MusselsAs fun as the coop section of Starcraft II became, they basically abandoned everything else when they realised they had a source of micro-DLC to keep selling

The competition is quite strong too.

For single-player campaign, the Command and Conquer remakes are top quality.

For multiplayer, I dare say that Age of Empires 2: Definitive Edition, is better than both Starcraft and Starcraft II now. (a shame that Microsoft can't seem to get Age of Empires IV figured out, but the AOE2 community is super strong and continues to be updated today). 3rd party tools (ex: captureage.com/) are really strong.

--------

I miss when Blizzard was top dog, because they truly did care about their respective game communities. They've had some rough times recently, but hopefully they can get back into the sprit of things eventually... all these companies have ebbs and flows throughout the years.

dragontamer5788I miss when Blizzard was top dog, because they truly did care about their respective game communities. They've had some rough times recently, but hopefully they can get back into the sprit of things eventually... all these companies have ebbs and flows throughout the years.

Oh man, I hope and dream what we have now is a finite period of ebb then because god almighty, the beach looks like a D-Day warzone by now, definitely not a place I want to sunbathe at right now. In between the craters, strange salesmen shitting rainbows are peddling molten ice cream in cones made of sand, you can use them for exactly nothing and the value has faded before you can lick it proper. The only saving grace on this beach is that you can stare at the horizon hoping for better times :)

I'll be honest, I think Acti/Blizz is safely in the region of EA publishers now. They're stuck in corporate hell, sure, the odd 'OK' title might get released in between all the gutter trash, but its not something we should be looking out for anymore. Ubisoft is also in that category. The only reason you're going back is because you want to revisit what you've already done a million times, and then realize once more everything just got worse over time and some concepts are just bled dry, while anything that dóes eventually turn out to be great will be hammered into the ground by monetization sooner or later.

There is a new style of corporate business here and its short term gain over anything else, brand image and customer binding are yesterday's news and no, they ain't coming back - we can blame globalization for that. What we got in its stead is a daily social media marketing push to 'nudge' people into the right mindset to buy buy buy.

I sincerely hope the current inflation/recession/economical changes are going to weed out all those practices, but again... hopes and dreams at best. Rationally I don't see it changing for the better, definitely not within the mainstream at least. There's a new generation of exceptionally naive right now, that needs to get wise first.

Vayra86I'm not hurting :) Just suggesting a possible way for them to redeem themselves.

In a world post Dishonored and Assasin's Creed, I doubt Blizzard has any kind of capacity to do a single player game that can compete with those.

Buy Widowmaker's Nova skin in Overwatch and make believe that's it while you taste your tears. I don't know what else to say, Blizzard is not capable of pulling Starcraft Ghost right now.

Vayra86[ ... ] the odd 'OK' title might get released in between all the gutter trash, but its not something we should be looking out for anymore. [ ... ]

what release

ignoring wow expansions they've legit released less games than fucking volvo in the ... past decade or something?
that's something

the SC2 campaign is still fun and i replay them, but you can tell when different teams were involved as the playstyles are wildly different


The Terran campaign was all about slow long missions, with brutal difficulty needing one unit mastered to succeed (the one introduced that mission, effectively forcing you to train with it on that difficulty)

The zerg campaign went faster paced, and increased the speed of MP at the same time. Quicker starts, more action, shorter missions (and one heck of a good story, tbh)

Then came a long stretch of nothing but focus on the top-tier Esports players with balance fixes screwing over casual players massively - this was the worst time to play the game, because anyone could master certain basic things (cannon rush/zerg rush) and the effort to stop these things required far more control and APM than using them, screwing up the balance with 'cheese' being the only way to advance to a certain level in the rankings (then being useless past that point)

Then the final protoss campaign came along and it felt like a shift to CNC Generals: Zero hour mixed with WC3, heavy focus on multiple heroes, the ability to swap units out pre-mission, toolbar superpowers.
These were beginner friendly, and higher skill with them just let you have more FUN with the units. I can still replay this and try different combos (ex: sentry units that regen shields for friendlies, or 50% more damage - but there are other options for shield regen out of combat, so you can turtle with combining them, balance things out, or go full aggressive)

Noval DLC came out in two small pieces and while the second half is extremely fun, the first half was rather... lackluster. It felt almost console down-sized with very small compact single unit based missions for no reason. Even in the large ones, you'd suddenly be dealing with a single unit (Nova) for the last 10 minutes in an entirely different style of gameplay for no reason.


At some point the coop guys got their ball rolling mixing the best of the campaigns (the very different playstyles) - one that's only got 5 over powered heroes, one thats all about cheap massive armies of weaklings that can be replaced in seconds, one that has a giant frikkin laser beam that does the murder for you long distance - all the fun options, and each one having options to let you spice them up (prestige ranks that would say, double that lasers damage but double the cost of units)


And i've never seen anything as fun. Those devs were making an RTS coop game StormGate and i hope they get it right - half of what worked for SC2's coop was already knowing the heroes/units from SC lore, so i hope they can surpass that handicap (In coop, it helps to instantly know your allies abilities and weaknesses on sight)

StarCraft 2's veterans left Blizzard to make Stormgate, the co-op RTS of their dreams | PC Gamer
Unfortunately it sounds like they're only doing the narrow hero based version, another DOTA or Heroes of the storm - and that holds zero appeal to me.
AOE alternatively is extremely slow paced with the decisive combat happening really fast - which just encourages the situation of a lot of hard work, and the opponent quitting if they're losing or watching a long drawn out death for yourself you can never recover from

This is hard to say if they mean a massive army style game or a singular unit type of game - it may be context not delivered in the quote
SC2 coop dealt with this with the commander powers, allowing you to focus an army in one location and back up your ally with the abilities, without the god-tier APM

MusselsAOE alternatively is extremely slow paced with the decisive combat happening really fast - which just encourages the situation of a lot of hard work, and the opponent quitting if they're losing or watching a long drawn out death for yourself you can never recover from

I don't think AoE is really "decisive" until at minimum Castle Age. You can lose your entire Feudal Age army for example, but the opponent can't do jack-diddly to your farms because you can always just garrison your villagers.

Vs Scout opening, the "one trick" you need to survive Feudal Age is resource-walling. Scouts can't kill a palisade wall (let alone a much higher HP house) in any reasonable amount of time. As long as your walls are up in time, you're good. Furthermore, 1x Spearman beats 2x Scouts (maybe closer to 2.5 Scouts actually), so you can always leverage defensive spearmen to push off the enemy harassment.

Vs Archer opening, things are trickier because Archers shoot over walls. But Defensive Skirmishers are close to 1x Skirmisher vs 2x Archers, so you still have a rather good defensive option (and Skirmishers are cheaper and build faster to boot. 1x Archery Range should keep up with an opponent's 2x Archery Range).

------------

What you say is absolutely true in Castle Age however. Castle Age games become very snowbally. I think things can be decided in a singular combat in Castle Age. Everything is just so strong, and your economy isn't good enough yet to recover. This is a narrow window however because...

-------

Imperial Age is no longer quite as snowbally. With 130+ Villager counts being common for endgame, you can lose your entire army over-and-over, and with 3x Town Centers even large-scale harassment campaigns don't really harm your economy anymore. The game often gets dragged out into "who runs out of gold first" (aka: Relics, but maybe some well placed Castles defending some good gold mines can also do the trick)

-----------

If you're looking to end the game quickly, it needs to happen in Castle Age or worst, early Imperial Age (when the opponent is still weak from spending the 1800 resources to click up). Units just aren't strong enough to decide the game in Feudal, and late-Imperial Age has too strong economy.

AoE2 has heavy emphasis on base design and walling. A good set of walls can build an almost impenetrable fortress in Feudal Age (aside from maybe the janky Men-at-arms + Tower strategy). In Castle Age, its very difficult to assault uphill (Defensive Mangonel survives an uphill Mango shot due to -25% damage. Defensive Mangonel has +25% damage so even a "near hit" KOs the opponent's Mangonel). Castle + Siege Workshop on a hill is pretty much impossible to take down in Castle Age.

That's my point - you get a long drawn out eco stage, and then pretty much if you breach their walls, they quit and instead of feeling like a victory it feels like a long solo game when the enemy drops out at the first fight


LIke SC2 with cheese, except 45 minutes not 5

Musselsand then pretty much if you breach their walls

If you're in a position to break through +25% bonus damage and -25% defensive damage prevented (especially with Tower / Castle / Town Center fire), you're winning the game anyway. Either that, or you're in horribly low Elo and the opponent didn't know how to defend properly.

Capturing the hill is... important. And I'm assuming the walls are in such a position that hill-bonus is appropriately benefiting the defender. (Not always possible due to random map, but defender really wants to pick good terrain for fights).

I can't say that I'm perfect at building my base defenses yet. Random maps make it difficult, you just have to be creative and understand all sorts of patterns. There's nothing like building a nice hill / defense spot, and then realizing that the opponent has a taller hill for long-range Trebuchets / Bombard Cannons or something.

----------

What I really like about AoE2 is the slowness of army movements. You really can plan strategies around the opponent's movement and participate in maneuver warfare. Starcraft is a bit too fast in my experience: there's not much thought because all units (except Battlecruisers / Carriers / Thor) basically can traverse the map within a minute.

"Deciding" to move out with your Archers in AoE2 is rather important, and strategic. It will take a long time for them to reach the opponent's base (and by then, they might be stronger). If they're stronger, it will take a long time for them to march back into safety of your walls and you could lose them all.

It was annoying the first time I switched from Starcraft to AoE2. But the more you play it, the more you can appreciate it. Its like Dark Souls and/or Monster Hunter vs the twitch games. By slowing down the game, it forces the game away from APM tricks and micro, and more towards macro / strategy decisions.

---------

I'd say the biggest difference between SC and AoE2 is that AoE2 has way, way, way more defender's advantage. Its harder to harass villagers (Town Center fire, quick-walls, lack of flying units). So the opponent's economy is usually safe. In contrast, SC is far more offensive, Flying Units (or pseudo-flying, like Reapers), Dropships, etc. etc. can breakthrough any wall or terrain near instantly. Its more important to be on the offensive in SC. Finally, the defender's reinforcement-time advantage is much more noticeable in AoE2... it exists in SC/SC2, but its far more important to account for in AoE2.

AoE2 doesn't give units who can take down the starting Town Center until Castle Age (Mangonel always outranges. Knights have armor to survive TC fire, Crossbows can outrange with Bodkin Arrow). But then Castles pop up and those are impossible to take down until Imperial Age. Playing defense and turtling is a far more legitimate strategy in AoE2. Especially if you've properly scouted the map and found good hills to camp on.

Musselsthe SC2 campaign is still fun and i replay them, but you can tell when different teams were involved as the playstyles are wildly different

SC2 Campaign was really good, all three game btw. AoE2's campaigns are far weaker than SC2, but AoE2's random map vs AI is excellent. So its a bit of a different style of single-player game. SC2's writing though was a severe downgrade compared to SC / Brood War.

I ended up liking Command and Conquer / Red Alert the best for single player though. Its a bullshit AI with cheating extra money. But when you accept that CnC's AI cheatiness / cheese, the single player game is just way better IMO.

AoE2's Extreme AI on Random Map is probably the best tutorial for competive play out of the three games discussed. It has some glaring weaknesses as a player, but its actually attacking with current-meta timings. Unlike the other two AIs, AoE2's AI plays with proper fog-of-war (it is blind to what you're doing and also has to scout to figure things out). So it is the most realistic multiplayer practice you can get.