why, why, why are people raging on this review? You gave this a decent score, 3.5/5 isn't bad, people don't seem to understand, it's just "fair". It's not a great game, and it's not a terrible game. I played this a lot with my brother and I concur with all that you said. It all boiled down to who could spawn out the most units sooner, and who could attack first (in more ways than one).
i played all strategies games and now i am playing age of empires online the and does not have so much stratiegies such as world in conflict supreme commander total wars. This game has more strategies than age of empires.
Age of Empires Online is pretty much nothing like AoE1-3, just so you know. It's barely even a strategy game at all.
And BFME2's really not that strategic. There's really no point to trying to develop a clever strategy since it'll all devolve into "spawn tons of units, then bash at the enemy for a while" anyway.
@DWTerminator lol age of empires online its much more strategies than the rest of the series it has lot more staff to do and the fanctions are completly different age of empires 1 2 3 all factions were the same shit just 1-3 units special units. DID you even play age of empires online. Try legendarie mario in age of empires online and see if you need strategie or not NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB, stop makeing stupid reviews
I think I got your point about this being a simplistic strategy game...you didn't need to focus this entire review about that fact because basically this review sucks.
...oh and since you don't like starcraft fuck you.
LOL man I just re-read what i wrote 5 month's ago and I love myself.
can you explain how my summary of your work is immature? I say work because I really hope you get paid to do this otherwise....your just gonna make me laugh again:)
@Nervejunktion Idiot I didn't do this review, how is this my work? And what's immature is the fact that because someone doesn't like starcraft and you do, "fuck them". How do you not see the immaturity? Again, I didn't do this video, so your response wasn't directed to me I hope, because otherwise you don't know how to read
SC1 an SC2 sucks end of story get over it or not it does not matter its a fail game that only people who cant play real games an REAL strategic games play an make believe its a strategic game because they cant face the truth
SC1 an SC2 sucks endo of story get over it or not it does not matter its a fail game that only people who cant play real games an REAL strategic games play an make believe its a strategic game because they cant face the truth
@daxler86 real strat games. yeah im sure the games u have in mind are REAL strategic games. mhmmm. only ppl who dont look deeper at a game fail to see the strategy in SC
If there weren't cheaters on, I would strongly suggest to try Zero Hour if you haven't already. I played for years online and single and it is awesome, but so many cheats and abuse of glitches happened online that I just fed up with it couple of years ago.
Rush to Berlin Gold, Order of War, Men at War are all solid good RTS games. Even RA3 is good for some fun thought not THAT much fun. BFME2 looks good (ty) I might try it, I don't mind a simple RTS now and then.
@zeldazerg i dont really care that he doesnt like SC, but what i do care is that he was making assumptions about a game he hasnt played for 10 years or saying that its not strategic (how can he say that if he hasnt played if or seen a number of games w/ good commentators?) its his right to not like SC and thats fine if he doesnt like it thats fine, but to make claims that its not a strategy game and u havent played it for 10 years is not... for lack of a better word, professional
@voiceofbooks Starcraft does not represent actual strategic tactics especially in multiplayer because it's just depending on how fast you can click the mouse, which goes to mostly the nerd grinding, just with a top-down view. Also there is no need to play SC1 to appreciate it after 10 or 20 or 30. The opinion won't change if you hate the formula.
@MisterAAnderson well i agree on ur last point i find fault with ur idea that SC is about apm (how fast you click ur mouse) sure being able to click and hot keys faster helps, but it comes down to making the right clicks and the right thinking/planning. for example in many of the games i personally play even when i have faster APM than my opponents and yet i still lose. why? b/c there is strat involved and i made bad choices and they used that. and its the same for the pros too
@voiceofbooks Anyway i find the singleplayer being the best part of the game. Since in multiplayer there too many pro's and reeeeal pro's won't have mercy on me.
@MisterAAnderson i do love the Campaigns of it but the great thing w/ SC2, idk how other games do it, but in SC2 u play ppl that r around u playing lvl u get 5 placement matches and then u play ppl in ur lvl and if ur to good or even to bad then you can be moved up or down. and if u want to advance to the next lvl u really have to want to learn how to play better =)
i can understand the lack of tactics against the computer. thats how it was in WC and SC but once u got online the tactics of the game increased more than tenfold
im sorry that u think SC is mediocre but so was this review. u only covered one area... how it didnt compare to Total War or AoE... at least in SC if u loose ur entire army ur usually screwed... im sorry in AoE it doest matter as much. the feeling is "eh what ever, more where they came from"
SC is micromanagement to the extreme, not strategy. I've never seen anyone do anything but rush or turtle. And yes, you lose your army, you're screwed. In AoE that's also the case, so I get the feeling you haven't played much of it.
BFME2 is an entry-level RTS to begin with. It's more akin to something like Command & Conquer than either of those examples though.
@DWTerminator yes it is a lot of Micromanagement but it also has TONS of strategy. u should check out some of the pros games like LiquidTLO, and Idra, try a game w/ a commentator i swear SCII gaming is crazy. if u havent seen a game where its either a rush or ppl turtling then u prob have seen mostly the lower lvls. i mean they do turtleing and rushes in the pros but not that often. i did play AoE2 for a few years and i enjoyed it... but that was a few years ago so maybe its changed or evolved
I've seen the "pros" play SC. I see no strategy. Just reflexes. That's probably why it's so popular for competition: it's pretty much the most reflex-based "RTS" I've ever seen.
And AoE has more strategic depth than SC. There are more resources, better unit balancing and better defensive structures. Since every faction is good in most fields but excels in one particular aspect, players need to understand how to utilize their specific advantages in addition to maintaining the other elements.
@DWTerminator im not talking "pros" i mean real pros. like its what they do for a living. also SC is hardly just simple reflexes. yeah reflexes help a ton but winning isnt dependent on reflexes. yes it does have more resources but that doesnt make it more strategic than SC, its just a different lvl of strategy. and what u talked about unit balancing and how each faction excels in one area over another that is exactly what SC is. now defense wise AoE does have 1 thing that SC doesnt... walls
I knew exactly what you meant by pros. Let's put it this way: Starcraft is essentially the Pythagorean theorem of "RTS's". You fulfill the formula and you win. Fail to do so, and you lose.
SC isn't REMOTELY balanced unless they've done some major patching since I played it. Takes 5 marines to kill 1 zergling and 2-3 of them die in the process? Dunno where you would get the idea that it's balanced from something like that.
@DWTerminator er... well just a clarifier when i say SC i am referring to SCII. and a marine will kill a zergling 1v1 and can kill more than just 1 given depending on if 1) theyre fighting on creep (the stuff that the zerg live on) 2) if the zerglins have their speed upgrade and 3) how well the marines r microed. but even w/o mico they can still usually kill 1 or 2 (unless on creep w/ the speed upgrade done) and there isnt a certain formula required to win ive seen some of the crazies stuff win
I'm talking about SC1 here. When it was released, it took 5 marines to take down a single zergling. They probably patched it later on.
As for there not being a formula, I call bs. Each faction plays a certain way, and *only* a certain way. Some people are better at playing those ways than others. Some are luckier than others. Ultimately, though, there's a formula that the player follows in order to succeed as a given faction. Everything in SC relies on following those formulas insanely quickly.
@DWTerminator not really... have u played SCII (or updated versions of SC)?? have u seen a bunch of different pros play? the formulas that u talk about dont exist. sure each race has its strengths and weaknesses but by no means are there ways u "HAVE" to play or lose. and as the game keeps developing there are more and more ways to play and more strategies and more tactics.
If there are no ways you have to play, then explain to me why there's no leeway. If your micromanagement isn't 100% *perfect*, you get annihilated. Thus, there ARE specific ways you *have* to play. The game hasn't developed much over 12 (going on 13) years. There haven't been evolving tactics or strategies. The same reflex-based crap that worked in 1998 works now.
@DWTerminator u dont have to micromanage 100% perfect unless ur in the master league which is the top 2%. they game has developed over the past 12 years. for example in a certain match up (Terran vs Terran -the human faction) often it was just a long drawn out game of siege tanks vs siege tanks. thats began to change and develop where some players are getting faster and weaker units to b more mobile than the tank players. ur arguing from a point that might have been true 12 years ago but not now
Apparently you haven't played skirmish mode. As any of the three factions I get wiped out in 2-3 minutes because my micromanagement isn't perfect. Now you'll just say I suck at the game, but that's not the case. I went in expecting it to be an actual RTS, where I could work around my own faults. Nope. It's all about the micromanagement.
You're arguing the fan's viewpoint against someone who thinks SC is the worst "RTS" ever made. You're not gonna persuade me otherwise.
@DWTerminator maybe u r terrible at SC maybe ur good but i highly doubt u loosing came down to the mico. my bet is that it came down to the macro/map control which gives u vision. i have played in skirmish mode and if its against the computer it does roughly the same strat each time and if its online it depends on each person. battles actually depend a lot on positioning and not mico management. and maybe i am arguing the fan's viewpoint but u also have stated that u havent played for a while...
I have no reason to play SC again. It's the single most infuriating game I've ever played. Why bother playing something that's so infuriating it makes me want to smash every copy I see?
And no, it wasn't what you call "macro" (seriously, I've been playing RTS's since 1997 and only heard the term "macromanagement" in 2010. Therefore it's complete nonsense.), it was the micro. In SC your production has to be completely ridiculous, and mine never is. I prefer thought over reflexes.
@DWTerminator thought over reflexes. great. sounds like an rts player... sounds like something ud find in SC... u have stated many times that b/c u didnt like SC when it came out that u havent played it for a while and that u really dont like it. thats fine not liking it, but u cant determine what the start of the game is about. and maybe the term maco is new but what macromanagement isnt. mico, maco, plan and execute a strategy, execute tactics and yes reflexes does come into it. thats SC
1. I played it in 2002. I was told I'd enjoy it b/c I like Age of Empires. That was a horribly wrong assumption.
2. You've clearly deluded yourself into thinking SC is strategic. It's not. It's entirely about the micromanagement and reflexes. I've never (read: NEVER) seen anyone (including the "pros" you seem to respect so much) do anything but display how quickly they can out-produce their opponents.
@DWTerminator how do u seem to know what SC play is like sense u havent played it for a while and clearly haevent played SCII?? i see the never but how often have u looked? how many games? how many hours? i can tell from ur arguments that u havent looked at what SC is recently. its NOT (read the not) about if u can out produce or if u can out micro. its about a whole combination of things. and why do u say "pros"??
"Pro" gaming is a complete farce. Games are about fun, not winning prizes
SC2 is a joke. I have no reason to spend $60 on a game I'll despise.
You're just like every other SC fan out there: belligerent. You guys just don't know how to deal with someone who hates your beloved game with a fiery passions. If you SERIOUSLY think SC is so strategic, apply its "strategy" to everything. Go on. Try it. See how that works in Total War, Blitzkrieg. and Company of Heroes. See how it works in real warfare
@DWTerminator football, baseball, basketball. all sports and all more about having fun then winning prizes. when it goes pro its about whos at the top. try going telling the pro gamers that what they do is a complete farce and theyre not ptos. it'd b like telling a baseball player that him being pro is a complete farce. Idc if u like SC or not or if u get SCII or not. i have applied it to other games... guess what ive done a lot better. also, ironically, the air force uses Starcraft in training
The only tactics age of empires has (at least 1 and 2) is what units you build and how you go about building your 'empire' it's not much more complex these games only by a little. it's a very light RTS but a dang fun one at that.
The command points thing you're totally misjudging, with you increasing it by 50 each time you add a building that generates money.
Besides which you can change that at the skirmish rules bit and can up it up to 4k worth of troops. Agreed about the gameplay, but I don't think it's supposed to be a real thinkers game, more a game of keeping things going (creating units, constantly attacking).
It's more of a fans game, if you love LOTR you'll love this. If not, give it a miss maybe.
Sad thing is: I'm a LotR fan and *don't* love BFME2. Then again most of the LotR games aren't particularly good (they're not bad, but they all have that "movie game problem").
Like I said though: it's more of a newbie's RTS than anything else. It's simple enough that pretty much anyone (particularly LotR fans who've never played RTS's) can pick it up and play, but it's not "strategic" enough for veterans like myself.
As for the command points, it's still annoying that they run out so often.
@DWTerminator I'm a big fan of it as there's nothing close. I do play Rome:Total War online and it does have a LOTR mod, but it's not brilliant (or atleast doesn't work brilliantly on my laptop). You may want to check that out if you haven't seen it :-)
It is simple, but I think that's part of its charm. Its not meant to be a game for veterans, just a "Try and keep up with unit creation" game. Loved the maps and heroes etc.
gosh to be honest i dont think you get this game. While it is true that it is simple. You are soo wrong about the flanking thing, but that is more of advanced movement in this game. Where this game shines is it;s heroes system. The hero powers are amazing and lead to very dramatic gameplay. The power system is also second to none. The system of using builders alone is so unique and leads to very cool potential game situations in 2v2. There are so many various unit combos, cave trolls alone!
I've never noticed flanking making any sort of difference in the fight. As for "unit combos"... it's rock-paper-scissors. Every unit type has another unit type that counters it. That's really as deep as that gets. And yes, the heroes certainly lead to dramatic gameplay... after all, they can be pretty overpowered depending on who you've got in the field.
The game's simplicity is simultaneously its major strength and weakness. I simply prefer stuff that's more complex, so I don't like it much.
@DWTerminator boss you actually get a flanking bonus when it comes to cav trample (even against pikes...) you are 100% right about the rock paper scissors aspect but there are tons of different combos and you can actually have situations where paper beets scissors honestly with proper use of powers and heroes...also i forgot to mention this game has tons of secrets and glitches more than any other game i have ever encountered making it even more fun...
That explains a lot. I rarely used cavalry, therefore wouldn't know much about a flanking bonus.
You can't have paper beat scissors unless you have a *ton* of paper or heroes to go along with it. As for unit combos, there aren't a ton. If you're counting each faction's, don't: they all have the same basic unit combos. Count the unique ones and you have about a handful. Having tons of glitches isn't a good thing (means the game's badly programmed), and I really haven't noticed any secrets.
@DWTerminator Each faction is unique in my view and there are def paper beating scissor scenarios without heroes...ever used an army of beserkers? they are insane...but powers would def need to be used...True there are only a few truly unique units (cave trolls are seriously underused take 25 cave trolls holding goblins in their hands and attack a fully upgraded fortress to see what happens....) Check out my channel to see a real cool glitch where you can potentially fight w/4 armies...
first off rushing is a legit stategy witch i find retarded. Second if you love RTS try company of heroes, a game that actually requires strategic skill unlike blizzard games and BFME..... i dint really care for your review it seems like BFME is not worth buying and you point out you cant strategize witch is untrue because there is strategy for Ex. pikemen slaughter horsemen... but i do agree that the strategy level is pertty low compared to other games.
Rock-Paper-Scissors schemes are not strategy. They're a game mechanic. Strategy is entirely player-driven.
Rushing is the "strategy" for people who play too much Starcraft and haven't the mental capacity to do much of anything other than exercise their twitch reflexes. If you want to "twitch" your way to victory, I suggest playing an FPS, not a strategy game.
I *much* prefer Company of Heroes to this. Far more strategic. BFME2 is very low on the strategy totem pole.
@DWTerminator of course they own the servers they just aren't allowed to run them any longer. They were given an extra year after their license ran out or something. Stop acting like you know everything.
I don't act like I know everything. Nor do I claim to know everything. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions before you go too far into the realm of ridiculousness.
Battle for Middle-earth 1 & 2 have been off major store shelves for about a year anyway. It's not like this is anything unexpected.
@DWTerminator I heard it's because they lost the rights to Lord of the Rings and WarnerBrothers bought them. So they can't help it, it's actually not EAs fault.
Even if they lost the license, they still own the servers for the game. Since they're not getting any more revenue from the game, they close it down. It's that simple. EA only sees the bottom line. Microsoft did it with the MSN Gaming Zone as well.
I wouldn't rush a castle of high defense lol. I don't even know those games, never heard of them. I would rush and swarm the map leading to me getting a stronger economy and most likely winning the game from there due to more money, elite units and more map coverage.
Of course you've never heard of them. Doesn't surprise me. You're too "mainstream" for them, I guess. Stick to your Starcraft-like games then (Blizzard be damned for ruining the genre!). Rushing in all three games is suicide.
I don't like the game simply because I find it lacks strategic depth and "fun factor" compared to other games I find more enjoyable.
So what if you don't play Starcraft? You're using tactics it popularized. Warcraft 1 & 2 had rushing too, but they were even more simplistic and are forgivable for it. It wasn't until Starcraft that suddenly everyone knew the term "rushing."
I've played RTS's since the mid-90's. That's hardly "new." Rushing is a cheap tactic used by people following the example of Starcraft, not by people who actually like to think.
I don't claim to be good at RTS's, either. Too many people assume that, it seems.
@DWTerminator how is rushing "cheap". If you kill his farm first and are on the attack, you are free to expand with farms and therefore get the better economy. I consider camping cheap. As they lose anyway but it makes the game drag on.
Cheap as in "pretty much as close to cheat codes as you can get." It's not as bad in BFME2 as it is in other games though. At least with "camping" (the term we tend to use for it is "turtle"), you're not spamming the enemy with 50+ soldiers 3 minutes into the game. -_-
Keep in mind also that I'm one for "grand strategy" like in the Total War games. No such thing as rushing there. You actually need to use proper tactics to succeed.
@DWTerminator rushing is a strategy, it's getting as many troops as possible without interupting your farm building leading to a good economy. You are clearly one of the players who sucks - no offence, and blames it on a lame tactic. Rushing requires more clicking and skill, than simply putting archers into towers.
Strategy requires thought. Rushing is more like a reflex. The point of strategy is to outwit the opponent, not to "twitch" your way to victory.
And I openly admit I suck at RTS's. Doesn't make rushing any more "intelligent" of a strategy. I've never seen a rusher cleverly make use of terrain or ambushes. Nor have I seen them remotely interested in defense. Instead, they just send in as many weaklings as possible to overwhelm by numbers. Later on they *might* upgrade, but rarely.
@DWTerminator I upgrade, and there is so much more genius from the "rushers" you probably miss because you don't understand it. Are you aware of hitting units from behind does 50% more damage? Are you aware that guardians take 1/5th of pikemen damage?
We always use strategy. Just alongside fast clicking - the best way to win.
Care to share your idea of a good player using a genius strategy?
Clarification: You don't "use" strategy. You make them. What you use are tactics.
Considering I didn't find BfME2 worth the effort to "master," what makes you think I really care about its "intricacies?" Sure, call me ignorant, but why bother learning all the bonuses/etc. when I don't like it?
If you really think rushing is a "good strategy," try it in any Total War game. Try it in Blitzkrieg. Or how about Stronghold? Try rushing against a castle or an entrenched position. See if that works.
im sorry but i dont agree there is not Huge complications but it can come down to harasment and micro and macro and for example you cant rush archers onto calvalry and the comand points are fine in it is exactly like population limits u just have to be more aware of building supply buildings
worst review of this game iv ever seen. play online and you'll find out what this game really is. playing agains AI is the dumbest thing to do in this game
I did play online. It's nothing noteworthy. I didn't see many uses of proper tactics or complex strategies... just a lot of rushing. Of course, that was when I could stand the lag. I don't play strategy games online mostly for those reasons. Deal with it.
haha imho i think the biggest fuck up of this game was the AI it was absolutely TERRIBLE but not as bad as left for dead's lol.. i pissed my self laughing at the notice, star craft fan-boys are like religious fanatics trying to push their beliefs on you... gr8 and honest review.
terrible review imo... this is a mainly online game, and you touched on this for like 2 seconds. It's much more complex than you make it out to be, and you seemed to have no clue about any of this. Play someone competent online, get beat in 5 seconds, and then come back and say that there is not much tactical potential in the game.
I tend not to play RTS's online. The infrastructure rarely works out very well (RTS netcode generally sucks) and all too often people resort to tactics that simply bother me. That said, I did play one match of BFME2 online.
Ergo, my primary focus was on what I *did* play: the singleplayer. There really isn't much strategy in this game *compared to other RTS's*. As far as I can tell, it's your standard "rock, paper, scissors" RTS where every type of unit is good against another type of unit.
After reading your comment, I knew you obviously are a very oblivious person. It's similar in gameplay style to games like Starcraft, where pretty much all you do is churn out tons of units then charge with little thought given to the actual overall strategy. There's practically no micromanagement to speak of though, so at least it does that better than SC. I even mention SC in the slightest and immediately everyone's against me without even paying attention to what I'm saying.
Micromanagement is not strategy. It's a game mechanic that gets abused so much that many confuse it to be *the* strategy. Strategy is the overall spectrum (goals, taking into account all your options and having backup plans, utilizing multiple tactics including both strengths *and* weaknesses, using terrain, etc.). Starcraft is all about the micromanagement and doesn't allow much leeway for in-depth strategies. BFME2 is all about the combat.
@DWTerminator I never said they were the same thing, I know the difference between micromanagement and strategy. It's funny that you say SC is all micro though because anyone who knows anything about it would correct you that it is more macro than anything. SC has micro, macro, strategy, timing, tactics, mind games, and on top of all that is more physically demanding than any other strategy game I have played (Total War, AoE, WC, Paradox, EA, etc). You don't understand SC if you say it has none.
FYI, nobody's ever used the term "macro" to describe anything about a strategy game to me until this year, and I've been playing RTS's since '97. I've never seen anyone doing anything but rushing or "turtling" (and the latter is extremely rare in the cases I've seen) in SC. And "physically demanding" shouldn't be part of a strategy game. That's what you expect from an FPS or a Wii game. RTS's are all about outsmarting opponents. I simply find SC too infuriating to, as you say, "understand" it.
@DWTerminator If this is the first time you've heard of "macro" in an RTS, then you are far more ignorant than you realize when it comes to RTS. Also, there's nothing wrong with an RTS being physically demanding. For one, it requires mental-multitasking that no other game does that I know of, and likewise requires the ability to move your hands fast enough to keep up with your mind. Also, the game is so complex that it takes an extremely large amount of practice to even come close to mastering.
Actually, SC's so *simple* it requires a ton of practice to master. I've played FAR more complex strategy games than that. Nobody's ever brought up "macro" to me in an RTS conversation until 2010. As a result the term means nothing to me. It's that simple.
The problem isn't so much that an RTS shouldn't be physically demanding. It's the *over-reliance* on the twitch movements that games like SC are plagued with. You end up having reflexes instead of using your brain, which misses the point.
listen I'm sorry if I come off as a douchebag because I'm not exactly the best at getting my point across, but trust me, SC is easily one of the most complex and competitive games ever made, in fact, it alongside CS practically created E-Sports.
almost every RTS game has macro though (it's basically production/economy management to sum it up)
the "twitch-movements" are simply muscle memory to optimize one's ability to execute strategy
google "Teamliquid", they can explain better than I
The way you describe macro is basically what I think when I see micro.
SC was chosen for leagues because it's simple enough to moderate matches with it, runs on pretty much any rig without any problems, and is popular worldwide. That's really it. On the scale of complexity in RTS's, it's pretty low... which probably keeps it going. People seem to prefer simplicity over substance (look at Oblivion, for instance).
Twitch reflexes are simply reactions. I prefer thinking to reacting in my RTS's.
If there's strategic thinking in SC, I've never seen it. I've just seen reactions to whatever situation is at hand. That's certainly part of how you play strategy games, but I still see a lack of tactics other than simplistic assaults.
As I've learned it, micromanagement is of your resources in order to finance your military exploits. I'd never even heard the term macro until someone brought it up in a SC-related post on one of my videos. Mayhaps it's more a SC term rather than a universal one.
no offense but you kinda suck... you can chose what kind of tactic you use, there are some. Each race has a diffrent kind of strategie and within a race you have diffrent options. Each unit, support for example by the right hero, has his qualitys. And building defence (specially with elves) is not so hard. The IA is kinda predictable, that's true. But online gaming is praticly unlimited and really FUN
I never made a claim of being "good" at the game. There's really not all that much strategy to this game though (suffers from C&C and Starcraft syndrome). I know each unit has its strengths, weaknesses, and so on, but there's really not a whole lot of difference between the races (there are differences, but it's mostly superficial or minor stat changes). Yes, the AI's predictable and fairly easy to beat. To be honest though I haven't played much online. Never really do that with RTS's in general
While I don't own the full game of Empire at War, I didn't have much fun with the demo (mostly due to performance problems on my old PC). That's not a very good representation of the full game though, so I'd hazard a guess and say that BFME2 (haven't played BFME1) is probably about on the same level as EaW .
As long as the CPU's 1.6GHz or faster, your RAM is at least 256MB, and as long as your graphics card is at least a GeForce 3/Radeon 8500 or better, it should run.
Thanks for reminding me to put the system requirements down, by the way.
Not sure. That's an Intel integrated graphics chip, which basically means it has practically no graphics processing power. It *might* run, but I can't say for certain.
I don't mind WarCraft, but Starcraft gets on my nerves. It's so centered on micromanagement that while it has perfected that formula, the rest of the game is ridiculously impossible (cheating AI + horrendous balancing issues + zero strategic depth + annoyingly brainwashed-devout fanbase = recipe for disaster) as a result.
I always get "how could you not like (insert game)" when it comes to really popular ones like Halo, Battlefield, Starcraft, etc. Not everyone likes the same games. -_-
No, it's not. Each side has something that makes it absolutely ridiculous. For the Terrans, it's the fact that they do pretty much no damage until the most powerful units (I mean seriously, 10 marines to take down 1 of the weakest Zerg is pathetic). For the Protoss, it's their shielding. For the Zerg... I need only say Zerg Rush.
You want balance, you play something like Age of Empires, where no one side has such an advantage over the others that it makes the game painful to play.
@DWTerminator Age of Empires has no depth because all the factions play exactly the same.
In Starcraft, everything has a pro and a con, a strength and a weakness. For every attack situation you can develop a counter measure. It is true rock/paper/scissors. Broodwar, the expansion is so balanced that it still has a thriving community. In patch 1.08 the Zerg Rush was nullified.
Google "Is Starcraft really balanced?", click on the second result and read the article.
"It is true rock/paper/scissors." That's the problem. There's basically only *one specific* way to play. You can't really think up your own strategies at all. AoE has more *strategic* depth than SC for the simple reason that you can actually utilize different strategies than simply play "rock/paper/scissors." The similarity of the factions only encourages finding the faction's strengths and using them well. SC's got way too much emphasis on being fast as opposed to making you actually think.
Its South Korea's biggest sport, that should tell you something...
Its the most balanced RTS out there, and I'm sure Starcraft 2 will soon take over that title. You dont just make units and charge, theres tons of strategy in build orders, building placement, what counters what.
I've won with an 80 population deficit against 3 players simply because i know lots of good strategies and my micro is good.
Oh I know Starcraft. You *do* just make units and charge. The "strategy" consists *solely* of how quickly and efficiently you can do that. Nothing more. Micromanagement is fine as long as it gives room for other strategies, which SC doesn't. Balance? Only if you don't have anyone playing as the zerg. Also, SC2 is *exactly* the same as SC1 with better visuals. Big deal. -_-
Takes more skill than all other RTS's? Here's where I point to Total War and say clearly you have no idea what strategy is.
@DWTerminator You clearly know nothing about StarCraft.
Its South Korea's biggest sport, that should tell you something...
Its the most balanced RTS out there, and I'm sure Starcraft 2 will soon take over that title. You dont just make units and charge, theres tons of strategy in build orders, building placement, what counters what.
@Ayotex1337 so do i agree with u ive seen ppl do that 2 and theres more tactics then what he said ive seen one on youtbe he called it the gaunlet of death thers bases about like 25 feet away form eacher like about a unit lengths then like they put alls up and yeah
way more stuff more tactics and ur not really good at this game sorry to say but u sorta suck i would face u but my dics broke and i lost it and im getting in for computer maybe
Best way to go is to play online. This is one of my all time favorite rts games because of its fantastic online play. When you can chat with friends and work together... it rocks.
I never really had any buddies who play this online, so it just got boring after a while. That's the problem with focusing on skirmishes: it's not a very deep game strategically speaking. Certainly a good starter RTS, but I prefer Age of Empires and Total War.
hey i can you help me.I cant register they i come to the end and they say that they are having some problems try again later?is this pemenent becouse its going on like that for 2 weeks now?will i ever be able to register?
Haha, you've got to be kidding me? Starcraft is the most popular e-sport in the world. It's even the national sport in Sout Korea. Have you seen the pro Starcraft players?
Oh I know it's huge. I still don't like it at all due to the ridiculous rushing.
Strategy is about being able to outwit your opponents, not overrunning them every game. Starcraft doesn't really provide the opportunity for multiple tactics.
I never got into this game, just found it too samey all the way through and the AI was rubbish. Also hated squad caps - Command and Conquer didn't use to have them in the good old days - you could make as many units as you could afford with the resources available! Squad caps are such a shame for games like this!
I don't mind population caps if it's a game like Age of Empires, but you're right, in a game where the sole focus is battle, caps are a pain. C&C was also a rush-only game though. There was no reason to put in a unit cap either (except for certain special units like the Ghost Stalker in Tiberian Sun since they'd wipe out bases with only a handful of them) since you'd never have all that many troops to begin with.
And yes, there's not much variety in the game, either.
best part of the video is him saying "stellar" (:
facemouth83 1 day ago
well of course is for LODR fans and not for strategy becose us are SOO muche more then you (stupid fuck)
atilla205 2 months ago
@atilla205
you spelled ,,i am an idiot,, wrong :D
m4dn3s59595 1 month ago
why, why, why are people raging on this review? You gave this a decent score, 3.5/5 isn't bad, people don't seem to understand, it's just "fair". It's not a great game, and it's not a terrible game. I played this a lot with my brother and I concur with all that you said. It all boiled down to who could spawn out the most units sooner, and who could attack first (in more ways than one).
And curious, do you like lord of the rings?
R4Z0RxTutorials 2 months ago
ahahahahhahahahaha i never see a shitier review.
atilla205 2 months ago
i played all strategies games and now i am playing age of empires online the and does not have so much stratiegies such as world in conflict supreme commander total wars. This game has more strategies than age of empires.
kova0078 2 months ago
Age of Empires Online is pretty much nothing like AoE1-3, just so you know. It's barely even a strategy game at all.
And BFME2's really not that strategic. There's really no point to trying to develop a clever strategy since it'll all devolve into "spawn tons of units, then bash at the enemy for a while" anyway.
DWTerminator 2 months ago
@DWTerminator lol age of empires online its much more strategies than the rest of the series it has lot more staff to do and the fanctions are completly different age of empires 1 2 3 all factions were the same shit just 1-3 units special units. DID you even play age of empires online. Try legendarie mario in age of empires online and see if you need strategie or not NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB, stop makeing stupid reviews
kova0078 2 months ago
You're terrible at trolling.
DWTerminator 2 months ago
HEY IDIOT TRY PLAYING ONLINE
ElectricFish100 3 months ago
if its so simple then put up a video of u playing against 3 ai on hard
TheSpencerc12345 4 months ago
No. I could certainly do it, but I don't feel like it; it'd be a waste of time and HD space as well.
DWTerminator 4 months ago
@DWTerminator no I agree.
I'd like to see that 2...
ringman14 2 months ago
flanking doesnt work? why is it then when a unit attacks from behind they gain a massive damage bonus.
Even though its a simple strategy game you do have to play the game smart i.e. different units will be more effective against some......
pretty shite review in my opinion.
mojo2blojo 5 months ago
umm i dunno how you're playing them but "Charging" as you put it NEVER EVER works in starcraft or warcraft (i know)
Kid15X 5 months ago
To the contrary. It always works if you've got enough troops... which is what SC's all about.
DWTerminator 5 months ago
@DWTerminator
Definitely what it's not about..
if u charge like a wooden cag with all your troops = u loose.
u actually need to approach with a tactic depends if they block their base, build air, or stealth units..
so i guess u dont know what u r talking about, cheers!
yago20072007 2 months ago
Talking bout starcraft\warcraft...
yago20072007 2 months ago
@DWTerminator
And THAT is exactly the opposite of charging... :/
VaiTrooper 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
were i can download the game free?
ownerron 6 months ago
You Suck at reviewing no one expresses how good they think the game is in a review
medievalkingable 6 months ago
can you make your own character
ego5557055 7 months ago
Yes, you can.
DWTerminator 7 months ago
@ego5557055 yeah its awesome
korwam 6 months ago
I think I got your point about this being a simplistic strategy game...you didn't need to focus this entire review about that fact because basically this review sucks.
...oh and since you don't like starcraft fuck you.
Nervejunktion 8 months ago 2
@Nervejunktion it's almost impressive how immature people like you are.
R4Z0RxTutorials 2 months ago
@R4Z0RxTutorials
LOL man I just re-read what i wrote 5 month's ago and I love myself.
can you explain how my summary of your work is immature? I say work because I really hope you get paid to do this otherwise....your just gonna make me laugh again:)
Nervejunktion 2 months ago
@Nervejunktion Idiot I didn't do this review, how is this my work? And what's immature is the fact that because someone doesn't like starcraft and you do, "fuck them". How do you not see the immaturity? Again, I didn't do this video, so your response wasn't directed to me I hope, because otherwise you don't know how to read
R4Z0RxTutorials 2 months ago
@R4Z0RxTutorials
I'd like to make a 180 degree turn around in my original standpoint man. You are 100% correct.
In complete honesty i didn't expect anyone with intelligence to read my points. let us be brothers and argue no more.
Nervejunktion 2 months ago
@Nervejunktion Glad we could come to an agreement.
R4Z0RxTutorials 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to see a walkthrough of this game, check out my channel!
RandomVietnamGuy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SC1 an SC2 sucks end of story get over it or not it does not matter its a fail game that only people who cant play real games an REAL strategic games play an make believe its a strategic game because they cant face the truth
daxler86 9 months ago
SC1 an SC2 sucks endo of story get over it or not it does not matter its a fail game that only people who cant play real games an REAL strategic games play an make believe its a strategic game because they cant face the truth
daxler86 9 months ago
@daxler86 real strat games. yeah im sure the games u have in mind are REAL strategic games. mhmmm. only ppl who dont look deeper at a game fail to see the strategy in SC
voiceofbooks 8 months ago
If there weren't cheaters on, I would strongly suggest to try Zero Hour if you haven't already. I played for years online and single and it is awesome, but so many cheats and abuse of glitches happened online that I just fed up with it couple of years ago.
Rush to Berlin Gold, Order of War, Men at War are all solid good RTS games. Even RA3 is good for some fun thought not THAT much fun. BFME2 looks good (ty) I might try it, I don't mind a simple RTS now and then.
Trusteft 10 months ago
i personally like sc2, but why give him a big deal about not liking it? he doesn't like it, so what?
zeldazerg 11 months ago
@zeldazerg i dont really care that he doesnt like SC, but what i do care is that he was making assumptions about a game he hasnt played for 10 years or saying that its not strategic (how can he say that if he hasnt played if or seen a number of games w/ good commentators?) its his right to not like SC and thats fine if he doesnt like it thats fine, but to make claims that its not a strategy game and u havent played it for 10 years is not... for lack of a better word, professional
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
@voiceofbooks Starcraft does not represent actual strategic tactics especially in multiplayer because it's just depending on how fast you can click the mouse, which goes to mostly the nerd grinding, just with a top-down view. Also there is no need to play SC1 to appreciate it after 10 or 20 or 30. The opinion won't change if you hate the formula.
MisterAAnderson 8 months ago
@MisterAAnderson well i agree on ur last point i find fault with ur idea that SC is about apm (how fast you click ur mouse) sure being able to click and hot keys faster helps, but it comes down to making the right clicks and the right thinking/planning. for example in many of the games i personally play even when i have faster APM than my opponents and yet i still lose. why? b/c there is strat involved and i made bad choices and they used that. and its the same for the pros too
voiceofbooks 8 months ago
@voiceofbooks Anyway i find the singleplayer being the best part of the game. Since in multiplayer there too many pro's and reeeeal pro's won't have mercy on me.
MisterAAnderson 8 months ago
@MisterAAnderson i do love the Campaigns of it but the great thing w/ SC2, idk how other games do it, but in SC2 u play ppl that r around u playing lvl u get 5 placement matches and then u play ppl in ur lvl and if ur to good or even to bad then you can be moved up or down. and if u want to advance to the next lvl u really have to want to learn how to play better =)
voiceofbooks 8 months ago
@voiceofbooks Everyone has he's share... I love Total War games in multiplayer for instance. Anyway good luck on the battlefield.
MisterAAnderson 8 months ago
@MisterAAnderson You too. May your blades stay sharp
voiceofbooks 8 months ago
?? SC and WC arent for hardcore rts games??
i can understand the lack of tactics against the computer. thats how it was in WC and SC but once u got online the tactics of the game increased more than tenfold
im sorry that u think SC is mediocre but so was this review. u only covered one area... how it didnt compare to Total War or AoE... at least in SC if u loose ur entire army ur usually screwed... im sorry in AoE it doest matter as much. the feeling is "eh what ever, more where they came from"
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
SC is micromanagement to the extreme, not strategy. I've never seen anyone do anything but rush or turtle. And yes, you lose your army, you're screwed. In AoE that's also the case, so I get the feeling you haven't played much of it.
BFME2 is an entry-level RTS to begin with. It's more akin to something like Command & Conquer than either of those examples though.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator yes it is a lot of Micromanagement but it also has TONS of strategy. u should check out some of the pros games like LiquidTLO, and Idra, try a game w/ a commentator i swear SCII gaming is crazy. if u havent seen a game where its either a rush or ppl turtling then u prob have seen mostly the lower lvls. i mean they do turtleing and rushes in the pros but not that often. i did play AoE2 for a few years and i enjoyed it... but that was a few years ago so maybe its changed or evolved
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
I've seen the "pros" play SC. I see no strategy. Just reflexes. That's probably why it's so popular for competition: it's pretty much the most reflex-based "RTS" I've ever seen.
And AoE has more strategic depth than SC. There are more resources, better unit balancing and better defensive structures. Since every faction is good in most fields but excels in one particular aspect, players need to understand how to utilize their specific advantages in addition to maintaining the other elements.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator im not talking "pros" i mean real pros. like its what they do for a living. also SC is hardly just simple reflexes. yeah reflexes help a ton but winning isnt dependent on reflexes. yes it does have more resources but that doesnt make it more strategic than SC, its just a different lvl of strategy. and what u talked about unit balancing and how each faction excels in one area over another that is exactly what SC is. now defense wise AoE does have 1 thing that SC doesnt... walls
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
I knew exactly what you meant by pros. Let's put it this way: Starcraft is essentially the Pythagorean theorem of "RTS's". You fulfill the formula and you win. Fail to do so, and you lose.
SC isn't REMOTELY balanced unless they've done some major patching since I played it. Takes 5 marines to kill 1 zergling and 2-3 of them die in the process? Dunno where you would get the idea that it's balanced from something like that.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator er... well just a clarifier when i say SC i am referring to SCII. and a marine will kill a zergling 1v1 and can kill more than just 1 given depending on if 1) theyre fighting on creep (the stuff that the zerg live on) 2) if the zerglins have their speed upgrade and 3) how well the marines r microed. but even w/o mico they can still usually kill 1 or 2 (unless on creep w/ the speed upgrade done) and there isnt a certain formula required to win ive seen some of the crazies stuff win
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
I'm talking about SC1 here. When it was released, it took 5 marines to take down a single zergling. They probably patched it later on.
As for there not being a formula, I call bs. Each faction plays a certain way, and *only* a certain way. Some people are better at playing those ways than others. Some are luckier than others. Ultimately, though, there's a formula that the player follows in order to succeed as a given faction. Everything in SC relies on following those formulas insanely quickly.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator not really... have u played SCII (or updated versions of SC)?? have u seen a bunch of different pros play? the formulas that u talk about dont exist. sure each race has its strengths and weaknesses but by no means are there ways u "HAVE" to play or lose. and as the game keeps developing there are more and more ways to play and more strategies and more tactics.
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
If there are no ways you have to play, then explain to me why there's no leeway. If your micromanagement isn't 100% *perfect*, you get annihilated. Thus, there ARE specific ways you *have* to play. The game hasn't developed much over 12 (going on 13) years. There haven't been evolving tactics or strategies. The same reflex-based crap that worked in 1998 works now.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator u dont have to micromanage 100% perfect unless ur in the master league which is the top 2%. they game has developed over the past 12 years. for example in a certain match up (Terran vs Terran -the human faction) often it was just a long drawn out game of siege tanks vs siege tanks. thats began to change and develop where some players are getting faster and weaker units to b more mobile than the tank players. ur arguing from a point that might have been true 12 years ago but not now
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
Apparently you haven't played skirmish mode. As any of the three factions I get wiped out in 2-3 minutes because my micromanagement isn't perfect. Now you'll just say I suck at the game, but that's not the case. I went in expecting it to be an actual RTS, where I could work around my own faults. Nope. It's all about the micromanagement.
You're arguing the fan's viewpoint against someone who thinks SC is the worst "RTS" ever made. You're not gonna persuade me otherwise.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator maybe u r terrible at SC maybe ur good but i highly doubt u loosing came down to the mico. my bet is that it came down to the macro/map control which gives u vision. i have played in skirmish mode and if its against the computer it does roughly the same strat each time and if its online it depends on each person. battles actually depend a lot on positioning and not mico management. and maybe i am arguing the fan's viewpoint but u also have stated that u havent played for a while...
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
I have no reason to play SC again. It's the single most infuriating game I've ever played. Why bother playing something that's so infuriating it makes me want to smash every copy I see?
And no, it wasn't what you call "macro" (seriously, I've been playing RTS's since 1997 and only heard the term "macromanagement" in 2010. Therefore it's complete nonsense.), it was the micro. In SC your production has to be completely ridiculous, and mine never is. I prefer thought over reflexes.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator thought over reflexes. great. sounds like an rts player... sounds like something ud find in SC... u have stated many times that b/c u didnt like SC when it came out that u havent played it for a while and that u really dont like it. thats fine not liking it, but u cant determine what the start of the game is about. and maybe the term maco is new but what macromanagement isnt. mico, maco, plan and execute a strategy, execute tactics and yes reflexes does come into it. thats SC
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
1. I played it in 2002. I was told I'd enjoy it b/c I like Age of Empires. That was a horribly wrong assumption.
2. You've clearly deluded yourself into thinking SC is strategic. It's not. It's entirely about the micromanagement and reflexes. I've never (read: NEVER) seen anyone (including the "pros" you seem to respect so much) do anything but display how quickly they can out-produce their opponents.
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator how do u seem to know what SC play is like sense u havent played it for a while and clearly haevent played SCII?? i see the never but how often have u looked? how many games? how many hours? i can tell from ur arguments that u havent looked at what SC is recently. its NOT (read the not) about if u can out produce or if u can out micro. its about a whole combination of things. and why do u say "pros"??
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
"Pro" gaming is a complete farce. Games are about fun, not winning prizes
SC2 is a joke. I have no reason to spend $60 on a game I'll despise.
You're just like every other SC fan out there: belligerent. You guys just don't know how to deal with someone who hates your beloved game with a fiery passions. If you SERIOUSLY think SC is so strategic, apply its "strategy" to everything. Go on. Try it. See how that works in Total War, Blitzkrieg. and Company of Heroes. See how it works in real warfare
DWTerminator 11 months ago
@DWTerminator football, baseball, basketball. all sports and all more about having fun then winning prizes. when it goes pro its about whos at the top. try going telling the pro gamers that what they do is a complete farce and theyre not ptos. it'd b like telling a baseball player that him being pro is a complete farce. Idc if u like SC or not or if u get SCII or not. i have applied it to other games... guess what ive done a lot better. also, ironically, the air force uses Starcraft in training
voiceofbooks 11 months ago
Lol bitchy much XD
VaiTrooper 1 year ago
i like this game but it needs more stratergy
kenneth2051 1 year ago
ah I have played bfme sience it came out :)
But now they will shut down the servers T__T
JokucFromBFME 1 year ago
The only tactics age of empires has (at least 1 and 2) is what units you build and how you go about building your 'empire' it's not much more complex these games only by a little. it's a very light RTS but a dang fun one at that.
kalashnikov96 1 year ago
AoE has more tactical possibilities. BFME is simply rock-paper-scissors.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
I love total war. Fuckin' beast of a game.
kalashnikov96 1 year ago
I just turned the sound off, much better ^^
Besty008 1 year ago
The command points thing you're totally misjudging, with you increasing it by 50 each time you add a building that generates money.
Besides which you can change that at the skirmish rules bit and can up it up to 4k worth of troops. Agreed about the gameplay, but I don't think it's supposed to be a real thinkers game, more a game of keeping things going (creating units, constantly attacking).
It's more of a fans game, if you love LOTR you'll love this. If not, give it a miss maybe.
B8rkley 1 year ago
Sad thing is: I'm a LotR fan and *don't* love BFME2. Then again most of the LotR games aren't particularly good (they're not bad, but they all have that "movie game problem").
Like I said though: it's more of a newbie's RTS than anything else. It's simple enough that pretty much anyone (particularly LotR fans who've never played RTS's) can pick it up and play, but it's not "strategic" enough for veterans like myself.
As for the command points, it's still annoying that they run out so often.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator I'm a big fan of it as there's nothing close. I do play Rome:Total War online and it does have a LOTR mod, but it's not brilliant (or atleast doesn't work brilliantly on my laptop). You may want to check that out if you haven't seen it :-)
It is simple, but I think that's part of its charm. Its not meant to be a game for veterans, just a "Try and keep up with unit creation" game. Loved the maps and heroes etc.
I thought it was ok, each to their own though.
B8rkley 1 year ago
I've tried the LotR mod for Medieval 2 Total War, and it's pretty solid. Needs refinement, of course, but it's still well done for a mod.
And I know what it's meant to be, but I just don't have much fun playing it compared to other RTS's.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
gosh to be honest i dont think you get this game. While it is true that it is simple. You are soo wrong about the flanking thing, but that is more of advanced movement in this game. Where this game shines is it;s heroes system. The hero powers are amazing and lead to very dramatic gameplay. The power system is also second to none. The system of using builders alone is so unique and leads to very cool potential game situations in 2v2. There are so many various unit combos, cave trolls alone!
seanp2500 1 year ago
I've never noticed flanking making any sort of difference in the fight. As for "unit combos"... it's rock-paper-scissors. Every unit type has another unit type that counters it. That's really as deep as that gets. And yes, the heroes certainly lead to dramatic gameplay... after all, they can be pretty overpowered depending on who you've got in the field.
The game's simplicity is simultaneously its major strength and weakness. I simply prefer stuff that's more complex, so I don't like it much.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator boss you actually get a flanking bonus when it comes to cav trample (even against pikes...) you are 100% right about the rock paper scissors aspect but there are tons of different combos and you can actually have situations where paper beets scissors honestly with proper use of powers and heroes...also i forgot to mention this game has tons of secrets and glitches more than any other game i have ever encountered making it even more fun...
seanp2500 1 year ago
That explains a lot. I rarely used cavalry, therefore wouldn't know much about a flanking bonus.
You can't have paper beat scissors unless you have a *ton* of paper or heroes to go along with it. As for unit combos, there aren't a ton. If you're counting each faction's, don't: they all have the same basic unit combos. Count the unique ones and you have about a handful. Having tons of glitches isn't a good thing (means the game's badly programmed), and I really haven't noticed any secrets.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator Each faction is unique in my view and there are def paper beating scissor scenarios without heroes...ever used an army of beserkers? they are insane...but powers would def need to be used...True there are only a few truly unique units (cave trolls are seriously underused take 25 cave trolls holding goblins in their hands and attack a fully upgraded fortress to see what happens....) Check out my channel to see a real cool glitch where you can potentially fight w/4 armies...
seanp2500 1 year ago
first off rushing is a legit stategy witch i find retarded. Second if you love RTS try company of heroes, a game that actually requires strategic skill unlike blizzard games and BFME..... i dint really care for your review it seems like BFME is not worth buying and you point out you cant strategize witch is untrue because there is strategy for Ex. pikemen slaughter horsemen... but i do agree that the strategy level is pertty low compared to other games.
xeve21x 1 year ago
Rock-Paper-Scissors schemes are not strategy. They're a game mechanic. Strategy is entirely player-driven.
Rushing is the "strategy" for people who play too much Starcraft and haven't the mental capacity to do much of anything other than exercise their twitch reflexes. If you want to "twitch" your way to victory, I suggest playing an FPS, not a strategy game.
I *much* prefer Company of Heroes to this. Far more strategic. BFME2 is very low on the strategy totem pole.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator of course they own the servers they just aren't allowed to run them any longer. They were given an extra year after their license ran out or something. Stop acting like you know everything.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
I don't act like I know everything. Nor do I claim to know everything. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions before you go too far into the realm of ridiculousness.
Battle for Middle-earth 1 & 2 have been off major store shelves for about a year anyway. It's not like this is anything unexpected.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Can't be asked replying anymore. By the way the servers for BFME shut down on 31st December.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
Doesn't surprise me. EA's one of those companies that says "f*** you" to its customers constantly.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator I heard it's because they lost the rights to Lord of the Rings and WarnerBrothers bought them. So they can't help it, it's actually not EAs fault.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
Even if they lost the license, they still own the servers for the game. Since they're not getting any more revenue from the game, they close it down. It's that simple. EA only sees the bottom line. Microsoft did it with the MSN Gaming Zone as well.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
I wouldn't rush a castle of high defense lol. I don't even know those games, never heard of them. I would rush and swarm the map leading to me getting a stronger economy and most likely winning the game from there due to more money, elite units and more map coverage.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
Of course you've never heard of them. Doesn't surprise me. You're too "mainstream" for them, I guess. Stick to your Starcraft-like games then (Blizzard be damned for ruining the genre!). Rushing in all three games is suicide.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator I don't play starcraft and I hate the starcraft 2 fan bum boys that advertise their own game everywhere.
Anyway you don't like this game. Not because anything is wrong with it, but it's not your style. Simple as.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
I don't like the game simply because I find it lacks strategic depth and "fun factor" compared to other games I find more enjoyable.
So what if you don't play Starcraft? You're using tactics it popularized. Warcraft 1 & 2 had rushing too, but they were even more simplistic and are forgivable for it. It wasn't until Starcraft that suddenly everyone knew the term "rushing."
DWTerminator 1 year ago
nothing wrong with rushing ur just a new player, if u played a lot u wud be able to keep up, i cud beat brutal in literally 3 minutes
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
I've played RTS's since the mid-90's. That's hardly "new." Rushing is a cheap tactic used by people following the example of Starcraft, not by people who actually like to think.
I don't claim to be good at RTS's, either. Too many people assume that, it seems.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator how is rushing "cheap". If you kill his farm first and are on the attack, you are free to expand with farms and therefore get the better economy. I consider camping cheap. As they lose anyway but it makes the game drag on.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
Cheap as in "pretty much as close to cheat codes as you can get." It's not as bad in BFME2 as it is in other games though. At least with "camping" (the term we tend to use for it is "turtle"), you're not spamming the enemy with 50+ soldiers 3 minutes into the game. -_-
Keep in mind also that I'm one for "grand strategy" like in the Total War games. No such thing as rushing there. You actually need to use proper tactics to succeed.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator rushing is a strategy, it's getting as many troops as possible without interupting your farm building leading to a good economy. You are clearly one of the players who sucks - no offence, and blames it on a lame tactic. Rushing requires more clicking and skill, than simply putting archers into towers.
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
Strategy requires thought. Rushing is more like a reflex. The point of strategy is to outwit the opponent, not to "twitch" your way to victory.
And I openly admit I suck at RTS's. Doesn't make rushing any more "intelligent" of a strategy. I've never seen a rusher cleverly make use of terrain or ambushes. Nor have I seen them remotely interested in defense. Instead, they just send in as many weaklings as possible to overwhelm by numbers. Later on they *might* upgrade, but rarely.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator I upgrade, and there is so much more genius from the "rushers" you probably miss because you don't understand it. Are you aware of hitting units from behind does 50% more damage? Are you aware that guardians take 1/5th of pikemen damage?
We always use strategy. Just alongside fast clicking - the best way to win.
Care to share your idea of a good player using a genius strategy?
TheEruIluvatar 1 year ago
Clarification: You don't "use" strategy. You make them. What you use are tactics.
Considering I didn't find BfME2 worth the effort to "master," what makes you think I really care about its "intricacies?" Sure, call me ignorant, but why bother learning all the bonuses/etc. when I don't like it?
If you really think rushing is a "good strategy," try it in any Total War game. Try it in Blitzkrieg. Or how about Stronghold? Try rushing against a castle or an entrenched position. See if that works.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
im sorry but i dont agree there is not Huge complications but it can come down to harasment and micro and macro and for example you cant rush archers onto calvalry and the comand points are fine in it is exactly like population limits u just have to be more aware of building supply buildings
killerchimp9 1 year ago
Your opinion is noted. Doesn't make the game any more strategic than "Rock, paper, scissors" though.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
if anyone wants to play online xbox xbl then add me blazed2damax999 im ok at the game not great havent had it too long
weedking101 1 year ago
worst review of this game iv ever seen. play online and you'll find out what this game really is. playing agains AI is the dumbest thing to do in this game
ArnorvTheMilky 1 year ago
I did play online. It's nothing noteworthy. I didn't see many uses of proper tactics or complex strategies... just a lot of rushing. Of course, that was when I could stand the lag. I don't play strategy games online mostly for those reasons. Deal with it.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator i say review online mod :P
ArnorvTheMilky 1 year ago
haha imho i think the biggest fuck up of this game was the AI it was absolutely TERRIBLE but not as bad as left for dead's lol.. i pissed my self laughing at the notice, star craft fan-boys are like religious fanatics trying to push their beliefs on you... gr8 and honest review.
elfmann243 1 year ago
Yes, the AI is awful, and no it's not as bad as L4D. At least the AI has a slight amount of competency.
And yes, Starcraft fanatics are among the worst fanboys I've ever seen.
Glad you liked the review.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
terrible review imo... this is a mainly online game, and you touched on this for like 2 seconds. It's much more complex than you make it out to be, and you seemed to have no clue about any of this. Play someone competent online, get beat in 5 seconds, and then come back and say that there is not much tactical potential in the game.
ray34iyf 1 year ago
I tend not to play RTS's online. The infrastructure rarely works out very well (RTS netcode generally sucks) and all too often people resort to tactics that simply bother me. That said, I did play one match of BFME2 online.
Ergo, my primary focus was on what I *did* play: the singleplayer. There really isn't much strategy in this game *compared to other RTS's*. As far as I can tell, it's your standard "rock, paper, scissors" RTS where every type of unit is good against another type of unit.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i personally love this game
Scremoisjusthowido 1 year ago
after you described what it was, then compared that to being Starcraft (or even Warcraft), I knew you had no idea what you were talking about.
cowfordflorida1 1 year ago
After reading your comment, I knew you obviously are a very oblivious person. It's similar in gameplay style to games like Starcraft, where pretty much all you do is churn out tons of units then charge with little thought given to the actual overall strategy. There's practically no micromanagement to speak of though, so at least it does that better than SC. I even mention SC in the slightest and immediately everyone's against me without even paying attention to what I'm saying.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator I'm oblivious because Starcraft is obviously just churning out units and charging with barely any Strategy and Micromanagement. LoL!!!!
you really know you're shit when it comes to Strategy games huh
cowfordflorida1 1 year ago
Micromanagement is not strategy. It's a game mechanic that gets abused so much that many confuse it to be *the* strategy. Strategy is the overall spectrum (goals, taking into account all your options and having backup plans, utilizing multiple tactics including both strengths *and* weaknesses, using terrain, etc.). Starcraft is all about the micromanagement and doesn't allow much leeway for in-depth strategies. BFME2 is all about the combat.
And yes, I know strategy games.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator I never said they were the same thing, I know the difference between micromanagement and strategy. It's funny that you say SC is all micro though because anyone who knows anything about it would correct you that it is more macro than anything. SC has micro, macro, strategy, timing, tactics, mind games, and on top of all that is more physically demanding than any other strategy game I have played (Total War, AoE, WC, Paradox, EA, etc). You don't understand SC if you say it has none.
cowfordflorida1 1 year ago
FYI, nobody's ever used the term "macro" to describe anything about a strategy game to me until this year, and I've been playing RTS's since '97. I've never seen anyone doing anything but rushing or "turtling" (and the latter is extremely rare in the cases I've seen) in SC. And "physically demanding" shouldn't be part of a strategy game. That's what you expect from an FPS or a Wii game. RTS's are all about outsmarting opponents. I simply find SC too infuriating to, as you say, "understand" it.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator If this is the first time you've heard of "macro" in an RTS, then you are far more ignorant than you realize when it comes to RTS. Also, there's nothing wrong with an RTS being physically demanding. For one, it requires mental-multitasking that no other game does that I know of, and likewise requires the ability to move your hands fast enough to keep up with your mind. Also, the game is so complex that it takes an extremely large amount of practice to even come close to mastering.
cowfordflorida1 1 year ago
Actually, SC's so *simple* it requires a ton of practice to master. I've played FAR more complex strategy games than that. Nobody's ever brought up "macro" to me in an RTS conversation until 2010. As a result the term means nothing to me. It's that simple.
The problem isn't so much that an RTS shouldn't be physically demanding. It's the *over-reliance* on the twitch movements that games like SC are plagued with. You end up having reflexes instead of using your brain, which misses the point.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
listen I'm sorry if I come off as a douchebag because I'm not exactly the best at getting my point across, but trust me, SC is easily one of the most complex and competitive games ever made, in fact, it alongside CS practically created E-Sports.
almost every RTS game has macro though (it's basically production/economy management to sum it up)
the "twitch-movements" are simply muscle memory to optimize one's ability to execute strategy
google "Teamliquid", they can explain better than I
cowfordflorida1 1 year ago
The way you describe macro is basically what I think when I see micro.
SC was chosen for leagues because it's simple enough to moderate matches with it, runs on pretty much any rig without any problems, and is popular worldwide. That's really it. On the scale of complexity in RTS's, it's pretty low... which probably keeps it going. People seem to prefer simplicity over substance (look at Oblivion, for instance).
Twitch reflexes are simply reactions. I prefer thinking to reacting in my RTS's.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator micro is more of the tactical use of individual units or groups of units in combat
and Starcraft has Strategic thinking on top of this high multi-tasking demand at top levels
cowfordflorida1 1 year ago
If there's strategic thinking in SC, I've never seen it. I've just seen reactions to whatever situation is at hand. That's certainly part of how you play strategy games, but I still see a lack of tactics other than simplistic assaults.
As I've learned it, micromanagement is of your resources in order to finance your military exploits. I'd never even heard the term macro until someone brought it up in a SC-related post on one of my videos. Mayhaps it's more a SC term rather than a universal one.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
no offense but you kinda suck... you can chose what kind of tactic you use, there are some. Each race has a diffrent kind of strategie and within a race you have diffrent options. Each unit, support for example by the right hero, has his qualitys. And building defence (specially with elves) is not so hard. The IA is kinda predictable, that's true. But online gaming is praticly unlimited and really FUN
thanneke 1 year ago
I never made a claim of being "good" at the game. There's really not all that much strategy to this game though (suffers from C&C and Starcraft syndrome). I know each unit has its strengths, weaknesses, and so on, but there's really not a whole lot of difference between the races (there are differences, but it's mostly superficial or minor stat changes). Yes, the AI's predictable and fairly easy to beat. To be honest though I haven't played much online. Never really do that with RTS's in general
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Bad microfone
ichstim 1 year ago
I know.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@ichstim trollin much?
thomascalatrizzle 1 year ago
favourite RTS, WW2 = company of heroes
Adamsiki 1 year ago
witch game is better starwars empire at war and eaw foc or Lord of the Rings Battle for middle Earth 1 and2!!!!!
james65508 1 year ago
While I don't own the full game of Empire at War, I didn't have much fun with the demo (mostly due to performance problems on my old PC). That's not a very good representation of the full game though, so I'd hazard a guess and say that BFME2 (haven't played BFME1) is probably about on the same level as EaW .
DWTerminator 1 year ago
the first one was way better, i was un-impressed with this one.
Tacomaster21 1 year ago
I haven't played the first one.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
THIS GAME PWNS!!
H4L0K1LL4 1 year ago
can you play this on: compaq type: SG2-110nl. or something or Intel atom D410 proccesor
djzombieking 1 year ago
As long as the CPU's 1.6GHz or faster, your RAM is at least 256MB, and as long as your graphics card is at least a GeForce 3/Radeon 8500 or better, it should run.
Thanks for reminding me to put the system requirements down, by the way.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator is a intel GMA 3150. can that run this game?
djzombieking 1 year ago
Not sure. That's an Intel integrated graphics chip, which basically means it has practically no graphics processing power. It *might* run, but I can't say for certain.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
completely agree....theres a complete flaw in this game and thats the ai. if you dont wont to play online then well...waste of a good game really =(
poeticider 1 year ago
then what would be your favourite rts game?
Zakmusefan 1 year ago
Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors, actually.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator that game is the best!
Norocmorth 1 year ago
I actually prefer the original game. I didn't like the sequel as much, not really sure why.
hobbit2245 1 year ago
I haven't played the original yet ironically enough. This one was on sale and I figured "eh why not."
DWTerminator 1 year ago
thanks for the review terminator ;)
xXStandAndDeliverXx 1 year ago
No problem.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
how could you not like Warcraft/Starcraft? im not hating just wondering whats wrong with it?
ColinWalkThroughs 1 year ago
I don't mind WarCraft, but Starcraft gets on my nerves. It's so centered on micromanagement that while it has perfected that formula, the rest of the game is ridiculously impossible (cheating AI + horrendous balancing issues + zero strategic depth + annoyingly brainwashed-devout fanbase = recipe for disaster) as a result.
I always get "how could you not like (insert game)" when it comes to really popular ones like Halo, Battlefield, Starcraft, etc. Not everyone likes the same games. -_-
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator Starcraft is one of the best balanced RTS games ever made...
citizenhal 1 year ago
No, it's not. Each side has something that makes it absolutely ridiculous. For the Terrans, it's the fact that they do pretty much no damage until the most powerful units (I mean seriously, 10 marines to take down 1 of the weakest Zerg is pathetic). For the Protoss, it's their shielding. For the Zerg... I need only say Zerg Rush.
You want balance, you play something like Age of Empires, where no one side has such an advantage over the others that it makes the game painful to play.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator Age of Empires has no depth because all the factions play exactly the same.
In Starcraft, everything has a pro and a con, a strength and a weakness. For every attack situation you can develop a counter measure. It is true rock/paper/scissors. Broodwar, the expansion is so balanced that it still has a thriving community. In patch 1.08 the Zerg Rush was nullified.
Google "Is Starcraft really balanced?", click on the second result and read the article.
citizenhal 1 year ago
"It is true rock/paper/scissors." That's the problem. There's basically only *one specific* way to play. You can't really think up your own strategies at all. AoE has more *strategic* depth than SC for the simple reason that you can actually utilize different strategies than simply play "rock/paper/scissors." The similarity of the factions only encourages finding the faction's strengths and using them well. SC's got way too much emphasis on being fast as opposed to making you actually think.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@citizenhal everything has a strength and weakness in age of empires
Norocmorth 1 year ago
You clearly know nothing about StarCraft.
Its South Korea's biggest sport, that should tell you something...
Its the most balanced RTS out there, and I'm sure Starcraft 2 will soon take over that title. You dont just make units and charge, theres tons of strategy in build orders, building placement, what counters what.
I've won with an 80 population deficit against 3 players simply because i know lots of good strategies and my micro is good.
SC takes more skill than all other RTS's atm
Ayotex1337 1 year ago
Oh I know Starcraft. You *do* just make units and charge. The "strategy" consists *solely* of how quickly and efficiently you can do that. Nothing more. Micromanagement is fine as long as it gives room for other strategies, which SC doesn't. Balance? Only if you don't have anyone playing as the zerg. Also, SC2 is *exactly* the same as SC1 with better visuals. Big deal. -_-
Takes more skill than all other RTS's? Here's where I point to Total War and say clearly you have no idea what strategy is.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DWTerminator You clearly know nothing about StarCraft.
Its South Korea's biggest sport, that should tell you something...
Its the most balanced RTS out there, and I'm sure Starcraft 2 will soon take over that title. You dont just make units and charge, theres tons of strategy in build orders, building placement, what counters what.
citizenhal 1 year ago
@Ayotex1337 so do i agree with u ive seen ppl do that 2 and theres more tactics then what he said ive seen one on youtbe he called it the gaunlet of death thers bases about like 25 feet away form eacher like about a unit lengths then like they put alls up and yeah
way more stuff more tactics and ur not really good at this game sorry to say but u sorta suck i would face u but my dics broke and i lost it and im getting in for computer maybe
mrx5566 1 year ago
@mrx5566 You want to face me in what? StarCraft? Sorry but right now I'll only face you in StarCraft 2. I stopped playing SC1 when I got the beta.
Ayotex1337 1 year ago
You don't like the game because you suck at it.
gokulauri 1 year ago
No. It's too simplistic for my tastes. Feels almost like Command & Conquer with even less strategic requirement.
3.5/5 is not a bad score by any means. It's above average.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator hmmmm
gokulauri 1 year ago
Best way to go is to play online. This is one of my all time favorite rts games because of its fantastic online play. When you can chat with friends and work together... it rocks.
michiganboy10 1 year ago
I never really had any buddies who play this online, so it just got boring after a while. That's the problem with focusing on skirmishes: it's not a very deep game strategically speaking. Certainly a good starter RTS, but I prefer Age of Empires and Total War.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
hey i can you help me.I cant register they i come to the end and they say that they are having some problems try again later?is this pemenent becouse its going on like that for 2 weeks now?will i ever be able to register?
TheMastermind39 1 year ago
You say this game requires no strategical skills, yet you compare it with starcraft? WTF?
neverhoodyn 1 year ago
Starcraft doesn't require strategical skills either. You just churn out units and charge, just like this.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Haha, you've got to be kidding me? Starcraft is the most popular e-sport in the world. It's even the national sport in Sout Korea. Have you seen the pro Starcraft players?
neverhoodyn 1 year ago
Oh I know it's huge. I still don't like it at all due to the ridiculous rushing.
Strategy is about being able to outwit your opponents, not overrunning them every game. Starcraft doesn't really provide the opportunity for multiple tactics.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
i played the 1st one on pc but im thinkin of gettin it for 360
beesonit 1 year ago
Don't. The controls are absolutely terrible on 360.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
I never got into this game, just found it too samey all the way through and the AI was rubbish. Also hated squad caps - Command and Conquer didn't use to have them in the good old days - you could make as many units as you could afford with the resources available! Squad caps are such a shame for games like this!
carmelknows 1 year ago
I don't mind population caps if it's a game like Age of Empires, but you're right, in a game where the sole focus is battle, caps are a pain. C&C was also a rush-only game though. There was no reason to put in a unit cap either (except for certain special units like the Ghost Stalker in Tiberian Sun since they'd wipe out bases with only a handful of them) since you'd never have all that many troops to begin with.
And yes, there's not much variety in the game, either.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
nice review 5 stars
VCVvideo 2 years ago
Glad you liked it.
DWTerminator 2 years ago