I hate Starcraft II.

No, I don't mean I hate the game itself. I've never touched the beta.

What I mean is I hate what Starcraft II is doing to my other favorite games.

Ever since Blizzard announced that they were developing Starcraft II, devs and publishers everywhere shit their pants.

These devs and publishers know that no matter how good their games are, they can't possibly hope to go against the Starcraft II juggernaut.

It's bad enough that Blizzard doesn't even give a proper release date, so everytime Blizzard says they gonna finish and ship SC2 'soon', devs and pubslishers shit their pants and rush their games just so they don't have to compete with SC2.

This happened to DowII, and recently CnC4.

And for what? Starcraft II isn't revolutionary in any way. It's just the same game ten years ago with shinier graphics and some new units. In fact, Warcraft III was better. At least that game introduced the Heroes system and has 2 new races. What new things does SC2 got?

i dunno why i'm writing this here. maybe it's because i'm just emo after spending the last 5 hours downloading a patch to bad Company 2 only to have it crash and do it all over again. yet another game ruined by SC2.

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 23 2010, 10:39 PM

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1050202

you can just voice out ur comment anytime in the existing thread instead of opening a new one.

i open this here because i don't want this to be drowned out by l33t tards who think using the [attack move] command is beneath them.

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 23 2010, 10:56 PM

actually, i think this topic deserves a thread of its own.
if he posted in the sc2 thread no one would have noticed it.

haha our bro is blaming snow storm for the bad quality of 2 recent rts game.

Well u know, too bad all blizzard will do is continue their spooky way to dev the game without release date and they will laugh at us who keep waiting for it.

(But sh**t i'm saving my money for sc2 ori... ...)

Well then you should have ranted at the delays of so many games from Bayonetta to Bioshock 2 thanks to Modern Failure 2 (and what a crap game that was, worst AAA title for PC last year).

But yes, I noticed that RTS titles this year are aplenty and yet mediocre. Supcom 2 was a crushing disappointment, and judging from C&C4 reviews that's even worse off.

Misleading title is misleading; I was about to demand for the Battle.net login from TS. Anyway, StarCraft 2 is not all that revolutionary since Blizzard has to fulfill certain requirements or they'll lose their loyal fanbase from StarCraft 1. With this obstacle in mind, I think the other RTS developers should take the risk to come up with something new & at the same time BALANCED with LONG-TERM support.

To be frank, as long as any of the other RTS developers out there can integrate these 2 essential ingredients into their products, they shouldn't have much problem in reaching out to even die-hard StarCraft 1 players.

This post has been edited by talexeh: Mar 24 2010, 01:39 AM

besides the 2, i'd like to add one more: a nice storyline

but then most dev failed to achieved these 3 aspects, so that kinda makes Blizzard special and successful

I started to hate SC2 because it took so long to release,at the same time, every single RTS developers i know are releasing half baked pieces of crap. DoW2 shipped with 6 maps, a stupid campaign and horrible gameplay. Sup Com 2 have an incomplete multiplayer,with no ladders at all. Empire: Total War have lots of optimisation problems. C&C4,oh gosh, looks like everything is bad with that game.

SC2 is not revolutionary at all. It's the same game that all of us played 10 years ago. The only major difference that is in 3D,some UI upgrade like MBS where all the stone age people b**** about, and a few new units. SC2 used to be quite an innovative sequel, with some really creative units like Thor is a long range bombardment unit that needs to be build by SCV or Mothership that was a really powerful support unit. Then, Blizzard started to make everything lame and boring like turning Thor to a huge ugly Goliath and Mothership to a glorified Arbiter. I want a sequel,not the exact same game i played 10 years ago.

Thinking about those new generation of no base building RTS, im actually glad that someone spend time to innovate the game than just slapping a few new features in it. Even most of them failed.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 06:40 AM

If that is the case, then Red Alert 3 should be more famous than Starcraft 2. Red Alert 3 was balanced, and supported with patches for a long while.

On top of that, Red Alert 3 had many great ideas and implementations, among them an increased focus on naval battles, a refined rock-paper-scissors unit countering system, an easier resource collecting system, etc. From what i see from youtube, Starcraft II boasts none of that. In fact, Starcraft II is really a stepback from Warcraft III in terms of gameplay.

Yet, there were many l33t tards who always found things to biatch about 'how EA ruined Red Alert', or how 'Westwood CnC was better.' To a lot of people, the exceptional quality of the game seemed irrelevant compared to EA's bad reputation.

I guess at some point EA had enough with all the whining and said, "Okay fine, you pricks think we're an evil soulless corporation out to destroy your games for profit, well fine, have it your own way. Here's CnC4."

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 07:40 AM

erm... I just wonder 1 thing abt EA< after getting so much good feedback abt C&C3/ KW, why don't they do the same on it... ... rather than use C&C franchise as experimental platform for this spooky idea... .. haiz... ...

So yeah Cheesenium... although SC2 looks like nth but a 3D SC1, but hey let's keep it that way...

This post has been edited by Vorador: Mar 24 2010, 10:10 AM

I totally agree about RA3; IMO I think it's a pretty good RTS. Though I've not tried SC2, I was kinda disappointed that it didn't have anything new in-terms of gameplay except for better graphics, new units, old units with better or upgraded utilities.

Warcraft 3 was something I would say that's revolutionary; the hero system brings RPG elements to the RTS genre which adds to the gameplay dynamic. Though I have to say that the hero system has it's draw backs too, keeping a hero alive(which is one of the most important thing in the game) was not newbie friendly and many casual RTS gamers where turn-off by how much the game demands on micro-managing your units. It was truly only for those dedicated enough to practice and hardcores.

Remember how we use to compare 'apm' to check out the micromgmt skill?

Brag about High APM = add 10+ to e-penis

Declare that Attack-Move is for n00bs = add 20+ to e-penis

Hates Multi Building Selection = add 30+ to e-penis

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 10:51 AM

Hmmm lets see...

People complete revamp the game : You guys whine

People add new gameplay mechanics: You guys whine

People do nothing and stick to the tried and tested formula : You guys whine

that means every 'individu' is unique.... one person wants this, another one wants that... it is impossible to satisfy anyone...

This post has been edited by DoomHammer: Mar 24 2010, 12:08 PM

This is marketing.... it is vital if smaller(or less popular) game to avoid big titles release date..

Blizzard need to satisfy a lot of hardcore fans out there... and they're popular at releasing great games... you don't see them chincai chincai make 1 game and release right..

It's the same for Starcraft Ghost... we've seen the trailer, screenshots, wallpapers and what not.. but they rather drop the project off coz they dun think its gonna work..

You should see Blizzard as a Quality over Quantity type of company... Just see how many rubbish games that EA has released... chincai chincai release..

you do informed that Starcraft II is going to be a trilogy/3 expansion pack release right? expect more units and change of gameplay with each expansion in...

Whatever it is, I'm pretty anxious and excited about SC2; both singleplayer and multiplayer. Blizzard did mention that they are putting alot of effort to making a good singleplayer RTS game.

Me too. In fact, it's probably gonna be a great game and sell millions.

But that doesn't mean other devs and pubs should chicken out and rush their games. This is especially true for EA. The last time I checked, EA is the LARGEST game publisher in the world. They shouldn't fear Blizzard and their new partner SatanActivision

They could have put more work on CnC4, heck, release it after Starcraft II even. CnC itself is a respected franchise that existed longer before Starcraft. They could have made CnC4 a whole lot better - better than StarCraft II even - if only they man up and ignore Starcraft II instead of chickening out and rushing the game.

I mean look at SC2, just the same vaniall SC1 with shineier graphics. Heck, If I were the CEO of EA or lead designer of CnC4, i'd say to myself, "I think I can do better."

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 12:38 PM

If all CnC were good then tiberium sun would have been well received by others.

Quote for the day

The reason that RA3 is not famous at all is because of EA's inconsistent support. RA3 is a solid game and reasonably easy to balance it. The first 6 month after release, RA3 have enjoyed good consistent support from EA. The community thrived.There are some cookie cutter retarded BOs like Allied base crawling or PK spam that EA never bother to fix the problem after 6 months the game release. That pretty much killed the community once EA have stopped supporting it,as the game is still quite far from balanced.

Another thing that SC2 dont have compared to RA3 is, entertaining replays. Most of the best replays i have watched are in RA3.

Maybe i hate SC2 because of the cartoonish WoW inspired art(look at High Templar) and the conservative Koreans trying to make it a SC1 in 3D,rather than the game itself. Just change the damn game a bit.

I would say that RA3 and Generals ZH are the best C&C post-Westwood.

---

Added on March 24, 2010, 1:27 pmPeople whine because the game turn out to be far too different from what they have expected.

If EALA actually spend more time to refine C&C4,whining would have not happen. The current game is just terrible. Brainless spamming.

If DoW2 actually still have some base building, whining would have never happen,as every single CoH and DoW1 player always wanted DoW2 to be CoH in space with W40k license back in 2008.

If SC2 was a little more daring in innovating,whining would have stop as some fans doesnt want a 10 year old game's sequel in 3D.

Rubbish games from EA???

Say that to Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, NFS:Shift, BFBC2, Dead Space, Burnout Paradise, Red Alert 3.

Are those games are rubbish???? I disagree,as EA has improved a lot these 2 years.

The new quantity over quality company is Blizzard's lovely partner,Activision,not EA anymore. I wont say Blizzard isnt affected by the greed of Activision,even though Blizzard is still so called independent.

Expect another CoD and more (Insert musical instruments) Hero game this year

EALA is on the verge of bankruptcy.And EA is no longer the biggest publisher anymore.

Thats why they release a mediocre so-called epic conclusion to C&C. They are closing shop pretty soon,after the huge loss made with Tiberium and bad sales with RA3.

I expect EALA to have same fate as EA Black Box.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 01:27 PM

Hey TS, i got what you mean.

I think i can safely say that this is the same case like how i hate World of Warcraft cuz it ruins MMOs. Thanks to WoW, every MMOs that follows are wow clones.

Blizzard ruins everything.

Very true. RA3 has +9000 crazy ways to win over your opponent. Unlike SC, it is possible in RA3 to make a comeback even after losing most of your units and base. I saw a replay once where this Jap player was left with nothin but a single generator, a shogun battleship and one or two other units, yet managed to come back and destroy his opponent's Allied army and base and winning the game.

Good times.

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 01:34 PM

Thats not the best.

The best i saw is a game of Allied against Empire.

Both build their bases in the sea. Towards the end,Empire has only a ship yard and he only have like 6 Yari subs,while Allied had like a few structures with one air field in the water too,plus 1 Apollo and 3 Vindicators.

In the last few moments, the Allied send his planes to bomb the Empire ship yard and they Vindicators didnt have enough bombs. The ship yard had only a tiny bit of health,almost died. At the same time,the Empire's Yari subs was wiping out Allied's structure one by one,until the last one.

Guess who win in the end and how?

lol epic win

I don't find it fair to say that starcraft lacks rare comeback, I've watched plenty of games where good micro can turn a terrible situation into a win. You really have play with people to experience the game.

I guess if EA continues to patch RA3 and have good servers like bnet, Id buy a copy of RA3

It has,and i have seen it a few times.

I just need the Beta key to actually play it now.

Sick of watching boring youtube replays.

It's dead now,as EA stopped patching.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 02:30 PM

Thats why there are still so many supporters for blizzard, even after 12 years they still hire a team just to support 1998 starcraft. Thats how committed blizzard is to their fans.

And that's what makes Blizzard king. DII and SC are still getting updates, even if not so frequently. EA is just milking the cash cow. Think Sims 3, the entire C&C/RA franchise and all the other freaking games.

Heck, they bought over Playfish and have you seen the quality of the games now? Its all about profits.

For 10 years old game, the retail price of Starcraft Battlechest has not really drop significantly.

That's probably why.

It's because they are loaded with money.

If they are short of money, i doubt that they are still that generous.

At least EA's past few product's quality has increased a lot and most of them are very good games.

Just that they are still recovering from their past financial problems.

I still wont put Blizzard as the king. There are some short comings in Blizzard.

Well Blizzard was not that wealthy to begin with but it was their support for the fans that gained them their reputation and their wealth. EA was the biggest publisher once but they never even once bothered about their fans, in fact they treat them like milking cows. mooo.

So the point of this thread is that you got into haemorrhage mode because of your failed patching for BC2 and now it is transferred to SC2 ? The thing is your speculation that sc2 is a rts killer is wrong and the only person to be blame is the other rts company for coming up with a product that is not competent to this day standards . If your game is good has new features of game play , something different and unique I can guaranty you it would topple down all kingdoms built by pass kings .

If you saying were true, it did not extend to the fps genre because Modern warfail 2 although with it's great hype and huge recipient of sale was not competent with the current release of Dice BC2 the main thing is if the game is badly made the only person to be blame is the company and not because of the surrounding competitors.

Blizzard become rich after Starcraft and Diablo 2 where it become so popular till it's an e-sport. Then,got even richer with WoW. Therefore they can support all their games. Not like they have 10 or more games.

I wont say EA is the same as 2 years ago since John Ricettello took over.

Mass Effect 2 is the product of all the criticism and praises of the fans/media in Mass Effect 1. Mass Effect 2 have better combat,less tedious MAKO driving and epic world. People were complaining about the horrible MAKO in Mass Effect 1,and Bioware removed it in Mass Effect 2. Go ask any Mass Effect player about their MAKO experience. Most of them hate it. In the end, Mass Effect 2 was great and a big improvement from Mass Effect 1. Memorable stories with memorable characters and good combat. Now,they are going to build Mass Effect 3 on the praises and criticism of Mass Effect 2.

If they gonna milk Mass Effect the way they did with Mass Effect 2,go ahead. I would still buy it as long as it's a good game. At least there are innovations in current EA games,rather than changing just the graphics and add a few new guns/units.

If you havent played a decent EA game(especially from Bioware) in last 2 years,please stop accusing them for milking the fans.

---

Added on March 24, 2010, 3:22 pmAlmost everyone in this thread says SC2 is RTS killer. After what happen to MW2,where i used to say it's the FPS killer,i wont put much hope on SC2.Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

I wont put other RTS isnt competent enough to compete with SC2,as most RTS out now are good games but flawed in some way. Other RTS company did not have as much hype as SC2 and the hype a lone can bring a lot of sales,like what happen to MW2 or previous NFS like Carbon despite it's a shitty game.

Activision Blizzard is depending on those franchise that have good previous sales records like CoD,SC,Diablo and Warcraft to earn money. Hype it up,and millions of dollars will flow into their pockets. Once their proven franchise have started to show less sales, they will buck up to improve it. This is the same situation as what happen to EA few years ago,where EA is extremely arrogant.FIFA,Madden, NFS, C&C, MoH, Battlefield all have annual sequels during that time till the quality and sales dropped to abyss only they realise that they have been doing it all wrong. Only then,they started to come out with innovative features and new franchise. It's the same cycle,except different company.

Besides,BFBC2 rocks.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 03:25 PM

I think it should be clear by now why Red Alert 3 failed to live up to its expectation. The potential is there but alas, EA couldn't be patient enough for it to garner enough followings.

my god.
i remember doing this back in ra2 with my harriers against my friend's nuke reactor.

I pretty much still remember that replay's every second.

Very well played.

There are a few more memorable ones,but this one stands out the most by far.

Everyone brought up valid points.
I'll just play everything they throw at me. What's with taking sides? We're not involved in the battle to produce the best game.

We're the consumer. Just buy the game and play the game.
Or don't buy the game and don't play the game.

Not like we can do anything else anyway.

---

Added on March 24, 2010, 3:41 pmOh, and Crysis, Warhead, and Borderlands were all pretty enjoyable (recent) EA Games for me.
I won't touch CnC4 after hearing the tons of bad reviews, but BFBC2 and SC2 are on my must-play lists.

p/s: WHAT'S WITH THE WOW HATE? lol
(I must admit, I'm a blizzard fanboy)

This post has been edited by hydrogen: Mar 24 2010, 03:44 PM

totally understand. even the player himself must be proud of that game. it's a shame really ra3 died before i get the chance to try play it competitively.

anyways regarding topic, i think yeah blizzard is really afraid of not fulfilling the expectation of their hardcore fans. sc1 is a masterpiece and i can imagine how hard it is to create another of such. sc2 just have such a huge shoes to fill.

Err blizzard was as big as EA then? But Blizzard did not spam its customers like EA, within a year they can have 2 CnC series ZOMG. RA3 and CnC3. Blizzard concentrates on quality no quantity.

Well EA does not own BioWare they are just publishing for them, just like SF4 in Malaysia is being published by EA SEA.

Again EA do not own Crytek they are just publishing for them.

Borderlands wasnt EA,it was 2K.

I dont hate WoW,but the art style(cartoon like) doesnt work well with D3 and SC2.

The Egyptian High Templar still annoys me. At least he floats and moves with blue shadows now.

I was playing it quite competitively for a while,from Beta till 1.2.

It was really fun. Then,it died before i can get back to it.

Starcraft 2 has none of that by the way.

Blizzard are SUCKING UP TO THEIR OLD FANS

So nothing new, besides none of innovative games enjoy as much success as SC. Even War3 was not as successful as SC in korea.

Oh ya, Borderlands was 2k. paiseh.
I agree that D3 and SC2 could be less cartoony. There was nothing cartoony about D2 and the original SC, I guess I would've preferred if they stuck to their own themes. (Dingy, goth, adventure hack-slash and sci-fi,tech rts)

Oh well. Let's place our hope in Chapters 2 and 3 of SC2.
Maybe they will introduce tons of new content that will really reignite Starcraft.

I was disappointed with the cartoonish SC2 also but they've changed quite abit since the time they showed us the alpha version. I hope they change more of it.

Blizzard doesnt spam games? How about WoW expansion where it has become a yearly release after merger with Activision?

Burning Crusade 2008
Wrath of Lich King, 2009
Cataclysm, 2010

And also SC2 suddenly has become 3 separate games,rather than 1 initially?

Doesnt ring a bell that Blizzard has become greedy? Or they are still the saint that emphasis more on quality than quantity,even though they have been releasing WoW expansion yearly. Seems more like they have been affected by Activision's greed. This isnt good.

Besides,if you say EALA released 2 C&C in a year is greedy,how about Relic who had also released 2 RTS games in 2009,ToV and DoW2? Also both DoW:DC and CoH at 2006? ZOMG,Reric milking gamers now!!!!! Reric suxxors....

EA now owns Bioware on 2008.

Bioware wiki.

It just show that you still hate EA for all their past shit games and still think that they are still the same bunch of assholes.

If EA still an ass, they wouldnt have give Bioware a huge budget and long development cycle for their next game called Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic MMO where Bioware considers the MMO as KOTOR 3,4,5,6 and 7 in one MMO.

i don't see any problems with WoW expansions. mmorpg players really need fresh contents once in a while.

I sense this topic gonna be closed soon.

Okay,so,if they want their old fans to come back,why the hell are they making a 10 year old game in 3D? Might as well call it Starcraft: Reloaded and sell it for 20USD.

So,now,SC is the most successful game on the planet now.What about WoW?

It gets even more cartoonish as they approach to beta to the point where units started to look retarded like Sentry,Nullifier,Brood Lord.

The terran buildings look like as if it's made of plastic,than Neosteel.

EA is turning evil now, must be worshiping some Chaos God:

EA considering charging for "Very long demo"

I know about that.

At least not as bad as Activision.

Even if they are charging for demo,cant be bother with it. Wait till full game release only buy.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 04:56 PM

wow this really opens up my eyes lol
i used to think EA was shit

no offense but look at C&C series

i played quite a bit of C&C till C&CZH
the reason i stop at zero hour is because finally EA makes some GOOD strategy games and i dont want to give them a chance to ruin it

1 thing i hate bout C&C franchise isthe build mode. u have to build the soldier/building 1 by 1 (not sure in C&C3 but my fren tell me its still the old way). im glad they change it in C&C generals

hahahaaa, true.
IMO, Terrans look like Gundam/MechWarrior. Protoss look like they came out of Mass Effect.
Zerg look the same.

EDIT: High Templar looks EXACTLY like a WOW character. LOL!

This post has been edited by hydrogen: Mar 24 2010, 04:55 PM

I hate Blizzard for making me wait.

Who knows, Blizzard may decide to pull a C&C4 and Ubisoft constant internet connection required.

that would seriously ruin the whole game

approx 1 month after the release, we can find all the "cracked" version on the net. its just not worth losing your customer for it

Thats why i hate how high templar look like now. Fugly like hell.

Also that old Infester model that looks like an onion with multiple mouths.Ugh.

Not again,you know how shitty is my internet in Aus.

Looks like they are not using that DRM,though.

IF StarCraft 2 sucks really bad ...

DIABLO 3 kan ADAA!! hehe........

i don't think ppl will put up much expectation for diablo 3 if starcraft 2 realy sucked

its two different games.

Lol... "waiting game" its one of Blizzard unique saying... "well.. we have less bugs during release "...

And abt persistance/constant internet connection required, somehow i got the feeling it will be so..

Considering they kept promoting their latest Battlenet and another (kinda) hint to support that as they already confirmed theres no LAN support.

Well, can't really say that way.. as afaik those two games u mentioned are being develop by two separate teams.

Cheers

Jeez, all these persistent internet connection "needed" DRM is turning me off games.

Come to think of it, if EA released a generic RTS named "Command Wars" instead of C&C 4, they probably wouldn't get so much flak. It'll probably just be remembered as a dud game with some innovative features.

This post has been edited by Grif: Mar 24 2010, 05:33 PM

seriously i LOL at this quote

"devs and publishers everywhere shit their pants"

i've been watching a lot of SC2 replays (those with the commentators speaking) on youtube, and i must say that despite that i'm not a SC1 fan, i'm really looking forward to play this game, and purchasing an ori version to play online

i must say that i'm trying to learn the game mechs from the commentators and see how people build to play the game "better"

anyway, i too was looking forward to play sup com 2 (as i've played the ori version of both SC1 and FA)...but i've read a lot of reviews heavily criticizing it until i backed down from buying it...is it really that bad?

still, i think i'll need a new cpu and gfx card to run this game (SC2) smoothly, but i can't wait to play another awesome strategy game...as i've skipped CnC4 and sup com 2...XD

I dont think so.
If you did follow up with the updates on D3, I'd say it sound cool.
For me, the skill + rune combination sounds interesting.

Its not very very very bad, it just feels a lot simpler (perhaps to some, dumber) and faster. I've played a few games online with my friends copy, games rarely last more than 20 minutes now.

This post has been edited by MYNAMEISJASON: Mar 24 2010, 07:45 PM

i see, thanks for the heads up

still, care to explain what does simpler/ dumber means?...

i know of the tech tree and such...and yea, people just dislike that a lot...lol...not to mention the plain looking units and their not so attractive colors...XD

i could never understand the craze ove blizzard.

their games tend to have repeats and copies, starcraft borrowed a lot from warcraft 2. starcraft borrowed A LOT from DoW (anyone tells me the dawn of war universe came after starcraft needs to get shot)

theres balance but normally rather "simple" game play

diablo best rpg ever? pleasee.........

what i can give them credit

battlenet.

support

and making balanced games.

most SC players ive asked never even touched total annilation, homeworld both i consider far superior in gameplay compared to SC. watching flying units act idly to attacks gave me rage!

rpg, well fallout series and baldurs gate series had more game play than diablo series all together. diablo was all about clicking enemies to death and the online community will crave for RARE items that you can get via hacks.

no more tiers, shields die faster(and you need to research it), artillery is much much weaker, commanders don't 1 hit tier 1 units and doesn't start with overcharge (the utility of overcharge is different here), experimentals come much much faster and die soooo much faster, gunships are also rather powerful here compared to the 1st game since you only get to use the same point/air defense for your race.


What do you mean by flying units act idly to attacks?

This post has been edited by MYNAMEISJASON: Mar 24 2010, 08:34 PM

i see, thanks for the details...=)

agreed. thats why i play metal fatigue.. though its not supported by vista
though the gameplay is slow but its more realistic, at least not everything depends on stats
for example, a lvl 5 pilot combot (mecha type unit) does not have more damage or hp from a lvl 1. its just that they are able to block better, fire more accurate and doing wat other veteran soldier does better than rookie

True,the games are pretty bland,bu the after sales support is amazing.

Like how SC2 planes fight,just stay stationary.

Unlike TA where they fly everywhere.

1:54
though they die too early

jets are no match for missle turret

This post has been edited by Frostlord: Mar 24 2010, 08:51 PM

but if they fly around like that, how you supposed to micro them accurately

Tell which army has something that actually moves like those units you micro in most RTS.

in Sup Com also they fly everywhere while attacking what...XD...i think there are planes which does stay "somewhat" stationary...but not all

i think gunships does stay stationary...doesn't it?

in real combat, you dont micro them
u give commands like "charge" "fall back" "switch plan B" instead of "all units focus fire on enemy id 312312" "marine #76 run to your left now!"

They cycle around the target and go pew pew.


But I thought some planes in TA actually land on the ground

TA and Sup Com planes land and flies like a real plane.

Unlike other game's one that you can micro them.

lol, yea, they hover around the building...other planes just stay in one spot and attack

i think the planes/units move around in sup com 2 too is because the weapons do not hit them 100%, and by moving around = increase % to dodge those bullets?XD

LOL. i still have this game... but it is kinda hard to play

i cant play it at all
the menu bar crashed with the screen making me unable to build anything

lol

"Ranger, use your rifle barrage ability on enemy unit id:5298!"

"Combat engineer, I would like you to build our supply depots in such a way that it will block the only access ramp into your base."

"Tank commander, fire at the enemy, and when the enemy engages you, retreat your armored division a little back until you are out of range, and then fire at the enemy again."

"Operator, I have gained enough experience from killing many enemy units in this battle, so i am entitled to call down an off-map airstrike that can hit anywhere i want."

"Squad, concentrate your fire on the enemy commander. He is giving off insane defense auras."

"The enemy squad is composed mainly of riflemen. Rifles are ranged weaponry, so the most effective tactic to counter ranged weaponry is to rush head on with our machete and other close range weapons!"

is sc2 editor coming out?

omg it has the Hell March theme from Red Alert at the end

kinda miss it though ><

*off to play RA2*

Ok fine, Im sorry for not seing the obvious. So blizzard has become just as corrupted as EA, good point in pointing out the obvious where I missed. Well one is an expansion and the other is a "new engine" game.

No I still dislike EA cos they still make shit like CnC4<---- I was hoping it have decent story line.

Cos SC2 just sells better than Starcraft remade?

---

Added on March 25, 2010, 12:04 pmWait that sounds overlordish Nerzul ala warcraft 3???

This post has been edited by fujkenasai: Mar 25 2010, 12:04 PM

Don't need to remake Starcraft 1 since the 10 year old Starcraft 1 can still be sold at full retail price without discount.

No point making a remake for Starcraft 1 when it might eat into the market share of the Starcraft 1.

how 2 get the SC2 beta version CD key?? any hack or patch??

You are still ignoring the good stuff they have made.C&C4 is one shit game,how about the rest?