Starcraft 2 Melee is GOOD, is it memorable?

[Hamshank]

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

[Justamonster]

Is Starcraft 2 Melee good, is it memorable?

No and no.

[Brutaxilos]

Starcraft 2 would be Go. :P

[Zalamander]

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.

[Dalarsco]

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

[sandwich_bird]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Jabber Wookie]

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.

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.

[flak4321]

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.