Starcraft 2 is not a strategy game

Thankfully, there's more excellent tutorial material out there for players new to the game than ever. A simple YouTube search will bring up a trove of information available for each race and playstyle, meaning that despite the intimidating exterior , it's actually easier to learn StarCraft now than it ever has been.

Similar to its predecessor, StarCraft II features three separate campaigns, each focusing on one of the three main races populating the game's setting: the Terrans, Protoss, and Zerg. These campaigns are a great way to learn the very basics of how to play, but they're also a good time in themselves. There's a ton of variety to the mission structure in StarCraft II 's singleplayer modes: some require careful management of special resources, others require defending or escorting a certain objective, while a few task the player with simply annihilating an enemy presence.

Although there are complaints to be had about the story, the gameplay itself is as entertaining as ever. While one-versus-one ranked matches make up the core of the multiplayer experience in StarCraft II , there is a range of other modes to be enjoyed for players looking for some variety.

Community-created content is available, as are team-based games, with two or more players making up each side. There's also a cooperative game mode for players looking for a break from the intensity of their ladder matches, in which players select heroes from the singleplayer campaign to play as, and are tasked with completing any number of cooperative objectives.

Since each hero commands special units with unique abilities, there's a lot to be discovered here. In the early days of StarCraft II , back before its first expansion in the time of Wings of Liberty , there were complaints that the game rewarded what was perceived as a less-than-impressive "deathball" strategy.

This was an issue because players felt that it encouraged mindlessly commanding an entire army to attack, rather than the skillful micromanagement exhibited in the professional scene for the first StarCraft. Thankfully, a lot has changed since then. After two full-scale expansions and countless balance patches, the game's meta and general playstyle are far more interesting now than they were back in vanilla.

To compare it to Starcraft, it would be like you building up an army of Marines as a Terran player to attack the Zerg player across the map from you, while sending over a few SCV's to the Protoss player on a different map to try and establish trade agreements so that you can get some extra minerals.

All the while your spies are trying to stage an assassination of their High Templars so that your allied Terrans can take them over. The strategy required to be successful in Total War is mind-boggling, and is vastly greater than Starcraft. With that being said, Starcraft doesn't even compare to Total War in terms of strategic intensity, and thus we cannot consider it to be "strategy-intensive" since the actual strategies are not very strong in strategic thinking as I outlined in my case.

With that, though, let's actually get to my opponent's case. My opponent seems to define strategy as having choices the more choices available being the more strategic , as well as other details such as planning and actual execution.

I'll get to the second and third one in a bit, but first I would like to address the absurdity of his argument as to what is strategy. If strategy were simply defined as the availability of choices, this would lead to the logically necessary conclusion that everything in life is strategy intensive. There are many different ways one can flip a coin, many different ways that one can prepare a slice of toast, many different ways that one can put on a pair of socks, as well as a multitude of different actions and choices that definitely aren't strategy-intensive.

Since the conclusion is logically incorrect, and the only premise of argument is his definition of strategy, the only available option is to reject his definition.

Moreover, options don't even hold much relevance in determining the strategic worth of a game unless those options are actually taken. Take my opponent's example of chess, for instance. If there were a series of moves that would guarentee win you the game in four moves, it doesn't matter how many other openings or other series of moves there were; everyone would use that guarenteed win.

According to my opponent's definition of strategy little planning, low demand , it wouldn't be all that strategy intensive. To compare this to Starcraft, it doesn't matter how many tech options there are, it doesn't factor in unless those options are actually utilized.

This is where you prefer my arguments as I actually take popular strategies from online games and show that they require little to no actual strategy to execute and be successful with.

There's little actual planning and little actual demand, and while there are other choices certainly, I'd be a fool to deny that , those choices don't actually have an impact on the calculus since they aren't ever taken! So even under my opponent's own definition, we would be defining Starcraft as a low-strategic necessity game, which means that the resolution would be negated.

To now speak directly against the opportunities and attention demands sections, I already outlined in my case under Predicted Pro Arguments why these don't have that much of an impact. What my opponent describes as Planning Opportunities is know as "Macro-gaming", and what my opponent describes as Attention Demands is known as "Micro-gaming" in the online community.

As I already stated in my case, these don't have that much of an impact on the resolution since I could have the best macro-gaming, yet lose to an early Zergling rush. Or I could have the best micro-game, but lose because my opponent massed so many Marauders that they're impossible to kill entirely. Moreover, I've already outlined in this round how even under his own definition of strategy which these two terms factored into , that Starcraft would still be lacking in actual strategy.

So the arguments there fall as well. My opponent's last argument is one that says regardless of how people play the game, it doesn't actually diminish the strategic worth of the game, as the worth exists independently of the play. However, this just isn't true. Things only have worth when we assign them worth. The dollar bill in my pocket only has worth because the people that printed it established that it was worth one dollar in United States currency.

Otherwise, it would just be a slip of paper with George Washington's face on it. Likewise, a game only has worth if we prescribe it worth. The way we prescribe worth to a game is by playing it. The way we play a game determines the actual worth of that game. One could argue that there is so much strategy that goes into winning a game of Super Smash Bros, with different moves and abilities and how they work together, yet lose to a 6 year old mashing the A button without thinking.

This is why we have to look to my arguments about how people play the game and how their strategies lack actual strategy. As such, I urge the voters to vote con. A final thanks to Z-Canoe and all the readers.

After the first round, Con can no longer impose new rules or change the debate parameters. As such, Total War cannot be the benchmark in this debate. We already had benchmarks: the resolution and definitions provided in Round 1. Of course, if this comparison was so important to his case, Con was free to simply discuss the relevant elements of Total War; I did the same thing with chess in my case. However, against his own rules, he waited until the final round to do this.

Unfortunately, there are two very obvious, very debilitating issues with this line of reasoning. Con Talks Tactics, Not Strategies Con committed a common mistake here: he confused strategies with tactics.

As I explained at the start of my case, strategies refer to overarching, long-term actions and plots, whereas tactics are specially combat related. STRATEGY is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory.

Well, what if those three tactics are so good that it makes everything else obsolete? In Round 2, Con presented three tactics he claimed were unbeatable, then presented a video in which the narrator explains exactly how to beat all three!

Stay Connected. Contact Us. Site Map. All games, one app:. Stay Connected:. All trademarks referenced herein are the properties of their respective owners. These points are dotted around key central parts of the map and are captured and controlled in a similar way to the popular domination mode in Call of Duty. There is also an annihilation mode that removes these victory points and simply requires players to destroy all of their opponent's buildings to win.

The gaming industry often looks down on mobile games. It's frequently criticized for its plethora of cash-grab games that are geared towards getting consumers to spend money. Although plenty of these games do exist, mobile gaming does have a few gems.

One of these gems is StarFront: Collision. It's not just similar to StarCraft in the name, either. StarFront is a futuristic sci-fi RTS game that lets you pick from three races to control.

Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos is an easy game to compare to StarCraft as it has the same developer, Blizzard Entertainment. The game introduced multiple new features to improve itself from its predecessors, such as powerful heroes, a day and night cycle that affects the game's races differently, and Creeps. Warhammer 40,'s universe is set in the distant future of the 42nd millennium. Moreover, Warhammer 40, combines science and fantasy fiction, creating a unique gameplay setting.

Dawn of War 2 removed the building bases that were featured in the original game and put extra focus on the cover mechanic.

Homeworld differentiates itself from other real-time strategy games by taking place in space. The game still focuses on the key gameplay mechanics that RTS titles are known for despite this jarring change though. Resource management and unit production, for example, are key features in the classic. The Homeworld series is set to get its third installment in with Homeworld 3.