9:04 That's my experience every other time I play a Starcraft skirmish: I try to have fun building my base and 15 protoss zealots swoop in after 5 minutes and wreck my shit. All because I didn't do _exactly_ what I was supposed to in order to prevent that and I dared to try and come up with my own strategy.
It is fun in the campaign. Did they fix the AI in the remaster? That' s to me is the reason why I played more Warcraft 3 than Starcraft. It is my favorite game growing up and i sucked at it.
This aspect of Starcraft as the behemoth that eradicated all alternate forms of RTS is arguably a common aspect to every one of Blizzard's games. In their massive financial success due to a formula perfected for a large enough subsection of the audience, they suck the genre dry of any attempts to deviate. WoW's success killing sandbox MMOs and constraining themepark MMOs to only one specific type, Diablo creating and then stagnating the ARPG genre, Hearthstone popularising CCGs leading to many attempts to copy, which then failed, and we are currently just living on the tail end of the cycle for hero shooters with a million that tried to beat Overwatch by... being Overwatch, and then failing spectacularly. The only one that's failed at this is HOTS which is probably why Blizzard has dumped support for it despite itself funnily enough being a rather different take on the MOBA
Strongly disagreed at the "Starcraft killed base-building RTS" part. The real cause of base-building RTS falling off is console gaming. In the early 2000s, at the time Warcraft III released, the industry was still making base-building RTS games (should just be called RTS, "Real-time tactics" is the term to use if there's no logistics/economy gameplay) like Armies of Exigo, Kohan II, Spellforce 2, Dawn of War, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Act of War, Cossacks II, Age of Empires III, Battle for Middle-Earth, SW Empire at War, Command & Conquer 3, Company of Heroes, etc... Then the 7th-generation of game consoles arrived around 2006 and every publisher jumped on that market. RTS is a genre that doesn't translate well to consoles and right around there was when you can observe a sharp drop in RTS games being published. Actually PC gaming has a sharp drop in general around that time due to the 7th-gen being more powerful than the most powerful gaming PC for a few years. The RTS genre is just an unfortunate victim of market trend. Starcraft has nothing to do with this trend.
"The real cause of base-building RTS falling off is console gaming." - Not really. The console market never saw much in the way of strategy games anyway so it was, and remains, largely irrelevant to the genre. PC gaming, where strategy games thrive, maintained a rather steady course throughout the 2000s despite the idiotic "hurr hurr PC gaming is dead long live consoles" we kept seeing from people who seem to think rising console sales figures somehow automatically mean a reduction in the PC market. As I said in the video, more niche or significantly different RTSs did fine, but traditional base-building RTSs outside of major franchises didn't have a place in the market after Starcraft came to dominate the scene. It wasn't the *only* thing that killed the base-building RTS, but it was the biggest factor.
@@DWTerminator "PC gaming, where strategy games thrive" is a slightly off observation. The actual genre that kept PC gaming alive during the 7th-gen of consoles was MOBA. While you technically could say MOBA games are also strategy games, the truth is the rise to prominence of MOBA was the second factor that killed the RTS genre - the two-punch next to the one-punch that was the shift to console market. MOBA cannibalized RTS games by stealing their playerbase pretty much within a year. League of Legends held the world record of concurrent active players for years. Most of the revenue of PC gaming during this era came from this genre alone. The money drove the market, and there's no money in RTS at that point. Warcraft 3's traditional mode lost almost all of its players and tournament viewership to the Defense of the Ancients (DOTA) mod by the beginning of the 2010s. If that wasn't a direct indication of the market shift from RTS to MOBA, I wouldn't know what was. Starcraft also has no relation to this factor.
@@aquapendulum have to agree that Mobas were the main factor here. After Dota, the RTS playerbase just moved on to MOBA as well as they appealed significantly more to casual players for some reason which we can see by the absolute ENORMOUS playercount in League of legends anyways. And then the RTS genre just stopped being a thing
Worth noting that Warcraft 3 never had much of a tournament presence to begin with as it was always geared more toward singleplayer and had a more casual playstyle. Even then, most of the Warcraft fanbase ended up moving to World of Warcraft or just filtered out into other games gradually. Multiplayer RTS gaming was always dominated by Starcraft and Warcraft 3 sold something like a third of the copies Starcraft did. MOBAs certainly took *some* of the player base away from RTSs, but most of the people going into MOBAs went into them because League of Legends is free to play, runs on a huge variety of systems, and is pretty easy to pick up. The competitive side of it only amplified that. MOBAs just lend themselves to e-sports viewership a lot more than RTSs do. They're far simpler and generally don't take anywhere near as long to play. RTSs are far more technical and as such are a lot harder for a general audience to understand. The other problem with that is MOBAs aren't really strategy games. DotA may have started out life as a Warcraft 3 mod, but it doesn't change the fact that MOBAs are really indirect (or direct, if it plays more like SMITE) action games more than anything else. You seem to think the audience for MOBAs and RTSs is the same but it really isn't. There's obviously *some* overlap, like there is with any item of interest, but they're really two distinct audiences.
I agree with you on this... so much. I'm certain the APM focus was the biggest factor in killing RTS games. I know you said you refuse to review the Starcraft series, however I would love to see you tear apart and talk about why APM is anathema to the genre.
Agreed. I miss RTS games with a great campaign and story, with base building allowing different styles of play. Even Command and Conquer got more APM focussed as it went on, with Red Alert 3 battles being rapidly resolved due to low unit armour and requiring rapid switching and complimenting of special abilities. I long for a new RTS in the style of C&C Generals and the earlier games
I remember playing this online when I was 15. Often the dudes said at beginning "no rush 5 ok" ? Only to see 6 zerglings in their base 3 minutes later. The think was, you didn't just ragequit then, you switched off your 56k modem, so the opponent had to wait 1 minute while the game tried to reconnect. But I agree, multiplayer was too sweaty and full of korean level players.
@@DWTerminator For me, I played StarCraft so much because of the Use Map Settings (UMS) maps: These were sometimes very creative and different, like Chess, Connect 4, Red Light/Green Light, turn-based RPGs, and D&D-style RPGs where some players were GMs and placed units and ran the game for the remaining heroes. The default melee mode for me was generally meh. I won a bit and didn't care for it much after. This is also from someone who worked on StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void at Blizzard and whose love for StarCraft got him employed at Blizzard!
This honestly does answer a lingering question that has plagued my head for the longest time: why was it StarCraft that got so mega popular? It always puzzled me why, given there were plenty of rts games released before it (Age of Empires, Dark Reign, KKnD etc.) that this was the one people latched on to. The only other thing I could possibly think of aside from the multiplayer is possibly the novelty of each faction playing radically and mechanically different from each other. But if it really is just the multiplayer then it confirms my latter day feelings of StarCraft really not being all that special. Any of the aforementioned RTS games/series could've been molded into the perfectly balanced game of chess with a million patches just as StarCraft ultimately was. I'll admit I generally lean towards the likes of Command & Conquer myself and I have a personal disdain for the e-sports scene so I guess that also contributes to my latter day questionings of Starcraft's success and whether it truly deserved it. And I say that as someone who grew up with StarCraft. Even back then, I put far more hours into Red Alert 2.
Even without the hatred, Starcraft 2 (or presumably any later entries in the series) wouldn't be something I'd look toward picking up unless I'd get it at an extremely steep discount purely on the basis of not liking the cutthroat gameplay style of Starcraft at all. With the hatred it just seals the deal.
Cutthroat gameplay? You do realize, that the original title wasnt even designed to be a e-sport, right. Or all that competitive. Why are you attributing that to gameplay design?
... Have you *played* Starcraft? Outside the campaigns if you don't play it like an APM-obsessed lunatic you just get steamrolled. Brood War makes that even worse.
You get steam rolled, in literally any competitive multiplayer, that has been active for long period. Doesn't matter, if it's AOE 2, or Call of Duty 3. It's just worse' when the game has a high skill cealing , or mechanical requirements. After 10 years, people just got that good and the best strategies got figured out. Blizzard didnt design the game to be a click fest, not the first one anyway.
To say, Starcraft killed the RTS genre is an opinion, that's just plain wrong. RTSs dont work on console. Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 for that matter, are two paragons of the genre, aside from being very polished passion projects, of the Blizzard that is no more. Both have good campaigns, nice stories and sizable fan communities, both hardcore and casual. So, aside from Brood War having terrible match making in 98, how is any of this bad, for the genre? I dont see a scenario, where sc never existed, and RTSs are very popular in 2021. As for SC having a major influence on other titles - how is that a unique situation, exclusive to the rts?
Except I don't really judge the game at all. I say in the video outright that the game's decent enough for what it is but that what it is doesn't appeal to me. The "RTSs don't work on console" argument is only partially true. They *do* work... if you dumb them down to the point where they're as brain-dead as Halo Wars. That said, console players simply aren't interested in RTSs anyway so that argument is moot. Developers putting RTSs on console were chasing a market that was never really there to begin with. "both hardcore and casual" - Warcraft 3, maybe. There's no such thing as casual with Starcraft. "how is any of this bad, for the genre?" - Singleplayer campaigns have only limited replayability, so if you want replayable RTS gameplay you have to go with skirmish modes or multiplayer. Starcraft's skirmish mode is so barebones and awful you're effectively forced online with it. As for multiplayer? Your options for populated traditional base-building RTS communities are basically Starcraft 1 & 2, Warcraft 3, and Age of Empires 2. Of those, Age of Empires 2 is the only one I'd consider accessible, and a lot of that is down to just how much singleplayer content it has and how friendly and welcoming the community is. Try to play SC1 and you get demolished by APM fiends, since they're the only ones who still play it. I haven't played WC3 in a long time so I can't really speak for it, but I know SC2 is highly cutthroat as well. That means that your best bet for getting into traditional RTSs is a game from 1999, and your other main options are games from 1998, 2002, and 2010. If the genre were actually healthy, you'd be able to easily recommend both new and old games, and you'd be seeing a good number of modern RTSs. Instead, we get some niche titles that do well and most developers don't want to touch the genre with a 10ft pole. So you tell me: how is any of that *good* for the genre? "RTSs are very popular in 2021." - I didn't say they weren't. The thing is, the *type* of RTS is what matters here. The current titans of the genre are Starcraft 2 (which still only put a dent in the numbers for Starcraft 1) and Age of Empires 2. SC2 released 11 years ago and AoE2 released 22 years ago. Aside from them, you really don't see traditional base-building RTSs anymore. If they do show up, they sputter out *very* quickly. More niche fare like Company of Heroes generally does fine. "how is that a unique situation, exclusive to the rts?" - You don't see the crystallizing effect in most other genres. World of Warcraft arguably did it to MMOs, but I'd argue that sort of thing was inevitable by the nature of the MMO genre anyway. People aren't willing to pay subscription fees for a bunch of individual games, after all.
@@time4manmode945 Tbh I don't think he said a single thing about SC gameplay itself... obviously he can't objectively review it so he didn't bother... although watching that recorded gameplay was painful.
Every strategy game has its openings. Even Chess has... (italian, spanish, prussian, evans gambit, kings indian, etc...) If you do not know how to react to this you most likely lose the hole game. I never understand this APM-bs myself. Yes, you should not fall asleep and you should try to be fast right from the start, but clicking just to keep up a certain value doesn't make any sense. When playing offline you do not really need adapt to the opponent, because mostly you can use the stupidity of the AI against itself. Of course this dosen't work if the AI is completly unfair by getting additional recources just for free or something like that.
The multiplay competitive for both games were very fast-paced if I want to catch up (I can still remember tried to climp the ladder ranking in SC2) No wonder why I spend most of my time on casual custom map games.
I hate it when enemy player spam the best troops like example the thempest so i just did that and i think to my self i become a little bit pro lol but yeah you have to be fast everything in mp
The statistics speak for themselves: a full half of all players of sc2, ever, played only the campaign and of the 90%(!!!) of multiplayer games in SC2, they are in the co-op mode with extremely varied and unbalanced (and fun!) subfactions with very different mission objectives (a bit like individual co-op campaign missions). The direction that Blizzard took, and the rest of the industry, in focussing in on the 1v1 online competitive tryhards cut out basically all the stuff that even among the remaining sc2, modern competitive-ified RTS playerbase is overwhelmingly popular. They Are Billions and Frostpunk's wild success while being solely single player, largely story/narrative driven games with a slower pace has shown how much of an untapped audience the "not tryhards" is.
This has a lot to do with how the esports scene for SC2 failed, though. The design just wasn't great, and went against A LOT of stuff that they said they were trying to avoid (too many units, too many active abilities). They tried to recapture the Korean scene for SC1 and just... failed. SC2 isn't a bad game, but it is not NEARLY as audience friendly as SC1 was. Also as popular as SC2's co-op mode is, it doesn't actually generate income. It's just... popular. I guess maybe you get the ocassional hero purchase or whatever, but that's a drop in the bucket for the kind of profit big conglomerate corporations like Activision want to see.
@@Aldrius I agree, though even if blizzard moved away from what made SC2 fail to capture the BW crowed, I doubt that would be sustainable anyway. on the topic of co-op, as you rightly pointed out, that financial incentive (and lack of) is probably why previous RTS developers and newer ones looking to revive RTS scene wont want or be able to justify (financially) serving that popular aspect.
@@FlameQwert I actually think modern SC2 for the most part DOES match what made BW largely popular. Still too many special abilities and things, but map control and picking good battles is actually relevant in LotV SC2. (Instead of WoL SC2 which focused almost ENTIRELY on death balls in every match up.) It's just probably too little too late. And the WC3 remake was a complete disaster.
Microsoft is better than some other companies in terms of making games people actually like (rather than what they think will sell well) and eventually lowering prices. There was a point at which companies were hyper-focused on competitive multiplayer because games like StarCraft, Call of Duty multiplayer, and Counter-Strike seemed to be doing well. There are other irrational trends going on, like companies assuming that turn-based games are "old-fashioned" or will never be mainstream.
StarCraft was my first rts game ever and I barely touched the multiplayer. Actually I couldn't even play it online for at least 6 years until I got an actual internet connection. Sooo I never cared about truly getting good at the multiplayer because going PRO was never my priority. I just want satisfactory gameplay mechanics, an immersive setting with a decent story-line and memorable characters. It was SciFi, it looked cool like a combination of Starship Troopers, Aliens and Stargate. One of my favorite games before playing StarCraft were SNES schmups and Biker Mice from Mars an isometric racer that for my childish eyes looked like it was made out of LEGOs. Spend a lot of time building LEGOs out of left-over incomplete sets making my own fun and fantasies. All of those aspects led to me liking starcraft more especially since it had the whole building your base and army aspect. It having an editor where I could make my own maps, campaigns and even edit units basically making my own fun again FOR THE FIRST TIME... was a revelation to me. For at least 2 years StarCraft was the ONLY game I played. I loved it that much, and still do. That said I also loved multiple other RTS games, and always looked forward what other RTS games did different. Homeworld is another favorite of mine, but suffers from a lack of a proper storyline/campaign, too much trial and error, and lack of faction differentiation. Age of Empires own era system ends being more as a detriment then a forte, and the lack of faction distinction with the exception of a few faction exclusive units everything plays the same. Command & Conquer has the same issues, but it compensates with even lower entry playability and fun memorable storylines.
Rly sad that RTS are dead. The last rly good ones were battle Realms (the second installment didn't meet the indigo go goal unfortunately) , warcraft 3 & Emperor Battle for Dune. I miss those games /:
Laying the blame on StarCraft because the players themselves made the competitive scene very tough for newbs who don't care to get good is not a very good argument. It's like an incel blaming women for having high standards when not dating you, because you don't care on putting the effort in becoming valuable for someone else other than yourself.
@@DWTerminator Thanks, I just watched your TA video, gotta say I agree about it being archaic. I never could get myself to play it, though I only tried after playing Supreme Commander first. But SupCom I like a lot and still play it, in my book one of the best RTSs ever made. And it's certainly not an APM based game, although it can be quite unforgiving to play online :(
The most fun I've had with the original Star Craft was playing single player, against a brain-dead AI, as Terrans. I would basically just build up my Ghost division and atomize the map. It was time consuming, and I only did it for a couple of weeks when I was a teenager, in between Duke 3D and 3D Pinball playthroughs.
DWTerminator Funny that you mention it. About 6 days ago I reminisced Blizzard games with a friend of mine. And in a lot of genres Blizzard outright killed competition with their games by streamlining the games and by that defined the whole genre. World of Warcraft for MMORPGs, and for the longest time also Diablo 2/3. It took a Free to play title like Path of Exile to break that hold on the action RPG/Hack n' Slay genre. Sure there were competitors like Sacred, Titan Quest, Grim Dawn, Victor Vran and Torchlight, but they were never on that level of Diablo. What I hate Blizzard for the most is Overwatch, because it killed off the classical symmetric Arena Shooter like Quake and Unreal Tournament completely (they already were fairly unpopular at that point but imo Overwatch completely killed it off). Before the release of Overwatch both franchises were in the making off modern Offsprings, which then implemented this hero ability bullcrap (Quake Champions) or straight up stopped development because of other more successful titles (Fortnight vs Unreal Tournament). I miss the pure skillbased and fast paced Arena Shooter, where you don't have a bullshit progessrion system to reap benefits for the start of the next match.
False. What really killed the rts genre was rise of moba's(DOTA, LOL, etc.....). Suddenly you didn't have to worry about base building or managing multiple units
I usually play rts as single player and skirmishs, game never been fun of playing with other people special since everything as you said apm. Still while I enjoy star craft campaigns I prefer playing aoe2 cnc series but still you have point and the sad reality is there is no rts with base building which is sad. I hope we see a revival of the gener
I mean, I can say that I'm on the level of average. C&C: Generals - Zero Hour is my go to experience to going for a semi-casual/serious skirmish and single-player experience. Still though, hearing you hate a game because you see it as the thing that killed the RTS genre today is both saddening and somewhat(?) frustrating to hear. Can't blame or hate you for it, but I just don't typically hear that kind of stuff too often.
C&C in general is a rather casual RTS series. It never really clicked much with me to begin with though, certainly not in the same way Age of Empires did. That said, Starcraft's certainly not the only thing that led to the demise of the traditional RTS, but no matter how much I've looked at the situation over the past couple decades of watching the genre fall apart, nearly all of it ends up going back to Starcraft in some form anyway. It's simultaneously infuriating and depressing.
Common misconception, actually. The level of micro- and macro-management that an RTS has depends entirely on the individual RTS. Some are all about micromanaging your units. Some require a lot more macro-management of your economy.
I thought Starcraft was best when doing Custom Maps like SunkenD! I even made my own version that could be played single player cuz it was great! You can't discount the greatness of the map editor in Starcraft which AOE2 has as well but Starcraft had way more effort put into it from the community.
I reviewed them all a fair few years ago. Never been much of a fan but outside of C&C4 they're mostly solid RTSs that gradually declined in quality after Generals thanks to EA being EA.
I was nine when the original came out, and a really dumb kid. Didn't get the "build more workers =more money quickly" even. Completely agree with you, but the campaign is a treasured memory. Starcraft online is probably the reason I to this day hate PvP games and prefer squad based ARMA and with friends against AI in RTS games. .
I can't believe you are still actually complaining about a game having too high of a skill ceiling. That's supposed to be the reason to like retro games. You can't really blame a game for your refusal to use hotkey or the fact that your APM is in the single digits. Also, the base building in starcraft is extremely involved. If you have a bad build order and/or place your buildings in the wrong spot then you can instantly lose the game. Rather than ignoring the base building aspect of RTS games, starcraft actually epitomizes it. The reason more RTS games are multiplayer focused nowadays has nothing to do with starcraft, but rather the fact that multiplayer only games are far cheaper to make.
"a game having too high of a skill ceiling." - I didn't complain about that. I said I don't like Starcraft's idea of RTS being "follow this extremely specific set of instructions and keep spamming clicks so you keep APM high." Even then, that's merely why I don't personally like Starcraft as a game and why I gravitate toward... pretty much anything else. This video's not really about that anyway, but I figure you need the context to understand where I'm coming from. "That's supposed to be the reason to like retro games." - Huh? Enjoying retro games depends entirely on what the individual games bring to the table. "If you have a bad build order and/or place your buildings in the wrong spot then you can instantly lose the game" - I know. I said as much in the video. If you don't play Starcraft in *EXACTLY* the way you're supposed to, you get steamrolled. And as I mentioned before, I don't like how limiting that is. "The reason more RTS games are multiplayer focused nowadays has nothing to do with starcraft, but rather the fact that multiplayer only games are far cheaper to make." - Again: huh? Multiplayer-only RTSs are actually rather uncommon and haven't really done all that well. Off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are Age of Empires Online and Empires Apart. Every other RTS I can think of has fairly robust singleplayer components.
Whenever I actually played StarCraft online, it was always with friends and we always gave ourselves a 30/40 minute relief time at the beginning of each game. If you want to rush in a game you can get that in ANY rts game. Even your beloved age of empires, in Age of Empires 2, if you want to see people rage quit... play as the Huns they are the Zerg of AOE2. Just because you or me or that guy over there doesn't care to put in the muscle to get GOOD at a game, doesn't mean the game is bad or that it deserves my hate, because of it. You find or make your own group of friends to play with on your rules. If you want a game where rushing is an imposibility ... play DOW3 ... hope you have fun with that cluster-fuck of a mess.
Ugh, don't remind me of DoW3. Anyway, sure, any strategy game has rushing as an option. The difference is that Starcraft effectively makes it mandatory unless you're, like you say, playing with a group that has predetermined "house rules." And as I've said many, many times already: I don't hate Starcraft because of how it plays. That playstyle just isn't my thing.
@@DWTerminator Reasonably fair point.. even if you don't rush in Starcraft, it's mandatory to make an opponent *think you're rushing (fake push) or you'll lose in the first 5 minutes.. defensive play is basically non-viable in SC, whereas in most other RTSs it's not optimal, but it can viable in the hands of a strong player.
The AoE games are obviously modeled after Blizzard's and Westwood's games so you might as well be happy about that instead. Just play with friends or other noobs and slow the game speed down if you don't want to play it like that, c'mon dude. Base building is still a big element here and in SC2, I'd understand if you were talking about Dawn of War or even Warcraft 3.
Except Warcraft, which is what Age of Empires takes more after, isn't anywhere *near* as brutally unfun as Starcraft is. Beyond the Dark Portal is pretty nasty but the rest of the series is perfectly manageable. "Just play with friends" is an utterly worthless excuse for *any* game. Of *course* it's going to be more fun with friends. As for "just play with other noobs"... you can't. The cutthroat playstyle is so pervasive in Starcraft you have no choice but be thrown into the deep end and face the "sweaty" players. And if you're like me and prefer to play singleplayer... I guess I have to remind you that Starcraft 1 has no difficulty settings of any kind. You're either playing the manageable campaigns or the punishingly difficult skirmish mode.
@@DWTerminator Now, sure, but not when it was newer. It's not the game's fault for being good and becoming so popular over time. No, play with friends or noobs is perfectly good advice for a game with such a scene where there's pretty much only good players left if you just go online and play random people. Well the campaign is really good and skirmish vs the CPU is not punishing, it's easy. You only need to learn the basics to beat a CPU, then you can increase the challenge gradually with more CPU opponents while learning more advanced strats.
"When it was newer" is also a shitty excuse, because you're effectively acting as if we can turn back time. Back when it was still new, before the APM madness set in, I couldn't play it online. My internet connection was incredibly awful back then. By the time my internet connection was capable of handling it, it was all about freaking out over APM and following insanely strict predetermined sets of actions. By this point my friends who play Starcraft (surprisingly few people, actually) all have close to 2 decades of experience with it. Skirmish isn't punishing? Maybe not if you play it like an overly caffeinated APM junkie, but there is absolutely no such thing as casual play with it.
@@DWTerminator That you couldn't play it online at the time is also not the game's fault, lol. There definitely is casual play there, just put 1 or more CPUs on your own team and slow the game down a bit until you're better at it. I agree that MP vs people can be brutal but the CPU is not that hard.
@@DWTerminator How is it relevant to the game or its design that you have had bad internet connection? This is your version of "I died because of lag". If "When it was newer" is a shitty excuse then so is "When my internet connection was awful". Both depend on time and both are irrelevant when speaking about the game itself. I do agree with you on the predetermined set of actions but how is that different to anything competitive? Like literally anything. It is impossible to win unless you play optimized and that is something that comes with time and/or skill, but...well that is kinda the point. Faulting the game for that is like faulting gravity for that I can't do a flip even though I have seen people who can. Sure it is technically correct but if that is the point then why bother with anything? Also can you explain what causal play means? Because if it means do whatever you like then it makes any AI in any game redundant. No offense but if subjective experience is relevant then it is relevant if I say the game is bad because my friend stomped me back then twice in a row. Or that I didn't know that you have to learn the map in Counter-Strike to be better, or that shooters that have multiplayer are bad because you have to be a caffeinated aiming junkie to not get shot but I had bad internet back then so I lost a lot.
I dunno if it's fair to pin the death of the RTS genre on StarCraft. It's just not a popular genre these days. I dunno why exactly, but it's not something companies are interested in making. Also, WoW didn't kill WC3 or WC as an RTS franchise. They could make a WC4 if they wanted to, they just don't... want to. SC2 is even kinda dead outside the occasional update. And I kinda doubt they'll ever make an SC3.
Wonder if something similar will happen to the fps genre after doom eternal. I am gonna be honest, I don't think this weird dmc god of war style of fps is really for me. I played ultrakill demo for a bit and it definitely was fun at first. Then it got real tedious and tiresome after a while.
Hopefully not, but considering Call of Duty's "dominance" in the market hasn't led to the genre having the kind of crystallization we see in the RTS genre, I doubt Doom Eternal will have anything remotely resembling the same effect. It's been a successful game, sure, but not the kind of blockbuster Starcraft was.
Thoughts on Ultrakill? Curious about your opinion given your distaste for Doom Eternal and the parallels in design philosophy between Doom E and Ultrakill.
I haven't really played much of it yet. What little I've played has been somewhat interesting, but I don't get Doom Eternal vibes from it. If anything it's closer to Devil May Cry.
Don't even bother going to South Korea ever...you've def made it onto one of their "lists." P.S. This game is awesome (especially the Remastered version) and most def deserves it's place as one of the greatest historical games of all-time...right beside C&C: Tiberian Dawn and C&C: Red Alert.
First person i saw claiming that disliked this Game really Everything i hear about it are praises and praises. I always liked Warcraft but never played SC But welp, i always hated Dwarf fortress which everyone seems to love anyways.
Warcraft is considerably more forgiving than Starcraft. You actually *can* play it casually. Dwarf Fortress is insanely niche. The people who like it are the folks who go all-in on it.
Pretty much any RTS that has 3 "distinct" factions and 2 resources. Throw a dart at the board of RTS's released after Starcraft and you'll probably hit one.
You basically described my feelings since Dishonored came out. It still seems to me at times that it shattered people's perception of stealth-action games and stealth as a concept in general. Hell, there was much more superb stealth game in 2012 - Mark of the ninja! In fact i met many people who don't even like stealth, but adore Dishonored. My main issue with this game is that i simply consider it's game design wrong, even by immersive sim standards. And yes - the incentive to play it stealthfully is really weak. Dishonored for me is the most overrated game in existence. Yes - i played it not stealthfully too. See the pattern?
I don't really see how Dishonored fits in here. Stealth games are quite niche. They're definitely successful within that niche, but it's always going to be a gameplay style that the majority of people aren't going to bother with. That Dishonored was even able to attract a wide audience at all is impressive. If anything, stealth is starting to make a bit of a comeback with the likes of the newer Hitman games and upcoming games like Gloomwood. Meanwhile Starcraft is a pure base-building RTS in the traditional style whose absurd popularity and influence led to the stagnation and effective death of its own genre.
@@DWTerminator Well, i wouldn't necessarily say, that Dishonored somehow changed the genre of stealth-oriented games, i was pointing on public perception of them thx to this game. I like Stracraft, but can't say you are entirely wrong. At least, Blizzard did later fantastic Warcraft 3, which is my favourite RTS of all time. So it's more like the genre ran out of steam like it's the case with stealth games I can't say, that stealth is having a comeback though. Hitman is a nice exception out of the rule, but it's a B class in some ways (mostly due various IO lay-off and financial struggles), even though i liked a lot where the series went. There are, sure, some indie games here and there like Aragami (2nd one is right around the corner), Clandestine, Intravenous, ECHO and so on, but stealth is mostly about classics, Thief mods and 3 hitman games with the same made out in a way, that they are can be considered as single one.
I pretty much agree with you i bet some people who play fps games can relate to this, but the line "starcraft killed the genre" is debatable, i still buy rts games purely for the single player campaigns and i really enjoy them, but hey it's okay if you don't want to play starcraft
SC is the ONLY rts where i HAD to use as much hotkeys as possible and i do not really think that any other rts can be played this competitive. CnC? Not at all (too simple and kinda unbalanced. COH? Yeah, it's more balanced, but still no. Age of Empires. Not really. Steel Division? No. Etc. I really enjoy when proplayers micro the hell out of this game and constantly adapt to their oppenents new builds during a game. SC is just an online rts, even though it has a singleplayer and i admit that you get steamrolled if you do not know any opening or how to defend against one of these rushers, who instantly quit if they fail in the first 3 minutes. Anyway, when i play any other strategygame i do not have to automatically think about SC. o_O
Skirmish? You are supposed to play free for all and not melee since i think the enemies get build too fast in melee and it's not as fun. Haven't played starcraft1 with broodwar expansions for a while now since i beat both campaigns and overplayed it. Remember being zerg in multiplayer where it was pretty close and i only lost since too many zerg fly units that shot bounces too much and hits several units, shouldn't have helped my terran ally maybe i could have at least hold through. But yes i didn't play much multiplayer ever in my life, i then only played hero mode on starcraft and other fun modes. I am currently playing the Earth 2140, Earth 2150 games. In Earth 2140 (have the gog dosbox version since it has working a.i. under extras) i need to beat the mission packs 1 and 2. In Earth 2150 i only need to beat lost souls until i go to earth 2160 game. And the Earth series feel kinda fun though it has some similarities to Warzone 2100 at least the earth 2150 and 2160 games. The earth 2140 is like command and conquer i think.
Campaigns in SC1 are manageable, but the skirmish mode is just brutal no matter what you do. That tends to happen when there are no difficulty options of any kind. I really need to get around to the Earth 21xx series. I've had them sitting in my game library for years and just... haven't messed with them yet.
I think somebody must've paid you a lot of money on Patreon to make a video for this game. Because there's no way you would've done it on your own free will.
If you're talking about more recent fare... Empires Apart and Grey Goo are what come to mind immediately. Most of the other traditional base-building RTSs (outside the obvious ones like Age of Empires 3, the later C&C titles except C&C4, etc.) I can think of off the top of my head, like Warrior Kings or Act of War, are from the 90s and early-mid 2000s, when the genre was noticeably in decline.
@@DWTerminator by the way, did you review, or do you plan to review Rise of Nations ? Since you like AoE, you might like this one. Or even Rise of (raid shadow) Legends, who knows.
I’m glad you brought up Warrior Kings DT. I picked it up from GOG during a sale for $0.75 and was entranced with how unique it played. Hope to see a review on it... after you finish the Empire Earth Trilogy ;) And OP, Grey Goo is your best bet as far as modern games go. But you are better served finding a still active community amongst older games. There are plenty of Discords keeping these Gems alive.
This millennial wants to whine about how Gen X played video games while he was watching on his brother's bed.... And THEN doesn't understand it anyway. I'm done. You're not even real, there's no possible way a thinking person could conclude your gibberish, just because they used to suck at a game. goodnight.
@@DWTerminator It's like saying Half Life or Counter Strike is the best game ever :v either way none are really ones where like *I'll die for it* most of the time these games are like "I'll put it in my library if it's interesting"
@@DWTerminator not even a little. It's not the absolute dog trash you're pretending it was, though. I'd say probably tetris, if I had to pick a perfect game. Keep zooming, zoomer, you'll be relevant one day.
I outright say in the video that Starcraft is a decent game for what it is, but that what it is doesn't appeal to me. Where you're getting "absolute dog trash" out of that is utterly beyond me. Oh wait, you're just a troll. Run along now.
You can stop the hate now I guess and not only because hating SC is quite dumb but also because well, the beast is dead. AoE has been the bigger game for some time now and AoE 2 DE escalated those numbers even further. The playerbase is actually growing ever since DE came out, it's doing around 30k daily concurrent player peaks on Steam now, that's crazy for a 20+ year old RTS and the best part? While the competitive multiplayer audience is significant the vast majority of those players are coming from a casual audience playing campaigns, skirmishes, comp stomps, diplo games and whatnot. In a few months co-op campaign missions are coming too and based on what co-op did to SC2 that will grow the game ever further.
Hate is an irrational emotion. It's not something you can simply "stop." AoE is certainly one of the biggest RTS franchises out there, and it's definitely doing well right now, but it's still not as popular as Starcraft. It's only gotten bigger lately because Microsoft finally realized they're in a position to make money with it and decided to bring it back with a vengeance (which I'm all for, of course).
... I did. Based on the Steam stats we have available, AoE2, the most popular game in the series, maxed out at about 36k active players and is currently averaging around 10k. Starcraft 2's active player base, going by the estimates I've seen as accurate data is much trickier, is in the hundreds of thousands.
Admittedly, from past footage of others in the genre, he's one of the worst RTS players I've ever seen, but I think he is making a valid point.. Starcraft's community has always been unusually cancerous, but the AoE franchise has always had lots of space for both casual and competitive players.
I've never claimed to be "good" at RTSs, especially when these days that effectively means "someone who spams clicks to keep APM absurdly high and follows one of a tiny number of 'valid' prescribed strategies that allow you to actually win on a competitive level." At absolute best I'm an intermediate RTS player who doesn't care about the competitive scene at all.
Well I'm sorry Termi, but you dont appear to understand Starcraft very well. and I dont mean this in the "lol git gud" sense. One can obviously analyze a game without being very adept at it themselves. However, your analysis, while being a popular one, just isnt true. SC2 is so much more than APM - it really isnt a good indicator of how well a player will do online. Sure, all the pros have insane APMs, because they're the best of the best of the best. And yes, the higher you go, the APM generally tends to go up. But at the same time, I am in diamond league, among the top 25% of players, with a measly 100-120 average APM, and there are players with that same APM much higher than me sitting in master or even grandmaster league and players with double my APM sitting leagues below me. SC2 is an insanely fast paced game, yes, but outside of the absolute top of the competition the limit to ones ability to keep up is their capacity to think fast and multitask effectively, not the movement speed of theirfingers.
I see in the video you often lose in singleplayer skirmish mode well in sc2 you can lower the difficulty :) and maybe you can have fun and not mock the game
I don't review games for a living. That said, I apparently always sound annoyed and irritated no matter what I'm talking about or how good a mood I'm in.
I get that assumption a lot, actually, despite frequently saying that the channel isn't my job. Not sure why people still think this is my job. Anyway, yeah I'm tired all the time, but from what I've been told, I've always sounded irritated and annoyed even before I started the channel. Sort of a "resting bitch face" scenario, but I have it for both face and voice.
![[Highlight] StarCraft Remastered Rant](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EP9F-AZezCU/mqdefault.jpg)
9:04 That's my experience every other time I play a Starcraft skirmish: I try to have fun building my base and 15 protoss zealots swoop in after 5 minutes and wreck my shit. All because I didn't do _exactly_ what I was supposed to in order to prevent that and I dared to try and come up with my own strategy.
You guys should play each other then :)
Yeah, Starcraft really epitomizes the "my way or the highway" mentality. It's obnoxious.
@@DWTerminator There's also island and maximum size maps, it's really not that inflexible
It is fun in the campaign. Did they fix the AI in the remaster? That' s to me is the reason why I played more Warcraft 3 than Starcraft. It is my favorite game growing up and i sucked at it.
@@Account.for.Comment As far as I'm aware, the campaign is identical to the original
This aspect of Starcraft as the behemoth that eradicated all alternate forms of RTS is arguably a common aspect to every one of Blizzard's games. In their massive financial success due to a formula perfected for a large enough subsection of the audience, they suck the genre dry of any attempts to deviate. WoW's success killing sandbox MMOs and constraining themepark MMOs to only one specific type, Diablo creating and then stagnating the ARPG genre, Hearthstone popularising CCGs leading to many attempts to copy, which then failed, and we are currently just living on the tail end of the cycle for hero shooters with a million that tried to beat Overwatch by... being Overwatch, and then failing spectacularly. The only one that's failed at this is HOTS which is probably why Blizzard has dumped support for it despite itself funnily enough being a rather different take on the MOBA
Strongly disagreed at the "Starcraft killed base-building RTS" part. The real cause of base-building RTS falling off is console gaming.
In the early 2000s, at the time Warcraft III released, the industry was still making base-building RTS games (should just be called RTS, "Real-time tactics" is the term to use if there's no logistics/economy gameplay) like Armies of Exigo, Kohan II, Spellforce 2, Dawn of War, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Act of War, Cossacks II, Age of Empires III, Battle for Middle-Earth, SW Empire at War, Command & Conquer 3, Company of Heroes, etc...
Then the 7th-generation of game consoles arrived around 2006 and every publisher jumped on that market. RTS is a genre that doesn't translate well to consoles and right around there was when you can observe a sharp drop in RTS games being published. Actually PC gaming has a sharp drop in general around that time due to the 7th-gen being more powerful than the most powerful gaming PC for a few years. The RTS genre is just an unfortunate victim of market trend.
Starcraft has nothing to do with this trend.
"The real cause of base-building RTS falling off is console gaming." - Not really. The console market never saw much in the way of strategy games anyway so it was, and remains, largely irrelevant to the genre. PC gaming, where strategy games thrive, maintained a rather steady course throughout the 2000s despite the idiotic "hurr hurr PC gaming is dead long live consoles" we kept seeing from people who seem to think rising console sales figures somehow automatically mean a reduction in the PC market. As I said in the video, more niche or significantly different RTSs did fine, but traditional base-building RTSs outside of major franchises didn't have a place in the market after Starcraft came to dominate the scene. It wasn't the *only* thing that killed the base-building RTS, but it was the biggest factor.
@@DWTerminator "PC gaming, where strategy games thrive" is a slightly off observation. The actual genre that kept PC gaming alive during the 7th-gen of consoles was MOBA. While you technically could say MOBA games are also strategy games, the truth is the rise to prominence of MOBA was the second factor that killed the RTS genre - the two-punch next to the one-punch that was the shift to console market. MOBA cannibalized RTS games by stealing their playerbase pretty much within a year. League of Legends held the world record of concurrent active players for years.
Most of the revenue of PC gaming during this era came from this genre alone. The money drove the market, and there's no money in RTS at that point. Warcraft 3's traditional mode lost almost all of its players and tournament viewership to the Defense of the Ancients (DOTA) mod by the beginning of the 2010s. If that wasn't a direct indication of the market shift from RTS to MOBA, I wouldn't know what was.
Starcraft also has no relation to this factor.
@@aquapendulum have to agree that Mobas were the main factor here.
After Dota, the RTS playerbase just moved on to MOBA as well as they appealed significantly more to casual players for some reason which we can see by the absolute ENORMOUS playercount in League of legends anyways.
And then the RTS genre just stopped being a thing
Worth noting that Warcraft 3 never had much of a tournament presence to begin with as it was always geared more toward singleplayer and had a more casual playstyle. Even then, most of the Warcraft fanbase ended up moving to World of Warcraft or just filtered out into other games gradually. Multiplayer RTS gaming was always dominated by Starcraft and Warcraft 3 sold something like a third of the copies Starcraft did.
MOBAs certainly took *some* of the player base away from RTSs, but most of the people going into MOBAs went into them because League of Legends is free to play, runs on a huge variety of systems, and is pretty easy to pick up. The competitive side of it only amplified that. MOBAs just lend themselves to e-sports viewership a lot more than RTSs do. They're far simpler and generally don't take anywhere near as long to play. RTSs are far more technical and as such are a lot harder for a general audience to understand. The other problem with that is MOBAs aren't really strategy games. DotA may have started out life as a Warcraft 3 mod, but it doesn't change the fact that MOBAs are really indirect (or direct, if it plays more like SMITE) action games more than anything else.
You seem to think the audience for MOBAs and RTSs is the same but it really isn't. There's obviously *some* overlap, like there is with any item of interest, but they're really two distinct audiences.
@@Jrdotan It's all about the money. MOBA and console gaming were where the money was at.
I agree with you on this... so much. I'm certain the APM focus was the biggest factor in killing RTS games. I know you said you refuse to review the Starcraft series, however I would love to see you tear apart and talk about why APM is anathema to the genre.
Agreed. I miss RTS games with a great campaign and story, with base building allowing different styles of play. Even Command and Conquer got more APM focussed as it went on, with Red Alert 3 battles being rapidly resolved due to low unit armour and requiring rapid switching and complimenting of special abilities. I long for a new RTS in the style of C&C Generals and the earlier games
I remember playing this online when I was 15. Often the dudes said at beginning "no rush 5 ok" ? Only to see 6 zerglings in their base 3 minutes later. The think was, you didn't just ragequit then, you switched off your 56k modem, so the opponent had to wait 1 minute while the game tried to reconnect.
But I agree, multiplayer was too sweaty and full of korean level players.
Like I said, me not having a decent internet connection when I was first messing around with Starcraft was something of a blessing in disguise.
@@DWTerminator For me, I played StarCraft so much because of the Use Map Settings (UMS) maps: These were sometimes very creative and different, like Chess, Connect 4, Red Light/Green Light, turn-based RPGs, and D&D-style RPGs where some players were GMs and placed units and ran the game for the remaining heroes.
The default melee mode for me was generally meh. I won a bit and didn't care for it much after.
This is also from someone who worked on StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void at Blizzard and whose love for StarCraft got him employed at Blizzard!
This honestly does answer a lingering question that has plagued my head for the longest time: why was it StarCraft that got so mega popular? It always puzzled me why, given there were plenty of rts games released before it (Age of Empires, Dark Reign, KKnD etc.) that this was the one people latched on to. The only other thing I could possibly think of aside from the multiplayer is possibly the novelty of each faction playing radically and mechanically different from each other. But if it really is just the multiplayer then it confirms my latter day feelings of StarCraft really not being all that special. Any of the aforementioned RTS games/series could've been molded into the perfectly balanced game of chess with a million patches just as StarCraft ultimately was. I'll admit I generally lean towards the likes of Command & Conquer myself and I have a personal disdain for the e-sports scene so I guess that also contributes to my latter day questionings of Starcraft's success and whether it truly deserved it. And I say that as someone who grew up with StarCraft. Even back then, I put far more hours into Red Alert 2.
This was entertaining, but also a bit unreasonable. Holding a grudge against the entire franchise because of one game is kind of silly.
Even without the hatred, Starcraft 2 (or presumably any later entries in the series) wouldn't be something I'd look toward picking up unless I'd get it at an extremely steep discount purely on the basis of not liking the cutthroat gameplay style of Starcraft at all. With the hatred it just seals the deal.
@@DWTerminator Fair.
Cutthroat gameplay? You do realize, that the original title wasnt even designed to be a e-sport, right. Or all that competitive.
Why are you attributing that to gameplay design?
... Have you *played* Starcraft? Outside the campaigns if you don't play it like an APM-obsessed lunatic you just get steamrolled. Brood War makes that even worse.
You get steam rolled, in literally any competitive multiplayer, that has been active for long period. Doesn't matter, if it's AOE 2, or Call of Duty 3. It's just worse' when the game has a high skill cealing , or mechanical requirements.
After 10 years, people just got that good and the best strategies got figured out. Blizzard didnt design the game to be a click fest, not the first one anyway.
Starcraft is to RTS as bodybuilding is to weight training
damn this is too perfect of an analogy
@@FlameQwert Yeah bro I thought of it while I was doing my daily HGH injection while watching Light competing in the KSL.
@@fashowallday4073 LOL
Great analogy . It demanding , It painful and it take time. If you go in expect to play it casually like soccer than you will get steam rolled
To say, Starcraft killed the RTS genre is an opinion, that's just plain wrong. RTSs dont work on console.
Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 for that matter, are two paragons of the genre, aside from being very polished passion projects, of the Blizzard that is no more.
Both have good campaigns, nice stories and sizable fan communities, both hardcore and casual. So, aside from Brood War having terrible match making in 98, how is any of this bad, for the genre?
I dont see a scenario, where sc never existed, and RTSs are very popular in 2021. As for SC having a major influence on other titles - how is that a unique situation, exclusive to the rts?
I kinda agree with him except that he judged the game. A bit too harshly
Except I don't really judge the game at all. I say in the video outright that the game's decent enough for what it is but that what it is doesn't appeal to me.
The "RTSs don't work on console" argument is only partially true. They *do* work... if you dumb them down to the point where they're as brain-dead as Halo Wars. That said, console players simply aren't interested in RTSs anyway so that argument is moot. Developers putting RTSs on console were chasing a market that was never really there to begin with.
"both hardcore and casual" - Warcraft 3, maybe. There's no such thing as casual with Starcraft.
"how is any of this bad, for the genre?" - Singleplayer campaigns have only limited replayability, so if you want replayable RTS gameplay you have to go with skirmish modes or multiplayer. Starcraft's skirmish mode is so barebones and awful you're effectively forced online with it. As for multiplayer? Your options for populated traditional base-building RTS communities are basically Starcraft 1 & 2, Warcraft 3, and Age of Empires 2. Of those, Age of Empires 2 is the only one I'd consider accessible, and a lot of that is down to just how much singleplayer content it has and how friendly and welcoming the community is. Try to play SC1 and you get demolished by APM fiends, since they're the only ones who still play it. I haven't played WC3 in a long time so I can't really speak for it, but I know SC2 is highly cutthroat as well. That means that your best bet for getting into traditional RTSs is a game from 1999, and your other main options are games from 1998, 2002, and 2010. If the genre were actually healthy, you'd be able to easily recommend both new and old games, and you'd be seeing a good number of modern RTSs. Instead, we get some niche titles that do well and most developers don't want to touch the genre with a 10ft pole. So you tell me: how is any of that *good* for the genre?
"RTSs are very popular in 2021." - I didn't say they weren't. The thing is, the *type* of RTS is what matters here. The current titans of the genre are Starcraft 2 (which still only put a dent in the numbers for Starcraft 1) and Age of Empires 2. SC2 released 11 years ago and AoE2 released 22 years ago. Aside from them, you really don't see traditional base-building RTSs anymore. If they do show up, they sputter out *very* quickly. More niche fare like Company of Heroes generally does fine.
"how is that a unique situation, exclusive to the rts?" - You don't see the crystallizing effect in most other genres. World of Warcraft arguably did it to MMOs, but I'd argue that sort of thing was inevitable by the nature of the MMO genre anyway. People aren't willing to pay subscription fees for a bunch of individual games, after all.
@@time4manmode945 Tbh I don't think he said a single thing about SC gameplay itself... obviously he can't objectively review it so he didn't bother... although watching that recorded gameplay was painful.
Every strategy game has its openings. Even Chess has... (italian, spanish, prussian, evans gambit, kings indian, etc...) If you do not know how to react to this you most likely lose the hole game. I never understand this APM-bs myself. Yes, you should not fall asleep and you should try to be fast right from the start, but clicking just to keep up a certain value doesn't make any sense. When playing offline you do not really need adapt
to the opponent, because mostly you can use the stupidity of the AI against itself. Of course this dosen't work if the AI is completly unfair by getting additional recources just for free or something like that.
Starcraft did not ruin the RTS genre for me.
It's annoying when a lot of games copy a trend and nothing sticks out anymore.
Games like StarCraft feels like austitic kindergardener drinking energy drinks compared to Something like Supreme Commander.
The multiplay competitive for both games were very fast-paced if I want to catch up (I can still remember tried to climp the ladder ranking in SC2) No wonder why I spend most of my time on casual custom map games.
I hate it when enemy player spam the best troops like example the thempest so i just did that and i think to my self i become a little bit pro lol but yeah you have to be fast everything in mp
Yes, yes. You don't care. But...
You don't have to keep a probe near a warping structure.
The statistics speak for themselves: a full half of all players of sc2, ever, played only the campaign and of the 90%(!!!) of multiplayer games in SC2, they are in the co-op mode with extremely varied and unbalanced (and fun!) subfactions with very different mission objectives (a bit like individual co-op campaign missions). The direction that Blizzard took, and the rest of the industry, in focussing in on the 1v1 online competitive tryhards cut out basically all the stuff that even among the remaining sc2, modern competitive-ified RTS playerbase is overwhelmingly popular. They Are Billions and Frostpunk's wild success while being solely single player, largely story/narrative driven games with a slower pace has shown how much of an untapped audience the "not tryhards" is.
This has a lot to do with how the esports scene for SC2 failed, though. The design just wasn't great, and went against A LOT of stuff that they said they were trying to avoid (too many units, too many active abilities). They tried to recapture the Korean scene for SC1 and just... failed.
SC2 isn't a bad game, but it is not NEARLY as audience friendly as SC1 was.
Also as popular as SC2's co-op mode is, it doesn't actually generate income. It's just... popular. I guess maybe you get the ocassional hero purchase or whatever, but that's a drop in the bucket for the kind of profit big conglomerate corporations like Activision want to see.
@@Aldrius I agree, though even if blizzard moved away from what made SC2 fail to capture the BW crowed, I doubt that would be sustainable anyway.
on the topic of co-op, as you rightly pointed out, that financial incentive (and lack of) is probably why previous RTS developers and newer ones looking to revive RTS scene wont want or be able to justify (financially) serving that popular aspect.
@@FlameQwert I actually think modern SC2 for the most part DOES match what made BW largely popular. Still too many special abilities and things, but map control and picking good battles is actually relevant in LotV SC2. (Instead of WoL SC2 which focused almost ENTIRELY on death balls in every match up.)
It's just probably too little too late.
And the WC3 remake was a complete disaster.
Microsoft is better than some other companies in terms of making games people actually like (rather than what they think will sell well) and eventually lowering prices. There was a point at which companies were hyper-focused on competitive multiplayer because games like StarCraft, Call of Duty multiplayer, and Counter-Strike seemed to be doing well. There are other irrational trends going on, like companies assuming that turn-based games are "old-fashioned" or will never be mainstream.
Hearing your opinions on JPRGs and Blizzard is always so refreshing. I am not alone in this land of scum and villainy.
StarCraft was my first rts game ever and I barely touched the multiplayer.
Actually I couldn't even play it online for at least 6 years until I got an actual internet connection.
Sooo I never cared about truly getting good at the multiplayer because going PRO was never my priority.
I just want satisfactory gameplay mechanics, an immersive setting with a decent story-line and memorable characters.
It was SciFi, it looked cool like a combination of Starship Troopers, Aliens and Stargate.
One of my favorite games before playing StarCraft were SNES schmups and Biker Mice from Mars an isometric racer that for my childish eyes looked like it was made out of LEGOs.
Spend a lot of time building LEGOs out of left-over incomplete sets making my own fun and fantasies.
All of those aspects led to me liking starcraft more especially since it had the whole building your base and army aspect.
It having an editor where I could make my own maps, campaigns and even edit units basically making my own fun again FOR THE FIRST TIME... was a revelation to me.
For at least 2 years StarCraft was the ONLY game I played.
I loved it that much, and still do.
That said I also loved multiple other RTS games, and always looked forward what other RTS games did different.
Homeworld is another favorite of mine, but suffers from a lack of a proper storyline/campaign, too much trial and error, and lack of faction differentiation.
Age of Empires own era system ends being more as a detriment then a forte, and the lack of faction distinction with the exception of a few faction exclusive units everything plays the same.
Command & Conquer has the same issues, but it compensates with even lower entry playability and fun memorable storylines.
Rly sad that RTS are dead. The last rly good ones were battle Realms (the second installment didn't meet the indigo go goal unfortunately) , warcraft 3 & Emperor Battle for Dune. I miss those games /:
Laying the blame on StarCraft because the players themselves made the competitive scene very tough for newbs who don't care to get good is not a very good argument.
It's like an incel blaming women for having high standards when not dating you, because you don't care on putting the effort in becoming valuable for someone else other than yourself.
to be honest, your feelings about star craft 1 is how I feel about star craft 2 ( the only difference is the campaign is absolute garbage)
So what's your opinion on Supreme Commander or its predecessor Total Annihilation as an RTS? Have you tried them?
I reviewed both Total Annihilation games a while back. I haven't gotten around to Supreme Commander yet though so can't really comment much on it.
@@DWTerminator Thanks, I just watched your TA video, gotta say I agree about it being archaic. I never could get myself to play it, though I only tried after playing Supreme Commander first. But SupCom I like a lot and still play it, in my book one of the best RTSs ever made. And it's certainly not an APM based game, although it can be quite unforgiving to play online :(
The most fun I've had with the original Star Craft was playing single player, against a brain-dead AI, as Terrans. I would basically just build up my Ghost division and atomize the map. It was time consuming, and I only did it for a couple of weeks when I was a teenager, in between Duke 3D and 3D Pinball playthroughs.
DWTerminator
Funny that you mention it. About 6 days ago I reminisced Blizzard games with a friend of mine. And in a lot of genres Blizzard outright killed competition with their games by streamlining the games and by that defined the whole genre. World of Warcraft for MMORPGs, and for the longest time also Diablo 2/3. It took a Free to play title like Path of Exile to break that hold on the action RPG/Hack n' Slay genre. Sure there were competitors like Sacred, Titan Quest, Grim Dawn, Victor Vran and Torchlight, but they were never on that level of Diablo. What I hate Blizzard for the most is Overwatch, because it killed off the classical symmetric Arena Shooter like Quake and Unreal Tournament completely (they already were fairly unpopular at that point but imo Overwatch completely killed it off). Before the release of Overwatch both franchises were in the making off modern Offsprings, which then implemented this hero ability bullcrap (Quake Champions) or straight up stopped development because of other more successful titles (Fortnight vs Unreal Tournament). I miss the pure skillbased and fast paced Arena Shooter, where you don't have a bullshit progessrion system to reap benefits for the start of the next match.
False. What really killed the rts genre was rise of moba's(DOTA, LOL, etc.....). Suddenly you didn't have to worry about base building or managing multiple units
False. Traditional RTSs were already practically dead before MOBAs.
I usually play rts as single player and skirmishs, game never been fun of playing with other people special since everything as you said apm. Still while I enjoy star craft campaigns I prefer playing aoe2 cnc series but still you have point and the sad reality is there is no rts with base building which is sad. I hope we see a revival of the gener
Aren't there any traditional RTS games in the Indie scene though? Is it only niche RTS games?
None that become successful.
I mean, I can say that I'm on the level of average.
C&C: Generals - Zero Hour is my go to experience to going for a semi-casual/serious skirmish and single-player experience.
Still though, hearing you hate a game because you see it as the thing that killed the RTS genre today is both saddening and somewhat(?) frustrating to hear.
Can't blame or hate you for it, but I just don't typically hear that kind of stuff too often.
C&C in general is a rather casual RTS series. It never really clicked much with me to begin with though, certainly not in the same way Age of Empires did.
That said, Starcraft's certainly not the only thing that led to the demise of the traditional RTS, but no matter how much I've looked at the situation over the past couple decades of watching the genre fall apart, nearly all of it ends up going back to Starcraft in some form anyway. It's simultaneously infuriating and depressing.
doesn't rts just boil down to choosing a strategy and then micromanaging like crazy to pull it off
Common misconception, actually. The level of micro- and macro-management that an RTS has depends entirely on the individual RTS. Some are all about micromanaging your units. Some require a lot more macro-management of your economy.
I thought Starcraft was best when doing Custom Maps like SunkenD! I even made my own version that could be played single player cuz it was great!
You can't discount the greatness of the map editor in Starcraft which AOE2 has as well but Starcraft had way more effort put into it from the community.
So what's your opinion on the command and conquer games?
I reviewed them all a fair few years ago. Never been much of a fan but outside of C&C4 they're mostly solid RTSs that gradually declined in quality after Generals thanks to EA being EA.
@@DWTerminator i thought C&C declined after 4
C&C died with 4. It was in decline before that.
I was nine when the original came out, and a really dumb kid. Didn't get the "build more workers =more money quickly" even. Completely agree with you, but the campaign is a treasured memory. Starcraft online is probably the reason I to this day hate PvP games and prefer squad based ARMA and with friends against AI in RTS games. .
I can't believe you are still actually complaining about a game having too high of a skill ceiling. That's supposed to be the reason to like retro games. You can't really blame a game for your refusal to use hotkey or the fact that your APM is in the single digits. Also, the base building in starcraft is extremely involved. If you have a bad build order and/or place your buildings in the wrong spot then you can instantly lose the game. Rather than ignoring the base building aspect of RTS games, starcraft actually epitomizes it. The reason more RTS games are multiplayer focused nowadays has nothing to do with starcraft, but rather the fact that multiplayer only games are far cheaper to make.
"a game having too high of a skill ceiling." - I didn't complain about that. I said I don't like Starcraft's idea of RTS being "follow this extremely specific set of instructions and keep spamming clicks so you keep APM high." Even then, that's merely why I don't personally like Starcraft as a game and why I gravitate toward... pretty much anything else. This video's not really about that anyway, but I figure you need the context to understand where I'm coming from.
"That's supposed to be the reason to like retro games." - Huh? Enjoying retro games depends entirely on what the individual games bring to the table.
"If you have a bad build order and/or place your buildings in the wrong spot then you can instantly lose the game" - I know. I said as much in the video. If you don't play Starcraft in *EXACTLY* the way you're supposed to, you get steamrolled. And as I mentioned before, I don't like how limiting that is.
"The reason more RTS games are multiplayer focused nowadays has nothing to do with starcraft, but rather the fact that multiplayer only games are far cheaper to make." - Again: huh? Multiplayer-only RTSs are actually rather uncommon and haven't really done all that well. Off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are Age of Empires Online and Empires Apart. Every other RTS I can think of has fairly robust singleplayer components.
When I think of Strategy game, I remember that old WW1 game
There've been a fair few WW1 strategy games so you'll have to be more specific than that.
@@DWTerminator the title itself is just ww1... The box cover shoes a russian mg crew... It's such an old game and I never beat it
Say what you want about Starcraft... The music, the Terran music, is amazing.
Yeah i like it too first time hearing it is in terran tutorial mission and when the beat drop what i think is space while watching space in the game
Whenever I actually played StarCraft online, it was always with friends and we always gave ourselves a 30/40 minute relief time at the beginning of each game.
If you want to rush in a game you can get that in ANY rts game.
Even your beloved age of empires, in Age of Empires 2, if you want to see people rage quit... play as the Huns they are the Zerg of AOE2.
Just because you or me or that guy over there doesn't care to put in the muscle to get GOOD at a game, doesn't mean the game is bad or that it deserves my hate, because of it.
You find or make your own group of friends to play with on your rules.
If you want a game where rushing is an imposibility ... play DOW3 ... hope you have fun with that cluster-fuck of a mess.
Ugh, don't remind me of DoW3.
Anyway, sure, any strategy game has rushing as an option. The difference is that Starcraft effectively makes it mandatory unless you're, like you say, playing with a group that has predetermined "house rules." And as I've said many, many times already: I don't hate Starcraft because of how it plays. That playstyle just isn't my thing.
@@DWTerminator Reasonably fair point.. even if you don't rush in Starcraft, it's mandatory to make an opponent *think you're rushing (fake push) or you'll lose in the first 5 minutes.. defensive play is basically non-viable in SC, whereas in most other RTSs it's not optimal, but it can viable in the hands of a strong player.
I liked to play Age of Mythology singleplayer. It was a great game.
Filtered
The AoE games are obviously modeled after Blizzard's and Westwood's games so you might as well be happy about that instead.
Just play with friends or other noobs and slow the game speed down if you don't want to play it like that, c'mon dude.
Base building is still a big element here and in SC2, I'd understand if you were talking about Dawn of War or even Warcraft 3.
Except Warcraft, which is what Age of Empires takes more after, isn't anywhere *near* as brutally unfun as Starcraft is. Beyond the Dark Portal is pretty nasty but the rest of the series is perfectly manageable.
"Just play with friends" is an utterly worthless excuse for *any* game. Of *course* it's going to be more fun with friends. As for "just play with other noobs"... you can't. The cutthroat playstyle is so pervasive in Starcraft you have no choice but be thrown into the deep end and face the "sweaty" players. And if you're like me and prefer to play singleplayer... I guess I have to remind you that Starcraft 1 has no difficulty settings of any kind. You're either playing the manageable campaigns or the punishingly difficult skirmish mode.
@@DWTerminator Now, sure, but not when it was newer. It's not the game's fault for being good and becoming so popular over time. No, play with friends or noobs is perfectly good advice for a game with such a scene where there's pretty much only good players left if you just go online and play random people.
Well the campaign is really good and skirmish vs the CPU is not punishing, it's easy. You only need to learn the basics to beat a CPU, then you can increase the challenge gradually with more CPU opponents while learning more advanced strats.
"When it was newer" is also a shitty excuse, because you're effectively acting as if we can turn back time. Back when it was still new, before the APM madness set in, I couldn't play it online. My internet connection was incredibly awful back then. By the time my internet connection was capable of handling it, it was all about freaking out over APM and following insanely strict predetermined sets of actions. By this point my friends who play Starcraft (surprisingly few people, actually) all have close to 2 decades of experience with it.
Skirmish isn't punishing? Maybe not if you play it like an overly caffeinated APM junkie, but there is absolutely no such thing as casual play with it.
@@DWTerminator That you couldn't play it online at the time is also not the game's fault, lol.
There definitely is casual play there, just put 1 or more CPUs on your own team and slow the game down a bit until you're better at it.
I agree that MP vs people can be brutal but the CPU is not that hard.
@@DWTerminator How is it relevant to the game or its design that you have had bad internet connection? This is your version of "I died because of lag". If "When it was newer" is a shitty excuse then so is "When my internet connection was awful". Both depend on time and both are irrelevant when speaking about the game itself. I do agree with you on the predetermined set of actions but how is that different to anything competitive? Like literally anything. It is impossible to win unless you play optimized and that is something that comes with time and/or skill, but...well that is kinda the point. Faulting the game for that is like faulting gravity for that I can't do a flip even though I have seen people who can. Sure it is technically correct but if that is the point then why bother with anything? Also can you explain what causal play means? Because if it means do whatever you like then it makes any AI in any game redundant.
No offense but if subjective experience is relevant then it is relevant if I say the game is bad because my friend stomped me back then twice in a row. Or that I didn't know that you have to learn the map in Counter-Strike to be better, or that shooters that have multiplayer are bad because you have to be a caffeinated aiming junkie to not get shot but I had bad internet back then so I lost a lot.
I dunno if it's fair to pin the death of the RTS genre on StarCraft. It's just not a popular genre these days. I dunno why exactly, but it's not something companies are interested in making.
Also, WoW didn't kill WC3 or WC as an RTS franchise. They could make a WC4 if they wanted to, they just don't... want to.
SC2 is even kinda dead outside the occasional update. And I kinda doubt they'll ever make an SC3.
Wonder if something similar will happen to the fps genre after doom eternal. I am gonna be honest, I don't think this weird dmc god of war style of fps is really for me. I played ultrakill demo for a bit and it definitely was fun at first. Then it got real tedious and tiresome after a while.
Hopefully not, but considering Call of Duty's "dominance" in the market hasn't led to the genre having the kind of crystallization we see in the RTS genre, I doubt Doom Eternal will have anything remotely resembling the same effect. It's been a successful game, sure, but not the kind of blockbuster Starcraft was.
Thoughts on Ultrakill? Curious about your opinion given your distaste for Doom Eternal and the parallels in design philosophy between Doom E and Ultrakill.
I haven't really played much of it yet. What little I've played has been somewhat interesting, but I don't get Doom Eternal vibes from it. If anything it's closer to Devil May Cry.
I'm glad I never bought and played a single StarCraft game otherwise I would've blind raged at any of them.
I mean just play single player
@@lewisnorden3744 I don't have or own a copy of StarCraft and even if I want to get it, I'll buy the game dirt cheap.
Don't even bother going to South Korea ever...you've def made it onto one of their "lists."
P.S. This game is awesome (especially the Remastered version) and most def deserves it's place as one of the greatest historical games of all-time...right beside C&C: Tiberian Dawn and C&C: Red Alert.
First person i saw claiming that disliked this Game really
Everything i hear about it are praises and praises. I always liked Warcraft but never played SC
But welp, i always hated Dwarf fortress which everyone seems to love anyways.
Warcraft is considerably more forgiving than Starcraft. You actually *can* play it casually.
Dwarf Fortress is insanely niche. The people who like it are the folks who go all-in on it.
What games have adopted a few or more aspects of StarCraft's gameplay?
Pretty much any RTS that has 3 "distinct" factions and 2 resources. Throw a dart at the board of RTS's released after Starcraft and you'll probably hit one.
@@DWTerminator Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2 are the only two post-StarCraft RTS games I could think of on top of my head.
@@DWTerminator Man I really wish you would ask me some questions from time to time.
You basically described my feelings since Dishonored came out. It still seems to me at times that it shattered people's perception of stealth-action games and stealth as a concept in general. Hell, there was much more superb stealth game in 2012 - Mark of the ninja! In fact i met many people who don't even like stealth, but adore Dishonored. My main issue with this game is that i simply consider it's game design wrong, even by immersive sim standards. And yes - the incentive to play it stealthfully is really weak. Dishonored for me is the most overrated game in existence. Yes - i played it not stealthfully too. See the pattern?
I don't really see how Dishonored fits in here. Stealth games are quite niche. They're definitely successful within that niche, but it's always going to be a gameplay style that the majority of people aren't going to bother with. That Dishonored was even able to attract a wide audience at all is impressive. If anything, stealth is starting to make a bit of a comeback with the likes of the newer Hitman games and upcoming games like Gloomwood.
Meanwhile Starcraft is a pure base-building RTS in the traditional style whose absurd popularity and influence led to the stagnation and effective death of its own genre.
@@DWTerminator Well, i wouldn't necessarily say, that Dishonored somehow changed the genre of stealth-oriented games, i was pointing on public perception of them thx to this game.
I like Stracraft, but can't say you are entirely wrong. At least, Blizzard did later fantastic Warcraft 3, which is my favourite RTS of all time. So it's more like the genre ran out of steam like it's the case with stealth games
I can't say, that stealth is having a comeback though. Hitman is a nice exception out of the rule, but it's a B class in some ways (mostly due various IO lay-off and financial struggles), even though i liked a lot where the series went. There are, sure, some indie games here and there like Aragami (2nd one is right around the corner), Clandestine, Intravenous, ECHO and so on, but stealth is mostly about classics, Thief mods and 3 hitman games with the same made out in a way, that they are can be considered as single one.
I pretty much agree with you i bet some people who play fps games can relate to this, but the line "starcraft killed the genre" is debatable, i still buy rts games purely for the single player campaigns and i really enjoy them, but hey it's okay if you don't want to play starcraft
SC is the ONLY rts where i HAD to use as much hotkeys as possible and i do not really think that any other rts can be played this competitive. CnC? Not at all (too simple and kinda unbalanced. COH? Yeah, it's more balanced, but still no. Age of Empires. Not really. Steel Division? No. Etc. I really enjoy when proplayers micro the hell out of this game and constantly adapt to their oppenents new builds during a game. SC is just an online rts, even though it has a singleplayer and i admit that you get steamrolled if you do not know any opening or how to defend against one of these rushers, who instantly quit if they fail in the first 3 minutes. Anyway, when i play any other strategygame i do not have to automatically think about SC. o_O
Skirmish?
You are supposed to play free for all and not melee since i think the enemies get build too fast in melee and it's not as fun.
Haven't played starcraft1 with broodwar expansions for a while now since i beat both campaigns and overplayed it. Remember being zerg in multiplayer where it was pretty close and i only lost since too many zerg fly units that shot bounces too much and hits several units, shouldn't have helped my terran ally maybe i could have at least hold through.
But yes i didn't play much multiplayer ever in my life, i then only played hero mode on starcraft and other fun modes.
I am currently playing the Earth 2140, Earth 2150 games. In Earth 2140 (have the gog dosbox version since it has working a.i. under extras) i need to beat the mission packs 1 and 2. In Earth 2150 i only need to beat lost souls until i go to earth 2160 game. And the Earth series feel kinda fun though it has some similarities to Warzone 2100 at least the earth 2150 and 2160 games. The earth 2140 is like command and conquer i think.
Campaigns in SC1 are manageable, but the skirmish mode is just brutal no matter what you do. That tends to happen when there are no difficulty options of any kind.
I really need to get around to the Earth 21xx series. I've had them sitting in my game library for years and just... haven't messed with them yet.
I think somebody must've paid you a lot of money on Patreon to make a video for this game. Because there's no way you would've done it on your own free will.
I hate rts in general.
That's a shame, though they're certainly not for everyone.
Dw terminatior domyoy ever play imperium glactica
What other games follow the "traditional RTS" to you, years later after Starcraft's release?
If you're talking about more recent fare... Empires Apart and Grey Goo are what come to mind immediately. Most of the other traditional base-building RTSs (outside the obvious ones like Age of Empires 3, the later C&C titles except C&C4, etc.) I can think of off the top of my head, like Warrior Kings or Act of War, are from the 90s and early-mid 2000s, when the genre was noticeably in decline.
@@DWTerminator by the way, did you review, or do you plan to review Rise of Nations ? Since you like AoE, you might like this one. Or even Rise of (raid shadow) Legends, who knows.
I’m glad you brought up Warrior Kings DT. I picked it up from GOG during a sale for $0.75 and was entranced with how unique it played.
Hope to see a review on it... after you finish the Empire Earth Trilogy ;)
And OP, Grey Goo is your best bet as far as modern games go. But you are better served finding a still active community amongst older games. There are plenty of Discords keeping these Gems alive.
Rise of Nations has been on my to-do list for a while, and Rise of Legends has been on the "to redux" list for about as long.
@@DWTerminator Alrighty then, i'll see to check those games out
This millennial wants to whine about how Gen X played video games while he was watching on his brother's bed....
And THEN doesn't understand it anyway.
I'm done. You're not even real, there's no possible way a thinking person could conclude your gibberish, just because they used to suck at a game. goodnight.
Let me guess. According to you, Starcraft is "the best RTS ever made" right?
@@DWTerminator It's like saying Half Life or Counter Strike is the best game ever :v either way none are really ones where like *I'll die for it* most of the time these games are like "I'll put it in my library if it's interesting"
@@DWTerminator not even a little.
It's not the absolute dog trash you're pretending it was, though. I'd say probably tetris, if I had to pick a perfect game.
Keep zooming, zoomer, you'll be relevant one day.
@@iami3rian394 Wait, is he a millennial or a zoomer? I lost track.
I outright say in the video that Starcraft is a decent game for what it is, but that what it is doesn't appeal to me. Where you're getting "absolute dog trash" out of that is utterly beyond me.
Oh wait, you're just a troll. Run along now.
You can stop the hate now I guess and not only because hating SC is quite dumb but also because well, the beast is dead. AoE has been the bigger game for some time now and AoE 2 DE escalated those numbers even further. The playerbase is actually growing ever since DE came out, it's doing around 30k daily concurrent player peaks on Steam now, that's crazy for a 20+ year old RTS and the best part? While the competitive multiplayer audience is significant the vast majority of those players are coming from a casual audience playing campaigns, skirmishes, comp stomps, diplo games and whatnot. In a few months co-op campaign missions are coming too and based on what co-op did to SC2 that will grow the game ever further.
Hate is an irrational emotion. It's not something you can simply "stop."
AoE is certainly one of the biggest RTS franchises out there, and it's definitely doing well right now, but it's still not as popular as Starcraft. It's only gotten bigger lately because Microsoft finally realized they're in a position to make money with it and decided to bring it back with a vengeance (which I'm all for, of course).
@@DWTerminator Run those numbers again... or well, actually run them instead of thinking that it's still the early 2000s.
... I did. Based on the Steam stats we have available, AoE2, the most popular game in the series, maxed out at about 36k active players and is currently averaging around 10k.
Starcraft 2's active player base, going by the estimates I've seen as accurate data is much trickier, is in the hundreds of thousands.
This isn't an JRPG, unsubscribe
[trollface.jpg]
@@DWTerminator XD
"Ha ha You suck at StarCraft" - the usual commenter
"DW hates everything!" - Yet another
Admittedly, from past footage of others in the genre, he's one of the worst RTS players I've ever seen, but I think he is making a valid point.. Starcraft's community has always been unusually cancerous, but the AoE franchise has always had lots of space for both casual and competitive players.
I've never claimed to be "good" at RTSs, especially when these days that effectively means "someone who spams clicks to keep APM absurdly high and follows one of a tiny number of 'valid' prescribed strategies that allow you to actually win on a competitive level." At absolute best I'm an intermediate RTS player who doesn't care about the competitive scene at all.
Wow, you've been on UA-cam for a decade?
I've been doing reviews for 13 years at this point, actually.
Yeah you can tell he just makes reviews to be popular
THANK YOU!
You really told what i had in mind for some time.
Bro now Xcom and Tactics game are the future of Strategy lol unless Age of Empires 4 blows things away
I'm seriously hoping Relic manages to pull out a big win with AoE4, but I'm not exactly optimistic after Dawn of War 3.
Well I'm sorry Termi, but you dont appear to understand Starcraft very well. and I dont mean this in the "lol git gud" sense. One can obviously analyze a game without being very adept at it themselves.
However, your analysis, while being a popular one, just isnt true. SC2 is so much more than APM - it really isnt a good indicator of how well a player will do online. Sure, all the pros have insane APMs, because they're the best of the best of the best. And yes, the higher you go, the APM generally tends to go up. But at the same time, I am in diamond league, among the top 25% of players, with a measly 100-120 average APM, and there are players with that same APM much higher than me sitting in master or even grandmaster league and players with double my APM sitting leagues below me.
SC2 is an insanely fast paced game, yes, but outside of the absolute top of the competition the limit to ones ability to keep up is their capacity to think fast and multitask effectively, not the movement speed of theirfingers.
Cancelled comment
I see in the video you often lose in singleplayer skirmish mode well in sc2 you can lower the difficulty :) and maybe you can have fun and not mock the game
This is why it's far more important to listen to what I'm saying than just watching the gameplay in the background.
Never played this shite.
You've put to words that nagging feeling I've always held towards StarCraft
You hate Star Craft, then you have cognitive malfunction.
For a guy who reviews games for a living, you always sound super annoyed and irritated when talking about any game xD
I don't review games for a living.
That said, I apparently always sound annoyed and irritated no matter what I'm talking about or how good a mood I'm in.
@@DWTerminator Oh ok, sorry I assumed this was your job. Maybe it's the fact that you work AND review games, and you're just too tired
I get that assumption a lot, actually, despite frequently saying that the channel isn't my job. Not sure why people still think this is my job.
Anyway, yeah I'm tired all the time, but from what I've been told, I've always sounded irritated and annoyed even before I started the channel. Sort of a "resting bitch face" scenario, but I have it for both face and voice.
Filtered