Starcraft 2 Melee is GOOD, is it memorable?

Starcraft 2 melee is hands down good. It's above average in almost every respect. Just playing around in it you instantly are awed by the limitless polish and the time spent on the game can be seen. However, is it memorable? Putting aside all of the gameplay imperfections right now does the game leave an impression? Are you saying to yourself, "remember that craazzy game I played, I'll never forget that." Is this a game you can see yourself sitting down with your friend and loving?

My answer: Not yet. I've played fun games, yes. I've found a favorite 2v2 partner, Mellowfellow. I've had great games with Gritten where we just messed around and others. BUT I'm not seeing the same type of nostalgic memories from WC3, a game I thought had much deeper flaws than this.

I can't figure out why. Is it because the 2v2 team aspect much harder to coordinate because of the size and complexity of the game? All I know is I'm not going to be playing 2v2's with my school buddy ( who isn't in the beta ) till 4 AM Saturday morning. I just can't see it happening. Teamwork seems to be totally absent even in the best situations. They've tried to stress / force teamwork through Twilight Fortress but that map is hated because of it's awkwardness.

For me it's ironic that the melee, the component that they've spent by far the most time balancing/developing, is the least thrilling. I have great expectations that the rest of the game is going to pull through. We've already seen what the map editor can do. But for me the melee not only got stale quickly (I understand there's a few maps), but it's just not as memorable. It's a great game, yes, and it is like chess and we're not going to fully understand the formula for years, even. However, when you go and just look at the main picture I don't see an outstanding melee product I'm going to be playing forever. Yes it's good, but something is lacking, maybe fun? I feel like I can play the game without thinking at all because it's so fast, instead reverting to preplanned and tested methods, however, when I do think about the game I still don't see any difference

(Again, I didn't think WC3 had even as well balanced/thought out multiplayer but I ended up playing it a lot)


I have a good friend who restated the game designer's of Warhammer analogy: Warhammer fantasy is like chess, Warhammer 40k is like checkers. They're both similar games until you really start to look at it.
I know I've constantly referred to Starcraft 2 as Chess, but that's just a matter of convenience to display the type of balance and limitness they try and instill in the game. But if you made a scale and on one end was Checkers and the other end was chess and Warcraft 3 was on the Checkers side and Starcraft the chess, where would you put Starcraft 2? It surely doesn't belong next to Starcraft, however, it doesn't belong next to Warcraft 3 either. Instead I think it's more of a hybrid that leans towards Starcraft but carriers many of Warcraft's elements that ruined the game. (Automation, heroes (yes they're still there) etc.)


/Hoping for a better release. I don't think balance changes can fix this.
/#1 Blizzard RTS Fan

Is Starcraft 2 Melee good, is it memorable?

No and no.

Starcraft 2 would be Go. :P

The game isnt even released yet? did you seriously know how good and memorable Starcraft 1 would be when it was just released even? whats the point of even asking this now.

How many of your memorable SC games happened right when you got it? Memories will happen in time.

Quote:

---

Are you saying to yourself, "remember that craazzy game I played, I'll never forget that." Is this a game you can see yourself sitting down with your friend and loving?

---

Hmm actually yes! I've only played for a couple of weeks and honestly this game is great! I already have tons of memorable games and playing around with the other staff members and regular members of sc:l is pretty cool.

The problem with this beta though is that it is presenting an experience that is fun mostly for veterans that played competitively on iCCup and such. Think back about the old days, when you were playing starcraft1, have you ever played competitively or were you more of a fastest map/custom game/2v2v2v2 BGH kind of guy? Maybe you only enjoyed playing with your real life friends? If you never had fun playing 1v1 competitive matches in starcraft 1, you probably also won't enjoy this beta because currently it is the only thing that is offered. I think this is one thing that a lot of people are missing when wanting to join the beta and etc. They are fans of Starcraft, but not fans of the competitive matches and then, when they join the beta, they feel disappointed because what they use to like about starcraft, is not in this beta.

Btw, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. What I'm trying to say is: whatever you liked about Starcraft 1, if it's not there yet, it's gonna be there later on.

Mass unit selection is something I'm still very uncomfortable with. It seems to lead to massive armies being bunched together all the time, even at high-level play. Makes it a bit too much like Command and Conquer for me.

Memorable and Quality are directly correlative of each other.

You don't need to design games to be memorable, innovative, anything. Design them to be objectively good and good stuff happens along the way.

Name a good game that wasn't memorable.

If you think their are issues preventing the game being memorable, outline how they prevent the game being good, or in other words, are objectively bad.

I don't think you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandwich_bird

Hmm actually yes! I've only played for a couple of weeks and honestly this game is great! I already have tons of memorable games and playing around with the other staff members and regular members of sc:l is pretty cool.

The problem with this beta though is that it is presenting an experience that is fun mostly for veterans that played competitively on iCCup and such. Think back about the old days, when you were playing starcraft1, have you ever played competitively or were you more of a fastest map/custom game/2v2v2v2 BGH kind of guy? Maybe you only enjoyed playing with your real life friends? If you never had fun playing 1v1 competitive matches in starcraft 1, you probably also won't enjoy this beta because currently it is the only thing that is offered. I think this is one thing that a lot of people are missing when wanting to join the beta and etc. They are fans of Starcraft, but not fans of the competitive matches and then, when they join the beta, they feel disappointed because what they use to like about starcraft, is not in this beta.

Btw, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. What I'm trying to say is: whatever you liked about Starcraft 1, if it's not there yet, it's gonna be there later on.

---

Agreed. Good point, even though I'm not one of those type of players, I think many will find enjoyment in the different choices of gameplay that will be added once the game is released.

Quote:

---

Mass unit selection is something I'm still very uncomfortable with. It seems to lead to massive armies being bunched together all the time, even at high-level play. Makes it a bit too much like Command and Conquer for me.

---

Also agree. This is one of the things that has disappointed me when watching replays. However, these are only replays of high level players, but not Korean pros. I think once I start seeing some really good matches between pros, I'll see incredibly innovative strategies being used that I never thought possible. Also, micro will hit a new level, and pros will not simply bunch their entire army into one group. Or at least I'd hope they won't as that would put them at a disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcomplex

Memorable and Quality are directly correlative of each other.

You don't need to design games to be memorable, innovative, anything. Design them to be objectively good and good stuff happens along the way.

Name a good game that wasn't memorable.

If you think their are issues preventing the game being memorable, outline how they prevent the game being good, or in other words, are objectively bad.

I don't think you can.

---

Memorable and Quality being directly correlative? Not exactly. There are plenty of games on all platforms that are memorable simply because of how bad they were. Examples include many games based on movie IPs such as the recent game based on GIJoe: Rise of Cobra. Game Informer gave it a 3.5 out of 10. Normally, when GI issues a rating this low, the game is terrible or has a very niche gaming population. Another grouping that falls into this category is the various attempts at bringing RTS/TBS games to console gaming. CnC Red Alert 3 has gone over quite well, as has the Civilization franchise, but outside of that, bomb after bomb. Granted, this group's biggest issue is control translation, but still, if the game can be controlled sufficently with a mouse and a few keys (read: no more than 12), controls can be translated. The key is to translate into a form convenient to the target audience. These 2 groups of poor quality games with objectively bad issues are memorable because of it. Inverse correlation.

However, to bolster/expand my point about the correlation between memorable and quality, let's take a look at recent Final Fantasy entries, 12 and 13, and see if i can't find some objectively bad points in an otherwise decent pair of games. Extremely memorable are the stories, graphics and music. However, the stories in each of these games are told in a haphazard way that can lose the attention of the casual gamer. Music in both caters more to the characters' physical environment than their own mood or the mood of the story. Both are objectively bad in this regard, but not in all points. For one, you can feel the quality of the effort put into these elements. FF13's battle system is clunky, yet effective if you have the patience for it. Again, objectively subpar but not entirely bad. These 2 games however are overall quite good and are just as memorable for what they did right as for what they did wrong. Quality is subpar for both of these entries in such a vaunted series, but the games are quite memorable nonetheless. This also an inverse correlation, but with games memorable for being quite good, yet of subpar quality.

As for SC2, I cannot at this stage say the melee is anything more than melee. Melee is simply defined as a bunch of units fighting another bunch of units. The micro and macro strategies we see are what makes SC1 memorable. Is SC2 memorable at this phase? I withhold judgement due to lack of data.

And yes, I can name a good game that wasn't very memorable: the recent Nintendo DS reissue of Chrono Trigger. I love the original and love this reissue, but this reissue will not be memorable because, unlike its Final Fantasy reissue counterparts, was reissued largely unchanged. No graphics updates. No new hidden dungeons. This is what sold the FF reissues, not the option of stylus based controls.

I really feel for what you're saying in the OP.

My two cents:

For me, the main determining factor in making a match memorable was playing against evenly skilled opponents. This seems more difficult to achieve in SCII because skill disparities are magnified by the various elements that make this game geared toward being more competitive (the emphase on micro perhapes).

But I am noticing that patches are solving this issue through lots of fine tunning, so I'm not that worried about the end result.

StarCraft 1 was good.
Starcraft 2 is... beta.

*rimshot!*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

Mass unit selection is something I'm still very uncomfortable with. It seems to lead to massive armies being bunched together all the time, even at high-level play. Makes it a bit too much like Command and Conquer for me.

---

I find it less the problem of MBS and more the problem of there being units that hit crit-mass very easily.

Controlling large armies isn't really a flaw of gameplay. You could control 350 zerglings in one control group and it wouldn't be able to get through my siegetank/bunker line. The fact that you can mass produce a sturdy unit like the roach, however, which forces the opponent to make anti-armor counters (which are prone to Muta switch) and makes it difficult to balance out.

The Rock-Paper-Scissors structure and ease of mass unit production is what I think makes MBS 'broken'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

StarCraft 1 was good.
Starcraft 2 is... beta.

*rimshot!*

---

Demo's in form today! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

I find it less the problem of MBS and more the problem of there being units that hit crit-mass very easily.

Controlling large armies isn't really a flaw of gameplay. You could control 350 zerglings in one control group and it wouldn't be able to get through my siegetank/bunker line. The fact that you can mass produce a sturdy unit like the roach, however, which forces the opponent to make anti-armor counters (which are prone to Muta switch) and makes it difficult to balance out.

The Rock-Paper-Scissors structure and ease of mass unit production is what I think makes MBS 'broken'.

---

By critical mass are you referring to units that have niches or points where an additional X unit makes no difference given Y enemy units, or am I misreading? The rock-paper-scissors analogy is very good. Can you elaborate on the critical mass? I'd like to comment, but I want to be sure I understand first. :)

Beta or not is missing the point. The core parts of the game are already finished. All that's happening is minor tweaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flak4321

Demo's in form today! :)



By critical mass are you referring to units that have niches or points where an additional X unit makes no difference given Y enemy units, or am I misreading? The rock-paper-scissors analogy is very good. Can you elaborate on the critical mass? I'd like to comment, but I want to be sure I understand first. :)

---

Critical mass is the number of units you need to reach maximum effectiveness. eg. 3 colossus to 1-shot roaches, any less and you would be wasting time firing extra volleys.

In SC, for units like a Toss going Carrier rush, having only 3-4 carriers wouldn't really be very effective to attack with; but once you get ~ 6-8 carriers (whatever the number was) it becomes very difficult to stop with conventional AA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sietsh-Tenk

Mass unit selection is something I'm still very uncomfortable with. It seems to lead to massive armies being bunched together all the time, even at high-level play. Makes it a bit too much like Command and Conquer for me.

---

I'm with you on that. I'm sure I'll still play this game for at least 6 months though.

If I want a bit of RTS gameplay with a dash of fun, I'll stick to MOBA's. But if i want to have fun challenging myself by pushing the envelope, I'll log on SC2.

You should try C&C the first decade and apply the unofficial fan-made patch for it and play a few of those old school games. You'll remember some things you love then some thing you hate rather quickly. I can't really say the same thing for SC2, because it's damn good all around.

I agree, I was going to add it in my first post but decided against it.

Unlimited selection isn't a good thing imo

I think i disagree with the mutiple sel function being bad...

It is a good tool that is being misused imo right now. Just because you can select 200/200 under 1 hotkey doesn't mean that you should!

I think that people are just too new right now to have the BW -like control on units. I know for myself that microing is getting better as I am able to have 2 groups or 3 groups of units. I still have to tweak my hotkeys to accomodate more.

But, the function itself doesn't make it bad - it's the players' usage of it, mostly...

I agree with protosswarrior. I hardly make use of tabbing through groups. I like to hotkey my units by type/role depending on my tactic at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

Critical mass is the number of units you need to reach maximum effectiveness. eg. 3 colossus to 1-shot roaches, any less and you would be wasting time firing extra volleys.

In SC, for units like a Toss going Carrier rush, having only 3-4 carriers wouldn't really be very effective to attack with; but once you get ~ 6-8 carriers (whatever the number was) it becomes very difficult to stop with conventional AA.

---

Ok. I was on track. Yeah, if they reach critical mass in this fashion too easily, battles can become one-sided. The carrier example is a very good one. I can see where something similar can be said of roaches. However, every unit reaches this point somewhere along the line. I feel this would be what defines something as a hard or soft counter. The problem then is the roach seems to fairly strong counter just about everything it can hit.

This begs a question on the roach: the roach is said to be the replacement for the lurker's low-tier, high damage role. The question, given how the roach is being used, would then seem to be is the roach truly OP, or was its intended role misdefined or perhaps underdefined?

My meaning refers specifically to the perceived scope of the role versus the actual function of the role. Each SC1 unit had a clear role and several subroles it could fill. Example: seige tank/lurker/reaver made as building bashers but turned into effective harrasses with correct dropping and positioning. I think the roach's role's scope has been destroyed by so many players looking for a hydra substitute in the early game.

The answer? Well, there could be several. Blizz has tried a nerf. I feel they should switch the roach and hydra in the tech tree, reduce hydra cost a smidge, increase hydra speed and range either by default or upgrade to at least match marauder/hydra, and make the marauder a little later in the tech tree, say make it so you need an armory to build it. That should solve most of the problems. Thoughts?

"nostalgic memories"

the game isnt even out yet and yor wondering where the nostalgia is?

This game could be good, but what they need to do is make balance changes on units like the roach and stop doing little stat changes which can be done in the end.

The only reason im gonna end up buying this anyway is UMS

I'm going to have to agree with Ham on this. I don't know if its just because I'm older than I was when I played WC3 (a lot) or because SC2 just isn't as immersive. I'm not saying SC2 beta is bad by any margin, I will buy it and play it. But I just don't see myself (as Ham pointed out) playing this game into the wee hours of the morning once its released. Yeah I did that when the beta first came out, largely because I've been waiting for it since 2007 announcement. But beyond the first shock and awe, I feel as though nothing is pulling me back, at least in comparison as to how WC3 did.

I guess the overall depth of strategy and micro intensiveness of WC3 had a greater pull than the macro intensive, broad strategies that SC2 offers. The addictive nature of collecting icons via wins in WC3 was awesome, the SC2 avatars seem bland and lame. If anything kept me playing WC3 for awhile, it was largely to win so I could get new icons. Honestly, when I played WC3, I would play 1 game and hop into another immediately. In SC2, games feel almost like a chore because of the amount of effort that is required to maintain a decent amount of skill. Before I click the search game button, I think to myself, do I have the drive to really put up with a 30+ min game? I know that sounds horrible, but I just hope the retail version has a better addictive nature that WC3 had.

And again, I love the game, but just missing that drive... =/


P.S. Ham, sorry I haven't been on recently, school and stuff has occupied a lot of my time. Along with the reasons I stated within my post. I'll be on this weekend, we should get some games going. Peace bro.