I agree with what you're saying.

I hate Blizzard.

-WyvernRyder

No, no, and no. Just because the rules are different (upkeeps) doesn't mean the genre changes. The hero is linking to RPGs. Yes. But is the game real time? Does it involve army management with tactics
..What's the answer to that?

Please the bold part loudly and clearly: Just because I am not fond of a game's gameplay does not change its genre


RTS games will have micro involved in a lesser or larger scale, unless the developer fails to see the massive possibilities RT brings to gameplay. And yes, those "massive possibilities" include micro-management.

Some people are moaning and groaning about how some games including Blizz Games are bought just due to the hype fans create about them:

NO. Just because a game is hyped up this DOES NOT mean it will succeed.
If something is hyped up, initial (week1 and 2) sales are increased. Nothing more. If it lives up to what it is expected, like most if not all Blizzard's games, then the hype just helped make a huge success. If not, the game fails to succeed.

The OP bought WC3 because he liked SC:

Most gamers check out reviews before buying the game. Just because I liked Dungeon Siege, doesn't mean I will also like Supreme Commander. Heck it doesn't even mean I will like DS II.

Now, frixion isn't being bashy or mean, think about it with a calmer head, and you will see I'm right.

SC didn't just do it to a decent standard, they did it to an excellent (at the time) standard. Granted, you can take any one single element of SC an bash it as being simple, but take the game as a whole, with all its features, and it becomes an excellent game.

No, C&C did not have unique factions, each faction just had different abilities. But SC factions did not only have different abilities, they also had completely different buildings requirements, buildings themselves were different from each race, and also each race had nothing alike to one another in terms of appearance. About the only thing they have in common in SC is that all three requires minerals and vespine gas. Each have completely different strategies to them and yet the balance in the game is perfect.

C&C just have humans with rifles and tanks with different abilities and some unique support units. They build bases the same way, the buildings are basicly the same, just with different names and looks. Barracks, Factories, etc.

But in SC Terrans buildings have nothing in common with Zerg's or with Protoss'. The Terrans build in a certain way and have barracks and factories and SCVs, Zerg build atop of the purple thing (i forgot the name) and zerlging pools and hydralisk dens and larvae, protoss must build within pylon range and have gateways and probes. That level of diversity between races is found in few games.

One thing that most haters forget about SC is one of the reason they hate it. SC is extremely simple to learn to play. But is extremely difficult to master. Some people hate SC because they find it childish compared to TA or the Total War series (which they themselves are in a league completely different from SC). Yet its that simplicity why SC is considered the greatest RTS of its time.

Why for trial? Blizzard can more than afford the losses. For every blizzard game pirated, five more Koreans will start praying to blizzard, those faggots. If I pirate something, I keep it.

Oh man....The first two pages are possibly the worst example of rant and complaining I've seen this far....Psychoak takes the prize though. But then again he have probably never won a match in an online RTS and can't win no matter how hard he tries.

A bunch of people that are incredibly bitter that a revolutionary RTS (TA) which became their favorite was completely overshadowed by another RTS (StarCraft) that they view as inferior (and ignoring its strong points).

I loved StarCraft for everything it had back then.

• The campaign was a masterpiece and was taken to new heights in Brood War (Had no idea what would happen)
• The graphics was a new generation compared to WarCraft 2 (noticed it in the tutorial with the shroud and FoW)
• Sound and Music were fantastic as always. (The comments each unit had is like a Blizzard thing today ^^)

• And finally, the gameplay. StarCraft is built upon soft counters (hard counters are rock, paper, scissors) where a units statistical counter can beat it given special conditions like chokepoints, terrain, upgrades and support units.
  

A great example is Terran Marines which on paper would lose horribly to Terran Firebats since Firebats do concussive damage which do full damage to small units, 50% to medium sized units and 25% to large units (Units of a certain size all have the same armor class). Firebats also have 10hp more then Marines and 1 armor point. They got 50hp, 16 damage per attack, 2 in range are as slow as Marines. Marines though, have 40hp, 0 amor points and do 6 damage with a range of 4 (I believe) but can be upgraded with stimpacks (which make them fire twice as fast for a short time which costs 10hp) and U-238 shells which increases range 1 or 2 hexes (or cells, or whatever....). End result is, that 1v1 up to 12v12, Firebats wins. But add a choke and position your Marines approprietly and the Firebats lose alot more units. Adding stimpacks on top of that will make the Marines win. Adding U-238 on top of THAT and it's quite possible that the Marines will not lose anything at all!

 

But you people who hate RTS games where micromanagement makes a difference probably disregard this as "exploits" or "abuse" or something like that....

 

About the interface discussions that keeping the UI in the dark age will make the game better is such incredible rubbish that I wonder if the people advocating the original StarCrafts UI are sane. (A "progamer" called Tasteless actually said that StarCraft 2 looks far from an E-sport because of features like rallymining and MBS eventhough he also said that the game needs to be spectatorfriendly. Talking against himself).

I consider macromanagement a result of inefficient userinterfaces that should be eliminated so you can focus on the fun stuff. Because I really wonder if anyone believes that all the Korean women spectating StarCraft matches are screaming because of the players ability to build 8 Marines, 2 Medics, 10 Siege Tanks and 5 Vultures in 2 seconds.

And if the tedious tasks in StarCraft which is a result of an outdated, inefficient userinterface that increase the skillcap really is that important to the progamers (which I do not believe for a SECOND!) then why not use the WarCraft 2 interface instead..?    No such noobifying things like controlgroups (a REAL pro can boxselect the troops he needs), rallypoints (you want your units to move without you giving them an order??? WHAT?!?!   If you want your units to move from the structure they were produced at you have to move them yourselves you friggin n00b!), 12 unit selection limit (a real pro can handle a max of 9 like in WarCraft 2!) and autoheal (automatic healing???   THIS WILL REMOVE ALL SKILL FROM THE GAME!!!)

What about WiC? I haven't actually played CoH, but I do know that Massive has had three RTT's that were absolute stars.

Even if CoH is better, you can't just say that they can't compete, because it seems WiC is a damn good game.

first the posts were just pathetic and only relying on fervor, then there were well reasoned arguments, and now we're back to pathetic?   i want more "educated" debates on star craft 2, is that too much to ask?

StarCraft only has one thing about it that kept it popular, it's storyline, because all it's other good aspects became common place not too long after, or they became unrealistic in the mind's of gamers

Also, think about its units, spaceships fighting with ground units of roughly the same size, people won't buy into that in the second one

I doubt that StarCraft 2 will even be able to use its storyline to its advantage, Command and Conquer 3 had a great storyline, which was executed perfectly by including well known sci-fi actors

And to all those saying Sins is nothing new, its the first game I've come across that is not only easy to mod, but whose developers give tools to help with modding, also, it has successfully combined real-time and turn-based strategy elements into an enjoyable game

Homeworld is a good series, but very neglected. A couple of bugfixes, but no real attention by the publishers after its release. Homeworld 2 didn't even get any expansions.

But I think it's a good game, and the only game to come up with a real intuitive system for working in 3D space.

Dont underestimate the fanbois and the hype. C&C?? So what? that game came and went already, SC2 bring a new story (and very anticipated) with a rich background.

Really, Sins is nothing new, its just the first game to be succesfull at all in bringing all those things.

The original Homeworld didn't get an expansion either, they only made one single spin-off "expansion", but Cataclysm is to Homeworld like Battlefield 2142 is to Battlefield2 or CS is to Half-life. a mod to the original game.

 

Thats called "power gaming". and in the US its the primary form of multiplayer. From FPS and RTS to MMORPGs.

And really, that generalization you made only hurts you. The truth many of the player who owned you didn't even bothered to read your name. Dont take it personally and just move. Unless the other player starts spamming and smacking you after you lose, in which case he just an asshole who needs to be ignored.

Nowdays, people need a thick hide to play online multiplayer games. Sadly they just dont get it. There is no honor nor civility nor manners on the internet, so dont get frustated when you find none of those.

Oh boy.

I bet 80% of the posts here have never played games in competitive environments before.  Why does Blizzard do so well on its games?  Here’s my top 5

1) Balance - besides the atrocity that is WOW arena, balance in SC, War3 is pretty solid.  While the FotM strategy still exists for War3, SC has pretty much become the pinnacle of gaming balance.  Everyone has their own strategy on what works, and what doesn’t, and there is no FotM build to follow.  It comes down to straight skill. 

2)Support - D2 has been out for almost 10 years, and it recently just got patched.  SC still gets patched when new bugs pop up. 

3) Quality - Game crippling bugs are almost non existant in blizzard games.  The last blizzard game that I played that had game crippling bugs was WoW at launch and BC at launch, but no one, not even blizzard could predict the popularity of the game.  These days, besides the older servers, the game is probably one of the easiest to play.

4) Easy to Play, Hard to Master – Anyone can pick up and play any blizzard game.  Can you point and click? Can you move using WASD? Congratulations, you can play blizzard games.  But beyond that there is deep strategy behind everything. 

5) Visually different – Each blizzard game had its own unique style, and in a world where all the games you play are grey, or shades of brown, a few purple, orange, bright green and beige is welcome. 

Now that that’s been said, please do not compare Total Annihilation to Starcraft.  TA won on graphics, and features.  Firing arcs are cool, as are godly t3 units and defenses, but at the end of the day, it was always playing a mirror match. 

That said, I love SOSE.  It is a beautiful and rich game, that fulfills my Real Time Galactic Civilization needs.  But TBH, these days I just play so I can watch massive fleets of ships slugging it out over a planet.  Its beautiful to watch, but beyond the macro there really isn’t much depth to it.