Originally Posted by
Skyblade
Well, I'm not putting aside WoW's expansions, for one. The game has gotten steadily worse and worse, to the point that I completely gave up on it.
The only reason I left WoW's expansions out is because I don't play it. I actually haven't played any MMO that I would consider to be a good game, so I tend to avoid them. I suppose I'm a little bit of a hypocrite lately because I've been playing some Star Trek Online even though it's a terrible game. The trekkie in me got suckered in by the lore, but it won't hold much longer.
And, frankly, SCII is much the same way. First there's the entire two year wait and extra cost for the rest of the campaign missions, which I'm not too thrilled about. There's the fact that micro and action speed is still far more important than overall strategy. I haven't played it pretty much since I finished the campaign mode. It just didn't sit well with me in the long term.
These two arguments don't really sit well with me. The first simply because arguing that you're waiting more years and paying more money to get the full campaign is like complaining that Mass Effect wasn't finished after the first game. Wings of Liberty still had as much single player content in the campaign as the original game and Brood War. More if you take into account other single player modes like the challenges actually. It just always struck me as a weak argument, and one no one ever seems to apply to any other game that ends with a set up for a sequel.
The latter argument I also disagree with if only because I don't think it really holds as true as people think. Is Micro and APM important for getting to the top ranks in the game and playing professionally? Yes to some extent (there are actually a few guys who've placed well at tournaments with comparatively low APM though). And can it make a difference in individual games? Sure, if you're otherwise evenly matched with someone. But things like army composition, positioning, and timing attacks can all overcome someone who has better micro than you, but a worse handle on their macro and the other factors I mentioned. And the reality is, unless you're planning on trying to win the next MLG, it plays a much smaller role than you'd think. Certainly a much smaller role than in the first game and Brood War. But in the end, some benefit to having good micro is important because that's part of Starcraft and has been for a long time. If two people are completely evenly matched in every respect, but one has better micro, they should win.
I've personally been playing for much of the last two years and have never had any issues playing well and having fun, and even making it into leagues like Platinum, despite my having pretty low APM overall and a mediocre ability to micro my units and continue to build while attacking. The reality is that most people in most leagues are simply not that much better at it than I am, but I edge out wins by having better knowledge of the game, build orders, and positioning and unit compositions, as well as game awareness. I've frequently beaten players in leagues higher than myself who have much higher APM by being good at those things. I just play to my strengths.
But that said, being able to micro on some level is necessary to some degree, and if that isn't your thing then I don't begrudge you it. I just disagree that it's the most important factor. Certainly until you start hitting Diamond and Master leagues, other factors are dramatically more important and will win games more often than having better APM. And even if I do disagree with your reasons for not looking forward to the next Starcraft, you're still welcome to them. I'm not debating with you in some attempt to make you buy it by any means. You're welcome to your feelings about the games after all.
Reply With Quote
).
