Starcraft!

[Boris Godunov]

Before you dismiss the genre completely, I would check out Age of Empires II, Company of Heroes, and Rise of Nations (which I have not played although my understanding is that it's like an RTS version of Civ).

I played both AoEII and RoN, and also Empire Earth. After a little while playing them, I felt that they were basically the same as all the other RTS games I've played. The only "RTS" that grabbed my interest for long was EU2, and that's markedly different from the others, since you can slow the passing of time down, didn't have to do the annoying resource gathering and it had a robust diplomacy model.

I get why people enjoy RTS games, I'm not knocking them. I just am in the minority who would rather play a TBS game.

[Nostromo]

I tried really hard to like Starcraft, but I simply can't.

[duke o' york]

I'm in the minority with Boris - I love TBS but can't be bothered with RTS. Even if my mouse was fine and didn't keep skipping at random, I'd just be too slow with it. I'm quite happy to play throwaway stuff like FIFA and PES or fighting games on consoles and don't have a problem keeping up, but RTS has never appealed.

[Jon Miller]

Can you buy a euro game but set it to the US?

JM

[Elok]

Hehe, this happens to me too... I halso have fallout 3, GTAIV and the first Starcraft started. they are all very good, but i havent finished them.

re Starcraft, I have played the human campaign several times. But then it switches to another race, and I must learn everything all over. Thats when I dont have time anymore! The exact same thing happened with warcraft III by the way!

and most likely it will happen with starcraft II

While they're different, they aren't *that* different. Have you tried skipping the Zerg and going straight to Protoss? I find the Zerg to be micromanagement hell, what with the twelve-unit group limit, the creep restrictions and the having to build new drones constantly to replace ones lost to buildings. Plus I just find them disgusting and uninteresting. The Protoss are much easier to manage, and cooler to boot.

But then I, too, am just not fast enough to be any good at RTS. Even the AI for random games creams me. I play the scenarios and leave it at that.

[Guynemer]

Another vote here for a general dislike of RTS. I can get into them for a while--RON was enjoyable for a time--but I find I have a hard time getting into even the most-praised games. (Sins of a Solar Empire isn't exactly blowing my socks off so far.)

[Al B. Sure!]

Did anyone check out the videos I posted of genre-defying user-created content for Starcraft 2?

That's the real beauty of Starcraft. It's not JUST an RTS. You're buying a virtually unlimited number of games, of many different genres, for the price of one. What other game has had so much user modification as the Starcraft series? Not just skins or new units; Things like Starcraft as a top down shooter using the WASD keys to control your character.

And Elok, how is the Zerg micro-management hell but the Protoss are not? With the zerg, you just use mass wave tactics. For the Protoss you have to micromanage templars with their spells, Arbiters with their cloaking and teleporting abilities, you have to make sure your carriers are producing drones and your reavers are producing their missile things. The Protoss are the micro-management hell of Starcraft. They always have fewer units and you can never be competitive without micro-managing their technological magic. The only thing easier about them is the easy building of buildings.

[Elok]

In the missions, at least, such micromanagement is unnecessary for the Protoss. I generally don't bother with spellcasters of any kind, and as for reavers, I use them as little as possible. They're the one Protoss unit that's undeniably inferior to its equivalents. Versus Zerg, I've never needed spellcasters; they have no efficient counter to archons and have to swarm them with units, at a loss in my experience. They're a lot less hassle and far more durable than the HT they're made of. Plus archons are the one ground unit not vulnerable to broodlings, and they laugh at the plague. I think of them as "bug-zappers." Also valuable and requiring little MM: zealots, dark templars, dragoons, scouts, corsairs. Carriers are hardly MM, as they lose interceptors at a rate of roughly one every twenty minutes of gameplay. Order five, come back and order more in thirty seconds, you're done.

And mass wave tactics ARE micromanagement with the twelve-unit group limit and shoddy pathfinding AI. They jam up, get confused and go the wrong way at every ramp or chokepoint. The advantage of the Protoss is that twelve units have a lot more muscle, so you don't have to juggle ten groups. Also you're not constantly going back to order more after "expected losses."

[Al B. Sure!]

Well yeah if you don't use the spells the Protoss aren't micromanagement hell but from my experience, you can't be competitive in skirmish maps with the Protoss without using spells.

But you are right about having to manage several groups of Zerg because of the group limit. I would usually have numbers 1-5 assigned to 5 different groups of Zerglings, then 6 would be hydralisks, 7 would be some lurkers, and 8-9 would be mutalisks. It could get confusing sometimes.

[Al B. Sure!]

Hey if anyone has SC2, can you confirm if you can play skirmish games against the computer? Like you pick a map, set AI opponents, and play? I want to make sure that the lack of single player Zerg/Protoss is only with regards to campaigns for those species, not that you can't play with them in skirmishes against the computer in single player (ie- not that the only way you can play as the Zerg is against people on battle.net)

[Space05us]

Hey if anyone has SC2, can you confirm if you can play skirmish games against the computer? Like you pick a map, set AI opponents, and play? I want to make sure that the lack of single player Zerg/Protoss is only with regards to campaigns for those species, not that you can't play with them in skirmishes against the computer in single player (ie- not that the only way you can play as the Zerg is against people on battle.net)

Yes you can play as the Zerg or Protoss in single player skirmishes.

Just got home from helping a friend move and haven't had much time to play yet. Way past time for bed.

[BeBMan]

So did anyone actually play it? I want to know if there are many stupid missions where you have no base, can't build stuff but need to run around just with a handfull of guys to fulfill some tasks - I don't like these at all.

[Al B. Sure!]

So did anyone actually play it? I want to know if there are many stupid missions where you have no base, can't build stuff but need to run around just with a handfull of guys to fulfill some tasks - I don't like these at all.

I actually always preferred missions like this. It's more realistic than the RTS standard of building a base and training units and it's considerably more tactical. Fixed force missions.

[antus]

Have you tried skipping the Zerg and going straight to Protoss? I find the Zerg to be micromanagement hell, what with the twelve-unit group limit, the creep restrictions and the having to build new drones constantly to replace ones lost to buildings.

Actually no I havent! That is probably a good idea.

However, today I bought SC2, so I get to start with terran. For the first time evfer, I am not a total newbie when I start the game, and graphics have improved a bit sine 1998 ;-)

So far, I like it a lot. So I better get back right away :-)

[Felch]

So did anyone actually play it? I want to know if there are many stupid missions where you have no base, can't build stuff but need to run around just with a handfull of guys to fulfill some tasks - I don't like these at all.

I'm ten missions in and only the first mission was like that. It was more of a tutorial than anything else.