Solve : Is Starcraft 2 worth it??

1.	Solve : Is Starcraft 2 worth it??
Answer» From all the BLIZZARD games I think Starcraft 2 was the worst. It was just like starcraft one but with alot worse scenario, a lot worse multiplayer and the graphics of warcraft 3 (almost 10 years outdated). Thats my thoughts.i think the biggest con with star craft 1 and 2 is ZURG rush ... Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 11, 2011, 06:45:44 PM I've only played starcraft 1 for about 5 minutes total. I wouldn't say that's enough time to MAKE a fair judgement. Quote from: Tectonic on January 25, 2011, 05:10:56 AM From all the Blizzard games I think Starcraft 2 was the worst. It was just like starcraft one but with alot worse scenario, a lot worse multiplayer and the graphics of warcraft 3 (almost 10 years outdated). The graphics weren't that bad. They're a lot better than WC3's graphics if you turn everything to full detail, and if you can't, that's not the game's fault. The scenarios were a lot more interactive and less about just building up a force and wiping out the enemy. Except in multi-player, where the same old strategy still applies: build a mass of troops and zerg the other player. I wouldn't say it's the worst thing they've done, unless you are referring to only three currently active franchises, but they have come out with many worse products if you go back to early Blizzard or even back before they changed their name from "Silicon & Synapse". Look at some of the crap they made for SNES, MS-DOS, and Genesis, which of course aren't impressive now, but even back in the day were a joke (see "Blackthorne", "Rock n' Roll Racing", "Justice League Task Force", "The DEATH and Return of Superman").Sorry starcraft 2 in full gfx is pretty much the least impressive rts game of the last few years graphically, I believe. As for gameplay, it is outdated and done to death. However, the mutliplayer is the worst part above and beyond everything else on Starcraft 2. That is why the Pro SC circuits of Korea still play SC1 and havent touched SC2 much. Blizzard tried to grab their industry and they ignored SC2 in return. Battlenet2 offers none of the features that made battlenet1 able to keep SC1 ALIVE all those years. No lan, no ladders, no ability to play with people from other continents and more. Quote from: quaxo on January 26, 2011, 08:14:02 PM I wouldn't say that's enough time to make a fair judgement. I don't recall claiming otherwise.The first Starcraft was as perfect as it gets for RTS in my opinion so what could they have done really? If they move too far from the original people will complain... you have balancing issues etc... I think they got it RIGHT on but that's just imo.

Answer»

From all the BLIZZARD games I think Starcraft 2 was the worst.
It was just like starcraft one but with alot worse scenario, a lot worse multiplayer and the graphics of warcraft 3 (almost 10 years outdated).

Thats my thoughts.i think the biggest con with star craft 1 and 2 is ZURG rush ... Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 11, 2011, 06:45:44 PM

I've only played starcraft 1 for about 5 minutes total.

I wouldn't say that's enough time to MAKE a fair judgement.
Quote from: Tectonic on January 25, 2011, 05:10:56 AM

From all the Blizzard games I think Starcraft 2 was the worst.
It was just like starcraft one but with alot worse scenario, a lot worse multiplayer and the graphics of warcraft 3 (almost 10 years outdated).

The graphics weren't that bad. They're a lot better than WC3's graphics if you turn everything to full detail, and if you can't, that's not the game's fault.

The scenarios were a lot more interactive and less about just building up a force and wiping out the enemy. Except in multi-player, where the same old strategy still applies: build a mass of troops and zerg the other player.

I wouldn't say it's the worst thing they've done, unless you are referring to only three currently active franchises, but they have come out with many worse products if you go back to early Blizzard or even back before they changed their name from "Silicon & Synapse". Look at some of the crap they made for SNES, MS-DOS, and Genesis, which of course aren't impressive now, but even back in the day were a joke (see "Blackthorne", "Rock n' Roll Racing", "Justice League Task Force", "The DEATH and Return of Superman").Sorry starcraft 2 in full gfx is pretty much the least impressive rts game of the last few years graphically, I believe.

As for gameplay, it is outdated and done to death.

However, the mutliplayer is the worst part above and beyond everything else on Starcraft 2. That is why the Pro SC circuits of Korea still play SC1 and havent touched SC2 much. Blizzard tried to grab their industry and they ignored SC2 in return.
Battlenet2 offers none of the features that made battlenet1 able to keep SC1 ALIVE all those years. No lan, no ladders, no ability to play with people from other continents and more. Quote from: quaxo on January 26, 2011, 08:14:02 PM

I wouldn't say that's enough time to make a fair judgement.

I don't recall claiming otherwise.The first Starcraft was as perfect as it gets for RTS in my opinion so what could they have done really? If they move too far from the original people will complain... you have balancing issues etc... I think they got it RIGHT on but that's just imo.

Solve : Is Starcraft 2 worth it??

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment