Starcraft II Catch-All

It would be interesting if SC2 allowed one to give objective to squad leaders, who competently execute them. Say, not necessarily by running straight at the pillbox.

Company of Heroes' soldiers may be smart enough to lie prone under fire, but they won't so much as chuck a grenade unless I tell them.

Might be best saved for another game, though. Both micro- and macromanagement have their places, and are fun in their own way.

Dune 2 was the shiznit. But the units were as dumb as a box of rocks.

Sonicator wrote:

And yes, I'm extremely bad at micromanagement-heavy games.

This. I love the RTS concept. I HATE the RTS speed-micromanagement that makes the games more stressful than fun. I'm one of those guys who's glad that included speed sliders in the previous Xcraft games, and when I play I put the sliders on medium or slow. I hate the multiplayer because it's always on one of the fast/fastest/methamphetamine-addict speed settings.

RTS controls - click on unit, right click on location/enemy.

Couldn't be simpler.

I think he's talking about Korean moms. I don't see a large demand for this in America.

souldaddy wrote:

RTS controls - click on unit, right click on location/enemy.

Couldn't be simpler.

I think he's talking about Korean moms. I don't see a large demand for this in America.

'Cept the whole micromanagement aspect and then the rock,paper,scissor aspect of the units. Gawd

I like a good balance between macro and micro. If you take time away from growing your empire to direct a battle, you should see a benefit from that. Units like the old templars which were either worthless or awesome depending on whether or not you were paying attention to the fight went a bit too far in the micro direction for my tastes. I like to see units which are useful when acting autonomously, and are extra effective when being actively directed.

And Dune 2, such memories. Harkonnen were great if you didn't want to be hassled with shepherding your sandcrawlers all the time, due to the fact that your units and base defenses automatically fired on sand worms, but Atriedes ruled once you reached the sonic tank stage, since they were the only unit that could hit rocket turrets with 100% accuracy from outside their maximum range. We won't bother to discuss Ordos.

souldaddy wrote:

RTS controls - click on unit, right click on location/enemy.

Couldn't be simpler.

I think simple is the problem. Manually controlling 50-100 really dumb units doesn't leave time (for me at least) to formulate and execute interesting tactics or strategies. Every multiplayer RTS game I've ever won devolved into building lots of units, massing them, and crashing the gates. At best I'd tell a few units to focus fire on a tank or something.

souldaddy wrote:

RTS controls - click on unit, right click on location/enemy.

Couldn't be simpler.

Until you get the units with special abilities and need some way to activate them. Auto-activation can work if your unit AI is smart enough to know when and where to use them (i.e. target the enemy it will be most effective against and don't throw a Psionic Storm over enemies when you've also got units in that area of effect).

Wake, sleeping dog!

Tom Chick thinks the trilogy idea is stupid.

And he's got a fairly elegant argument for it.

the actual real-time strategy gameplay doesn't lend itself to storytelling, because -- and I almost hate to tell you this -- it's a puzzle. And here is the heart of the puzzle: How do you convert the on-map resources more efficiently than your opponent? Single-player missions often modify the puzzle with certain restrictions, like making you play chess without the bishop or Tetris without the "L"-shaped piece. But unlike a shooter or a role-playing game or a driving game, it always comes down to the puzzle-ness of it. There's a certain purity at the heart of any RTS.

...Now I could be wrong, and I welcome any corrections, but I can't think of a single compelling instance of storytelling that happened during an actual RTS match. The real narrative is between missions, whether you're talking about the excellent DIY story of dynamic campaigns like Rome: Total War, the goofball cinematics of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, or the tragedy of Arthas in WarCraft III. But in each case, before and after there are the puzzles. Always the puzzles.

All this is my way of saying Blizzard's decision to stretch StarCraft II into three games strikes me as a simple grab for more money, which is entirely within its rights. But I'm not buying the whitewash about how its storyline is just too epic and the game needs triple the development time to correctly tell it.

souldaddy wrote:

Wake, sleeping dog!

Tom Chick thinks the trilogy idea is stupid.

And he's got a fairly elegant argument for it.

the actual real-time strategy gameplay doesn't lend itself to storytelling, because -- and I almost hate to tell you this -- it's a puzzle. And here is the heart of the puzzle: How do you convert the on-map resources more efficiently than your opponent? Single-player missions often modify the puzzle with certain restrictions, like making you play chess without the bishop or Tetris without the "L"-shaped piece. But unlike a shooter or a role-playing game or a driving game, it always comes down to the puzzle-ness of it. There's a certain purity at the heart of any RTS.

...Now I could be wrong, and I welcome any corrections, but I can't think of a single compelling instance of storytelling that happened during an actual RTS match. The real narrative is between missions, whether you're talking about the excellent DIY story of dynamic campaigns like Rome: Total War, the goofball cinematics of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, or the tragedy of Arthas in WarCraft III. But in each case, before and after there are the puzzles. Always the puzzles.

All this is my way of saying Blizzard's decision to stretch StarCraft II into three games strikes me as a simple grab for more money, which is entirely within its rights. But I'm not buying the whitewash about how its storyline is just too epic and the game needs triple the development time to correctly tell it.

In multiplayer, I agree. But in single player, the computer AI isn't resource limited like the player is; I've seen times where I've got a hog of resources, I'll wipe every unit they own out, multiple times and they still continue building until I destroy structures. So long as there is one basic build unit, the AI can pretty much always recover it seems.

In single player, the lore and the cutscenes are the story, and while most of the time it's just a matter of slaying your opponent, there are plenty of times when there's more than that, or you're limited in your units.

I think he's full of poo-poo and his article is too, but to each their own.

Thin_J wrote:

I think he's full of poo-poo and his article is too, but to each their own.

Heh his argument is interesting because isn't every game like that really? All the story elements are told in between the action of the game. Sure in HL you are interacting with the terrain during plot points but it isn't like you are in a firefight and the NPC's are telling you something that's important. But then again Tom Chick hasn't played anymore then he's been allowed to at conventions so he has limited scope to the game, everything he says is speculation at this point.

Devmani wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

I think he's full of poo-poo and his article is too, but to each their own.

Heh his argument is interesting because isn't every game like that really? All the story elements are told in between the action of the game. Sure in HL you are interacting with the terrain during plot points but it isn't like you are in a firefight and the NPC's are telling you something that's important. But then again Tom Chick hasn't played anymore then he's been allowed to at conventions so he has limited scope to the game, everything he says is speculation at this point.

I had figured this much myself, but what I found interesting is how he seems to have COMPLETELY ignored Warcraft 3 and Starcraft. Both games were rife with in engine cuts during missions for plotline information. Granted, that probably still constitutes a break from the action, but there's a large difference to me, at least between breaking out of the engine you play the game in to advance the story and getting a pause during one to advance it. It's honestly not a huge step from that to 'here's the info while you're in the thick of it', if you ask me. Additionally, given how Blizzard has a history of extending previous ideas in that fashion, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in SC2.

He's saying that in an RTS it's impossible to tell a story with the gameplay, unlike say FPS games. While I disagree, I think RTS games are less suited to it. I feel it's still possible in single player.

PyromanFO wrote:

He's saying that in an RTS it's impossible to tell a story with the gameplay, unlike say FPS games. While I disagree, I think RTS games are less suited to it. I feel it's still possible in single player.

Yep, which is why I bring up the point of all the in-engine cutscenes from SC1 and Warcraft 3, along with the missions where you have limited resources to achieve objectives.

AnimeJ wrote:
PyromanFO wrote:

He's saying that in an RTS it's impossible to tell a story with the gameplay, unlike say FPS games. While I disagree, I think RTS games are less suited to it. I feel it's still possible in single player.

Yep, which is why I bring up the point of all the in-engine cutscenes from SC1 and Warcraft 3, along with the missions where you have limited resources to achieve objectives.

In engine cutscenes are not using the gameplay however. He's not saying in the game he's saying with the game.

Yea I'm not buying that angle of the argument considering most of my early gaming was allot of RTS games and Warcraft, C&C/Red Alert, Age of Mythology and DoW all had good story telling of varying degrees. Not sure exactly what his point is that there's 'Puzzles' in between the cut scenes because if there wasn't wouldn't we just be watching a pretty average story acted out by in game cut scene actors... for 60 bucks.

Critics are better sticking to the wah wah wah argument of I don't want to pay 3 times. That's the one I'm sticking to

I dunno. I generally like what Tom Chick has to say, but I played Starcraft for the story. If I can be given an awesome story-telling experience by 3 versions of Starcraft 2 then I'm totally behind it.

In another article he does recommend that RTS players never play the campaign, because that is poor training for the skirmishes and multiplayer. He definitely comes from a specific direction.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I dunno. I generally like what Tom Chick has to say, but I played Starcraft for the story. If I can be given an awesome story-telling experience by 3 versions of Starcraft 2 then I'm totally behind it.

In another article he does recommend that RTS players never play the campaign, because that is poor training for the skirmishes and multiplayer. He definitely comes from a specific direction.

Not sure if I agree with the 2nd part. Totally depends on what skill curve everyone is on Bnet. The first months of SC if you put in some time learning the units in skirmish it payed dividends online. Any familiarization with the interface and units is good training for multiplayer... assuming real people play like the AI though is obviously naive. If you sat down and played through all the campaigns then jumped into multiplayer then yes obviously your going to get your ass handed to you by people who concentrated on learning the game in skirmish and the tactics online vs real thinking people.

Personally every RTS I play its straight into skirmish and building every single building and unit and seeing everything the game offers for every race.

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying that he's approaching the game from the very specific perspective of someone who is into multiplayer. Obviously in that case there is little to no value in the multiple release format.

For someone who plays the game for the story his objections make no sense because he hasn't played the campaign. It is possible that Blizzard can create and evocative experience spanning all three releases within the RTS format.

His argument can be applied to various genres almost equally.. especially the FPS genre.. I think he's basically applying a flimsy "point" to bash Blizzard for a cash grab.. which ultimately will drive him some more hits.

Angry Internet Men strike again.

I complete agree with Tom. This seems obvious to me, I'm not sure why others don't understand his point.

like making you play chess without the bishop

RTS campaigns are always like this. The missions are never as dynamic as a skirmish game. You have access to fewer units and the AI is limited. Enemy units stand in a certain location but won't react to the player unless triggered. There is no ebb and flow, no act and react. It's like the game has it's hands tied behind it's back, the basic mechanics are gimped.

Imagine playing Civ with the campaign structure of an RTS. I bet most of us would skip it entirely, no matter how good the story is.

It's not like a shooter where the AI blossoms in single player. There is sh*t you see in Halo 3 campaign that you can never see in Halo 3 multiplayer.

Imagine playing Civ with the campaign structure of an RTS. I bet most of us would skip it entirely, no matter how good the story is.

It would be called a scenario, and I imagine many of us do.

buzzvang wrote:
Imagine playing Civ with the campaign structure of an RTS. I bet most of us would skip it entirely, no matter how good the story is.

It would be called a scenario, and I imagine many of us do.

Excellent point. Scenarios aren't story heavy, though.

I complete agree with Tom. This seems obvious to me, I'm not sure why others don't understand his point.

What that you cant tell an epic story in an RTS? or that its a Cash Grab?

Either way its way to early to tell one way or another.. I'll just settle with "are the games good?" to settle the whole trilogy aspect. If all 3 end up being "worth" $50 a piece then its a non-issue.

AnimeJ wrote:

I had figured this much myself, but what I found interesting is how he seems to have COMPLETELY ignored Warcraft 3 and Starcraft. Both games were rife with in engine cuts during missions for plotline information.

Tom Chick wrote:

...or the tragedy of Arthas in WarCraft III.

Well, he didn't COMPLETELY ignore them.

But I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Not sure exactly what his point is that there's 'Puzzles' in between the cut scenes because if there wasn't wouldn't we just be watching a pretty average story acted out by in game cut scene actors... for 60 bucks.

His point is that the puzzles are the actual game, and Blizzard is basically asking us to pay 3x as much for a few more puzzles and a bunch of stuff in between that isn't as good as an actual movie.

I don't buy his entire argument but there's a pretty clear distinction between the game and the story in RTS titles and Blizzard is claiming to want to split it into 3 parts because of the story, not the actual game.

I'm with GameGuru though, we'll see how it pans out. From what I've played so far I'm probably not going to buy it either way so I'm not that worried about it.

I can tell you that the AI plays like a Korean Pro gamer on it's hardest setting with the bonus of being a machine and having supreme micromanagement skills. 5 minute rushes are completely possible and the AI will adapt if given the opportunity.

Devmani wrote:

I can tell you that the AI plays like a Korean Pro gamer on it's hardest setting with the bonus of being a machine and having supreme micromanagement skills.

I really hope that, for the pathetic people like me, there's a "cry more noob" setting that will make the game playable for me.

It's pretty interesting to note in the light of Tom's column that Blizzard said they're avoiding the multiplayer-tutorial aspect for their Starcraft 2 campaign. Maybe they came to the same conclusion?

Of course, since they first built their game around the multiplayer, It'll be really interesting to see how that pans out for them. It sounds a bit like hammering a square peg into a round hole on paper.