If I liked WC3 but never played Starcraft, will I like Starcraft II

kent

kent

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 8, 2001
Messages
2,603
I know I know, I never played Starcraft but I played Warcraft 3 when it came out and enjoyed the 4 single player campaigns, never did any online playing

Do you think I'll enjoy Starcraft II?
 
Yeah I was a big WC3 player and never played the first starcraft. Got SC2 and love it! The game play is a lot different though, SC2 is faster and does not require as much micro.
 
In a word: yes. If you like the RTS genre at all, you'll probably enjoy SCII. Having enjoyed a previous Blizzard RTS like Warcraft just fortifies the assertion that you'll enjoy the gameplay/story.

I'm only partway through the single player and so far it's absolutely epic...much better than WCIII in my opinion (and I really enjoyed WCIII).
 
Well, there's no way to know until you try it. Considering how many units it sold, you should have a friend who bought it and is willing to let you try it out, right?

If not, you might like it anyway. Blizzard did a fantastic job on it.
 
Downloading now from B.net although not very fast :\
 
KrypticMind said:
Well, there's no way to know until you try it. Considering how many units it sold, you should have a friend who bought it and is willing to let you try it out, right?

If not, you might like it anyway. Blizzard did a fantastic job on it.
Click to expand...

What if he has no friends?:p
 
I have friends but I'm a closet PC gamer :x

I'm using a 3 year old machine (Q6600 @ 3GHz, 8GB DDR2, 8800-GTS 512MB)
 
Both are great games but I personally think WC3 is more fun than SC2.
 
darkhunter139 said:
Yeah I was a big WC3 player and never played the first starcraft. Got SC2 and love it! The game play is a lot different though, SC2 is faster and does not require as much micro.
Click to expand...

I agree that you will also love SC2 although I totally disagree with the fact that SC2 requires less micro management. Unless you play all inexperienced players, micromanagement is a big factor in deciding the outcome of a battle.
 
kent said:
I have friends but I'm a closet PC gamer :x

I'm using a 3 year old machine (Q6600 @ 3GHz, 8GB DDR2, 8800-GTS 512MB)
Click to expand...

SC2 will run on your system (probably not maxed) and you like RTS games so I'd get it if I were you.

Are your friends console gamers? :p
 
MGDMN said:
I agree that you will also love SC2 although I totally disagree with the fact that SC2 requires less micro management. Unless you play all inexperienced players, micromanagement is a big factor in deciding the outcome of a battle.
Click to expand...

Yep, micromanagement in SC2 is much less forgiving but every bit as important. Instead of having a "tanky" hero that can take hits and has a lot of utility, microing individual units or groups that can die quickly can make or break some situations.
 
I'm with you on never playing the first Starcraft and so far I'm really enjoying Sc2

Single player is really fun but multiplayer takes some getting used to but it is still a blast
 
kent said:
I have friends but I'm a closet PC gamer :x

I'm using a 3 year old machine (Q6600 @ 3GHz, 8GB DDR2, 8800-GTS 512MB)
Click to expand...

lol, same here. For fun I tried the "add facebook friends" thing in SC2 and no one (of the ~200) had a battle.net account.. Thankfully I don't think it announced on facebook that I play SC2. With video games being considered for kids and losers I prefer to keep that quite..

ot; I played through WC3 as well and don't think SC2 will disappointed you. Although I played a ton of SC1.
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
With video games being considered for kids and losers I prefer to keep that quiet..
Click to expand...
hey now! i'm not a kid, nor a loser. i think most of us here are loud and proud of the fact that we're avid gamers! :p

(okay, i admit i have "gamer" friends and then "regular" friends and the two groups are pretty much mutually exclusive.)

loving sc2 so far. i, too, played wc3 and passed over sc1. sc2 is going to be taking up loads of my free time for the foreseeable future.
 
SC2 is macro heavy , you need at l,east 16 workers for the mineral line .
In WC3 and FT, the hard cap is 5 workers for gold and about 8 for wood (depending on what race you're playing.)

In WC3 you have to micro manage at least 2 heroes in addition to your units. On a sidenote, SC2 is more focused on 1v1, due to the fact there is no equivalent to the teleportation scroll in SC2 ( I guess you can use nydus ,warping or recall, but each skill is available at different points in the game)
 
I played SC1 and WC3 and in my opinion SC2 is just SC1 with way outdated graphics. WC3 had more creative gameplay with hero leveling, killing creeps for exp and items while you waited to fight your opponent for example.
 
I played a lot of WC3 but not much SC, and I definitely love SC2. Honestly the best way to figure out if you'll like it is to try it yourself.
 
I can't speak to the multiplayer side of WC3 vs SC2, but single player story-wise Blizzard has turned SC2 into WC3: In Space!!

The SC2 multiplayer is very fun though.

(+1 to whoever wrote this before me in the thread)
 
MGDMN said:
I agree that you will also love SC2 although I totally disagree with the fact that SC2 requires less micro management. Unless you play all inexperienced players, micromanagement is a big factor in deciding the outcome of a battle.
Click to expand...

I did not say it requires no micromanagement but there is no way it requires as much as WC3 did.
 
darkhunter139 said:
I did not say it requires no micromanagement but there is no way it requires as much as WC3 did.
Click to expand...

You're actually pretty much correct, the game seems to focus more on sheer numbers than any kind of real "micromanagement"

If you have a guy turtling his main base and he hasn't expanded and he's facing another guy who has his main base and an expansion, the 2nd guy is more likely to win, even if the first guy has amazing micro, simply because the 2nd guy will have more of an economy and more ability to pump out units while the first guy won't be able to replace his losses quick enough to counter.
 
darkhunter139 said:
I did not say it requires no micromanagement but there is no way it requires as much as WC3 did.
Click to expand...

I know you didnt say it requires no micromanagement. I didnt say that you did. However it requires a great deal of micromanagement. It requires MUCH more micro than WC3 does as you dont have a hero that can tank your attacks. I played sc1 quite alot when I was younger and sc2 falls right into the same category. Micro is a HUGE part of the strategy of SC and anyone that says otherwise is just a casual player.
 
Fail said:
You're actually pretty much correct, the game seems to focus more on sheer numbers than any kind of real "micromanagement"

If you have a guy turtling his main base and he hasn't expanded and he's facing another guy who has his main base and an expansion, the 2nd guy is more likely to win, even if the first guy has amazing micro, simply because the 2nd guy will have more of an economy and more ability to pump out units while the first guy won't be able to replace his losses quick enough to counter.
Click to expand...

Also, you dont know what you're talking about. It doesnt matter how many numbers you have if a terran has a perfect bunker/tank/turret defense, you can exhaust all the resources that you have. It wont make a difference. Numbers are not all that matters.
 
MGDMN said:
I agree that you will also love SC2 although I totally disagree with the fact that SC2 requires less micro management. Unless you play all inexperienced players, micromanagement is a big factor in deciding the outcome of a battle.
Click to expand...

this
 
I've played a few thousand games in both SC and WC3 and can tell you straight out that the SC series is a heck of a lot more micro intensive than WC3. You also have to be a lot faster in SC for micromanaging since units die a lot faster.
 
I'm liking it but I agree with TheCommander, I'm struggling on Normal and not because I don't know the game mechanics
 
Generally i dislike RTS's, simply because i hate maniacally clicking around to make sure everything is running smoothly. That being said, i picked up SC2 as soon as i could find a retail copy. The SC series is just that good. If even a died in the wool RTS hater can love your game, you made one hell of a great game! :D

But i do tend to play on lower difficulty levels, as they make the game less "intense", and therefore more enjoyable to my style of play.

I also won't be playing any multiplayer, as i would get eaten alive every time. But i can honestly say that i feel i got my monies worth from the single player campaign, and i can't wait for the sequels. :)

I just wish there were more good turn based strategy games. Eagerly awaiting that element wars game (can't remember the exact name at the moment).
 
Most real 1v1 games dont last long enough to expand, and for 8 minerals, 24 workers is the optimum for income.

And for those scared of multiplayer, I feel ya, but multiplayer will put you in leauge divisions which generally will put you into games of your caliber (so those that only know mass and rush will be in the bronze leauge) and you'll slowly learn how to get better.

Also, there's UMS games that are already looking polished. WC3 might be where tower defense games came from, but starcraft made them popular. There's a number of tower defense games that have very fun game mechanics. I even played a alpha version of the lamented starcraft: ghost (third person shooter). Nexus wars, survival games, give developers 6 months and see what amazing things they can build.
 
spugnor said:
Generally i dislike RTS's, simply because i hate maniacally clicking around to make sure everything is running smoothly.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the micro-management, but I think SC2 has done a good job of helping to streamline basic tasks that were a nuisance in the first. I'm really really enjoying the single-player campaign...I can't think of another RTS that did single-player this well.

spugnor said:
I just wish there were more good turn based strategy games. Eagerly awaiting that element wars game (can't remember the exact name at the moment).
Click to expand...

CIV 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Glad to know I am not the only one who plays the SP in RTS games but never online vs mode. Last RTS game I played online was WC2 and I got beaten to a pulp every time.
 
I think SC2 is all about APM and Warcraft 3 about a good build order and properly creeping and microing your Heroes. I find they are too completely different games, i do enjoy WC3 multiplayer a bit more because it's sorta much more relaxed! At my age my APM is starting to SUCK!!
 
The heroes in wc3 makes it harder to attack imo. You don't want to lose so many of your own units in the attack unless you're sure, else you just give them lots of experience. And the TP scrolls can make attacking quite difficult unless you have a decent advantage
 
MisterSkills said:
I think SC2 is all about APM and Warcraft 3 about a good build order and properly creeping and microing your Heroes. I find they are too completely different games, i do enjoy WC3 multiplayer a bit more because it's sorta much more relaxed! At my age my APM is starting to SUCK!!
Click to expand...

A good APM helps, but it's certainly not the deciding factor in a SCII game. Someone can have amazing APM and still show up to fight with the wrong unit mix and no upgrades and he'll go down fast.
 
petertew said:
A good APM helps, but it's certainly not the deciding factor in a SCII game. Someone can have amazing APM and still show up to fight with the wrong unit mix and no upgrades and he'll go down fast.
Click to expand...

/thread

well done
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top