Thank you.

Depth? sure... , but what kind of "depth" ? tactical sure,... micro certainly. I don't think there was another game yet that thrived so much off micro like Starcraft did. 

Starcraft takes "Skill" and practice to play, no one argues that,... but what it doesn't do, is offer a lot of strategic depth . None of the "RTS" games a decade ago were capable of that yet really, Starcraft is no difference. How could it be ? Blizzard, as always, took what was already there, then polished and balanced it to perfection. 

The only exception to the rule maybe being TA,... it had the potential, but that was not really balanced well enough to realize that potential in multiplayer.

So yep, old style RTS games, a label which happens to include Starcraft, do appear quite shallow to me where actual strategy is concerned. 

And now... it really is not 1998 anymore and Starcraft 2 will have to do two things:

- Compete against games that have truly innovated the genre in the regular gamers market.

- Compete against it's own perfected predecessor in E-Sports. You just have to look at how "well" that went for CS and CS:Source to see the pitfalls....

I can totally see SC2 being "just more of the same old" for the regular gamers on the one hand and "disturbingly not like Starcraft" for the E-Sport Gamer on the other. Ironic, wouldn't it be eh ?

Still, no worries, it will sell...  Korea alone would make sure of that and there are enough other people out there blindly buying anything with a Blizzard label as well... , but will it be good ? Only time will tell of course,... sadly, going by what info has been released so far it just looks bleak.

Anyways, enough offtopic for me

Yeah enough off-topic plz.   Im 99% sure that Demigod will hit like a meteor... and if it doesnt.. welll its just a game.

I'd have to say pretty much all of the total war series offers more RAW strategy than starcraft does, and so does pretty much everyone whos played both. Some people cant even play the games because of all the strategic conditions you have to take into account. I'd say starcraft is a better game for competition and it does have a great deal of strategy (Although its mostly tactics), but by the definition of strategy the total war series requires more.

If you want to know what strategy in games is all about, then, even in todays age, you still have to look at turn based games really.

Civ4, GalCiv2, etc. that is where gameplay truly revoles around strategic decisions - and not about tactics and micro.

On the RTS front ... there still are very few games that really offer a scope and complexity to allow strategic depth to evolve...as said before, Supreme Commander is one - on the larger maps at least -, Starcraft however is pretty much at the other end of the spectrum.

/shrugs, if micro and tactics is all your look for in a game then there is indeed nothing wrong with Starcraft, but you also have to realize that after 10 years of the same old, that kind of gameplay won't be praised to high heaven by people who have already enjoyed RTS games that reach far beyond the scope of Starcraft.

Ahhh okay now I get it.  You're one of those "strategy is the only thing that ought to matter" people.  Sorry, but micro and tactics are what make a game competitive.  Anybody can study a strategy and learn it, memorize it.  Turn based games give you all the time in the world to make decisions.  RTS games force you to make decisions quickly, far more quickly than you can possibly make them without making mistakes.  One measure of skill in an RTS, then, is the ability of the player to minimize mistakes.  Another measure, in a game with possibility for micro and tactics, is the ability of a player to get the most out of their individual units.  Micro and tactics allow a truly skilled player to outplay a weaker player even if they have far less to work with.  In a game without micro, battles come down to the type and number of units involved, and perhaps the positioning of them.  Player skill in-the-moment is not a large factor.  Hence, lack of competitive depth.

Plus, Starcraft involves tons of strategy despite a focus on micro and macro.  Reaver drops, Siege Tank positioning, use of elevation, scouting, tech rushes, marine drops, fast expansions, and on and on.  It really can't be underestimated. 

A game with huge maps, zillions of tiny units and hardly any micro involved doesn't present anywhere near the amount of depth that a game like Starcraft (or Starcraft 2) does.

To put it simply, the difference in ability between the best Starcraft player in the world (Boxer probably) and a simply great Starcraft player (somebody who's not pro) is absolutely immense.  You can play Starcraft for years and years and still never get anywhere close to being that good.  I really, really doubt there could be such a gap in ability in a game like Supreme Commander or Total War.  Even in a game like Age of Empires 3 (a game I love and played for a long time) there isn't the possibility for that kind of skill disparity.

The obsession that many fans of games like Total War, Supreme Commander, DoW, etc have with strategy as the "only thing that matters" in RTS games is nothing more than a desire for the game to be more casual, for it to require less of them.  If a game only needs strategy, all you have to do is learn what to do in specific situations.

I don't get why people feel the need to discredit Starcraft and Blizzard whenever they get a chance. Blizzard is a company that is taking their time making very well polished and designed games. As a "gamer" shouldn't we praise a company who is doing this for us?

You are making very bold statements with nothing backing it up because you have no experience with the game. He asked you to expand on why you feel it has no strategic depth it would be nice if you answered him.

In what way have RTS's reached far beyond the scope of SC when they are still designing horribly shitty hard counter systems. SC has the epitome of what an RTS counter system should be designed around. The game is balanced because it was so easily balanced given the counter system, there isn't one "perfect" unit to counter another unit in most cases. I could go more in depth but I'm afraid this won't accomplish much.

Possibly beat me to it and had a better post =(

I played Total War Multiplayer for 6 years... and sorry but i have to proove you wrong.. there is a HUGE gap between Total War pros and noobs.. and even after years of practice some people are still utterly crap.

Second of all if you see ho Starcraft people play, its based on experience.. not strategy, the more u play the better you get... you can not make up new strategies as in games like total war, civ, or even demigod. There are formulas, and the peopele who execute them faster, win. You should see how the koreans play starcraft.. you can even see their fingers moving... is that in depth strategy? or simply 10 years of playing the same game, thats why starcraft has still so many ppl playing it... they put everything into that game, they could hardly play a game like total war or civ.

OH MY GOSH YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND AND PROVED ME WRONG BY SAYING THAT. -.-

All games are based on experience. You end up in situations and by experience you know how to react. I'm glad you like total war and civs but those are turn-based games (I know total war is under RTS category but it moves so slow that I put it under turn based). No use comparing it to Starcraft, apples and oranges. Congratulations on generalizing pro koreans and everyone who plays starcraft. It must be fabulous living in that tunnel vision mindset.

No, not all games are based on experience. If you have a good sense for strategy you can play games pretty good the first time you load up one game. Total war has extremely quick based battées, with enormous scales, which starcraft fans would hardly be able to handle. 

I live in Korea, there are 3 TV stations that show starcraft games all day and night, so plz allow me to know this better than you.

MBC and OGN, I count two. Sure you're from Korea? In what way does you living in Korea show that you have an all-knowing knowledge of RTS games...

You just proved my point with this sentence "If you have a good sense of strategy you can play games pretty "well" for the first time". That's from the experience you gain playing RTS games lol. SC is known for it's insane speed and fast-paced battles. Enormous scales is what ur game is based around, cool... Doesn't mean all games have to be.. THE TUNNEL VISION IT'S SO NARROW I CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE LIKE OTHER THINGS THAN ME. :/

You are seriously a few cards short of a deck...

Why I thnik I know everything about gameS? I could ask the same question from you.. bloody hypocrat. Anyways im not korean i live here, but i just said that all the koreans i know play starcraft, and have been playing it for ages.

And what would the sentance: "If you have a good sense of strategy you can play games pretty "well" for the first time" proove? űAre you seriously that stupid? Why would that mean u got that from playing RTS game over and oveR? I knew people who played an MMO, switced of to a RTS, and did perfectly fine.. becasue they werent complete and utter idiots.... like you my friend.

Your testimony is that you can "play pretty good the first time you load up one game" and you use this to further your argument that the game has depth?

Pardon me while I laugh.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha (and so on)

Thats not my testimony. I said people with a good sense for strategy can do that. But appearently you guys have never experienced that so it is pointless to argue with you.

Like telling a deaf man to listen more crafeully. 

Anyway this is off... feel free to open a new topic where we can discuss our opposing views concerning your mental capabilities.  

What?  Eh? Did you say something?

No.  

No micro in SupCom - have you even played this game. My brother and myself have played both Starcraft and SupCom competively and there is not less micro or macro needed in SupCom than in Starcraft. Starcraft is a great game which is probably the best synthesis from Micro/Macro/Timing and Strategy in a RTS we have yet but I am so sick of some random noobs saying that other games don't need micro or macro. I am also sick of noobs telling that Demigod has no depth, in a 1vs1 it really hasn't much but in a 3vs3 or bigger there is enough depth and timing involved that the game will never be mastered, so it is certainly theoretically suited for competitive game. The one thing you really need for a competitive game is a big player base not wicked things like "perfect balance" or "insane depth".

Also calling boxer the best starcraft player is a few years too late, if you go by "all time merits" then it wouldn't be him but the early time innovators like zileas of larrytheweird who changed the game more than anyone else.

I can also see Ginko-sans point, there really in not that much innovation and new strategies in Starcraft nowadays and but that is because of that fact it is already 11 years old and so many player play it that almost everything has been discovered so it is mostly about the execution and psychology.  Its a bit like chess, the first 20 turns are played by the book if you are a grandmaster, but that doesn't make chess a game without depth it just shows that many good players played it already.

Also Starcraft isn't balanced per se, the balance has been achieved by years of experimentation from custom map makers. The original maps make all for pretty unbalanced matches and even nowadays played maps like Medusa (66% win for P vs T) or Neo Requiem (66% win for P vs T) are quite imba. (They are still played because they make for exciting matches in TV which is more important than balance).

The Third TV station is GOMTV - although they only do internet streams primarily targetted at the foreigners it is big enough to be counted as third I think. Their tournaments are part of the kespa rating and all good pros play at them. Furthermore the GOM players is the most popular media player in korea so this isn't some small internet video stream but a big player.

That being said, good luck with your clan Ginko-San. Demigod-Live plans to have a clan league soon after release but that is still a bit in the future

If studying "a strategy" is all it takes to become a good player... then that would indeed be a sign for lacking strategic depth.

So nope... you are putting words in my mouth now, but you certainly do not seem to "get it".

You emphasize how important micro and time critical actions are.... and well, sorry bro... that is the whole point.

In comparison to games i prefer (yes, of course it is a matter of taste and preferences), Starcraft emphasizes micro over strategy way too much.

It's like the difference between real chess and Battlechess (if people still remember that game )... if micro, or even "twitch skill" has a huge impact, then the importance of strategy gets diluted. And more to the point... when comparing starcraft to more strategic games i would say it's more like the difference of Battlechess to three-dimensional chess.

That someone can become good at the game and that there can be huge skill differences really has nothing to do with the amount of strategy involved. There are huge skill differences in fps shooters too after all.

/shrugs... maybe you can understand my reservations when people are all excited about Starcraft being such a great real time "strategy" game.

Someone actually looking for "strategy" in their games can easily find better by now. Doesn't mean it's a bad game... but strategic depth ? I think not. Not in comparison anyways.

"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."  - Sun Tzu

Sounds to me like you ought to play turn based games if you really want a chess-like experience.  You're welcome to have a preference, and I have nothing against that.  But don't pretend that games that focus on strategy at the expense of everything else actually involve more skill than games that don't.  You're confusing strategic depth with competitive depth, in any case (which is what I care about).  Maybe Starcraft / Starcraft 2 have less strategic depth than the games you're talking about.  I don't know, I haven't played them.  Even if they do, however, they have much less competitive depth, because they demand a lot less in-the-moment from the player.

Strategic depth seems to end up being compared subjectively more often than not. So let's all define what we feel strategy is Here's what I go off of correct me if I'm wrong. Strategy in games is the plans before the battle. What should my units comprise of, should I engage in this battle, what build would be the most efficient given what I know about my opponent etc. Starcraft is one of the few games where I actually have to change up my strategy going into the game multiple times based off information I gain off of my opponent. I start off 9 pool, I see he goes FE as Protoss, so now I have multiple decisions on how I should follow this up, I could be the aggressor and see if I get break through his cannons, go into 3 hatches and catch up in economy, go 2 hatch muta, 2 hatch lurker, hydras etc. Maybe it's just me but that seems like quite the deep line of choices for a follow up to what I see based off my opponent. Especially considering that's just the early game choices.

Then a beautiful thing with Starcraft is it has the thing called competitive depth, no need explaining.

So now instead of responding to my points you are just going to insult me and call me a "hypocrite" when I never stated anything of the sort. Congrats you know some Koreans who play SC so that means all of them do. We have been asking you multiple times to expand on your points and you still are not giving me anything to work with.

Are we still arguing that a good strategy game should we require no experience? I'm not bashing Total War and never have in anyway, it's a good series but you keep using it as your basis of all examples of RTS. Many things in Total War are easy to pick up at first play. With traditional RTS styles having experience in other RTS will give you the basic ideology on a build orders, micro techniques, harrassment etc.

Whatever... these are off... so ill do you a favour and show you how to respond to off:

.....

Anyyyyyways.. join our clan!

Yeah.. In fact, we were promised in the begining that it was going to be a competitive-oriented game