too much potential lost…
We’re talking about a billionaire company and a franchise that is legendary. Not having a fix during the holidays could be pardoned if Blizzard were an indie company which is not the case.
If you are fine with the treatment SC2 is receiving, great for you. I can assure the vast majority of players is very pissed.
Blizzard is run by soybeans in commiefornia. They are extremely locked down right now due to cOrOnAvIruS. So it’s understandable if progress is difficult. They probably wear masks on their skype calls. Lmao. It is really hard to make video games with masks on, ok?
Blizzard doesn’t care. The companies that were formed from ex-blizzard employees exist because blizzard told their staff that they were abandoning the RTS market and that they didn’t intend to return to it in the foreseeable future.
They weren’t really that busted. Yes they were more powerful in BW, but also much harder to get off correctly. And way harder to spam them like it is in SC2.
How about concaving your army, splitting your army from spashes, bringing your melee unit up front, entrenching your tanks, setting up a surround, make a unit composition that the number of each unit is about right? And this is just about “basic” army control. What funny about them too, is that they are not even part of the game (there is not one bottom to complete a formation), but derived from the game. Like no body knows the best way in every position.
I am likely biased, but I tend to thinks the strategies in sc2 is more subtle than other games. How many build orders out there that receive name from players for other games anyways.
One downside for sc2 though, one cannot come up with any of these strategies in real time, so people have to come up with strategies offline. This is probably inevitable for a complicated RTS game though.
