This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is Starcraft 2 fun?

#11StormKMDPosted 9/6/2013 7:50:18 PM
HighOnPhazon posted...
I'm going to get mega flamed for this, but I find that Starcraft 2 relies less on strategy and more on speed and twitch reflexes.

It's about fast build orders, and fast micromanagement. There is little strategic thought.

I find games like Total War, Civ and Eurpoa to be true strategy games.

BTW I really enjoy Starcraft 2's campaign, but playing online is like getting kicked in the nuts.


This.
---
MSI 660 GeForce 2GB | i5 3570K | AsRock Z77 Pro3 | Seagate Barracuda 500GB | Ballistix 8GB | Corsair CX430
#12Fade2black001Posted 9/6/2013 8:04:18 PM
HighOnPhazon posted...
I'm going to get mega flamed for this, but I find that Starcraft 2 relies less on strategy and more on speed and twitch reflexes.

It's about fast build orders, and fast micromanagement. There is little strategic thought.

I find games like Total War, Civ and Eurpoa to be true strategy games.

BTW I really enjoy Starcraft 2's campaign, but playing online is like getting kicked in the nuts.


The hell you smoking there homie?
---
We're Americans! We don't quit just because we're wrong.
We just keep doing the wrong thing until it turns out right.
#13GynthaeresPosted 9/6/2013 9:28:21 PM
Starcraft 2 is fun if you thrive on competition, and/or if you get addicted to trying to climb the ladder. If you're not much for competition, the game itself isn't really that entertaining in multiplayer.

As for depth, well... It's about as deep as any other RTS. Not quite at the level of some I've played, but not particularly simple relative to them either.


HighOnPhazon posted...
I'm going to get mega flamed for this, but I find that Starcraft 2 relies less on strategy and more on speed and twitch reflexes.

It's about fast build orders, and fast micromanagement. There is little strategic thought.

I find games like Total War, Civ and Eurpoa to be true strategy games.

BTW I really enjoy Starcraft 2's campaign, but playing online is like getting kicked in the nuts.


I agree entirely. Starcraft 2 always felt more like Counterstrike or Quake 3 Arena (in more ways than one, for that game) than like... chess. Except for the very highest levels, it's not about who has the best strategy. It's about who has the fastest fingers, who has the best memory, who's the best at multitasking. Basically, strategy isn't nearly as important as your ability to deal with the game mechanics.
There are some exceptions to that, of course. We call them "build order losses/wins".

And you'll hear instructors / high level players / people like Day[9] tell you those sorts of things, when you try to improve. #1 difference between Bronze and Silver: Ability to build workers consistently. #1 difference between Silver, Gold, Plat vs. Diamond: Ability to build an army while attacking / expanding / teching. Add in ability to micro between Diamond and mid-masters. Only at mid-to-high Masters / GM does strategy really come into play, as the biggest decider of a game. Sometimes not even then.
---
The sole purpose of this space is to make my post look longer.