Why do more people play Starcraft II than Dawn of War II?

[Silver]

When Starcraft II has like 250,000 players at any given time on Battlenet and Dawn of War II Retribution has like 1,000 players at any given time, you realize SC II is 250x more popular than DoW II: Retribution

But my question is...why?????

I have played Starcraft II - it plays like a kid's game. Build stuff and then spamspamspamspamspam units till you meet an enemy blob of units and then your unit blob steamrolls them and then you pump more units from your base and conquer the map that way.

I mean seriously?

Dawn of War II on the other hand feels like a far more mature game - no base building means no turtling - you have to aggressively start occupying the map to gain the economic upper hand. In Starcraft II you start with workers and a huge pool of recouces two feet from your main base building...how convenient. All you need to do is build more workers for a faster economy, never mind map control.

In Dow II the map itself is strategic, with stuff blocking line of sight; there is (fully destructible) cover etc. etc. and your units have to fall back to base to get reinforced (unless you build special stuff with a tactical HQ choice), they have to decide what weapon to equip, they have special abilities like grenade blasts, orbital bombardments, teleportation, assault jump etc. and each of your units possess an energy meter similar to an RPG hero's mana pool that allows them to use these abilities but needs recharge. Your units even level up in the middle of the game for having slain lots of enemies, making them tougher and thus more valuable - you dont want to have them wiped out!

Technically DoW II is a Real Time Strategy player's wet dream come true in terms of sheer possibilities and fun you can have.

So yeah....can someone explain? SC II does have a nice storyline, but so does DoW II especially in the first two installments of the DoW II trilogy (tyranid invasion and planet aurelia).

There's even some form of Space Hulk gameplay involved in Dow II, lol.

We got plenty of varied terrain - jungle? check. desert? check. city? check. iceworld? check. space hulk? check. volcanic world? check.

the maps can even be played at day or nighttime, with rain or snow or calm weather etc.

Both games are the sequels to very successful predecessors, so I really dont understand why so many people flock to Starcraft - I mean it has become something of a national sport in South Korea; almost 20% of the country's population possess SC 1 and/or SC2

[Tuxramus]

I'd play it a lot more if it was ported to SteamOS (Linux), I switched awhile back but I do miss DoW II Ret. It's a superb game that really should be given more credit and more expansions.

[sheep from hell]

first of all, marketing. second its a totally different gameplay, its a lot faster and depends more on movement and not abilities, third its supported till now and should have a better balancing. i like a little slower small scale games like dow or coh more, specially the presentation of them, it feels like true war and is much more fun to play and watch. so i think the most important point is the first one

[Daddy Deluxe]

I have no idea why. Dow, C&C and supreme commander are the best RTS games in my opinion. Yet people love starcraft

[Cypher]

I wanted to say what sheep from hell said, but he sure beat me to it.
Marketing is what Blizzard's the best at. They make money off World of Warcraft, enough money to put Starcraft 2's trailers on tv which I've seen a couple of times.

As much as I love DoW and the Warhammer universe, I will never see it top Starcrap.

[Schtroumpf [FR]]

C&C series and DoW series are more charismatic to me than Starcraft series. Orks are funny !

[Isimiel]

because starcraft is easier i mean you can win by spaming the ♥♥♥♥ out of the first combat unit you make

[skada]

It's a Blizzard game.

SC1 was very popular. Thus, SC2 had a much larger established playerbase.

It has an extremely high skill ceiling and community, which is why the competitive scene is so large. DoW2 is micro only. SC2 requires much more mechanical skill and hand speed, even the best players in the world do not have perfect micro+macro when going at 300 actions per minute.

SC2 is more popular than every other RTS game combined at the moment. Thus, all the extremely competitive players have migrated to that game. There is a very limited selection of current RTS games to play, the genre is slowly dying and getting replaced with DOTA style games.

Majority of people prefer base building RTS in general, from what I've seen. Base building doesn't mean turtling... in SC2 the concept of map control is still extremely important.

Most SC2 players don't care about the campaign, which isn't bad to begin with, only the multiplayer.

Go make this thread on an SC2 forum like teamliquid, I would be interested to see their responses. Personally, I've always been a C&C person, but the series was ruined with every game after Generals.

Originally posted by ADB Isimiel:

because starcraft is easier i mean you can win by spaming the ♥♥♥♥ out of the first combat unit you make

Saying SC2 is easier is a load of nonsense. If it's so easy to you, you should go to Korea and win hundreds of thousands of dollars... the game has been out for more than 3 years yet the top players are constantly changing, the skill cap will never be reached. Beating a newbie player with a dumb strategy does not mean it is viable against better opponents.

[Venrez]

Its a shame really. I completely agree with the topic post. I've loved RTS games as my favorite genre my entire life, but they've been buried under the immense mountain of FPS games and the new-founded horror of those disgusting MOBA type games like Dota and League of Legends. Apparently controlling more than 1 unit, base building or resource gathering is haaaaaard, hmpf. Simpletons.

Despite my love for the RTS genre, I never loved Starcraft. Its just... a bad game, in my opinion. I do not care for the competitive scene. I do not watch replays or other people play. I am not interested in the supreme 'meta' of what is the exact picture-perfect unit composition, build order or down-to-the-second mechanical rubbish.

Dont get me wrong, I am more than skilled at most RTS games. I know what counters what, specific strategies related to the game in question and all such tactics and measures. I just dislike how Starcraft is more about 'Make 1 marine run in a circle, therefore enemy fire misses him' rather than 'Properly managing your income / units and countering their strategies.

Sure, Starcraft has some of that, but it is hugely overshadowed by the completely immersion breaking rubbish of the aforementioned Marine example, or how its crucial to be spamming 100 or more APM (actions per minute) at all times. How the game itself by default is locked at 'faster' game speed, where Marines run at 50 miles per hour and games last 10 - 15 minutes at most. If games are that short, then you shouldnt be playing a freaking RTS, in my opinion.

If the default gamespeed is "faster", why call it that? Why even have 'Normal', 'Slow' and 'Slower' game speed options for custom games only?

The last level in the Starcraft 2 campaign is easy, even on Brutal difficulty. The only reason it is hard however is because the game is locked at the "faster" game speed. In the time you'd normally click on a building and select a unit to create, 20 seconds of sped-up time have gone past.

It goes from the realm of playing an RTS game you enjoy at a difficulty level that matches your skill, to an outright chore of having to do everything as fast as possible and spamming a hundred hotkeys a minute. That just isnt fun.

I prefer games like Total Annihilation, C&C Generals or Supreme Commander 1 (Not 2). RTS games where each faction has its own sort of theme and speciality. Where units are comparitively balanced. Where the gameplay is more about the strategy and fighting rather than Starcraft's "whoever-clicks-the-fastest-wins". Games where base defences can actually hold. Games where you have back-and-forth battles over the terrain, as opposed to Starcraft's "10 minutes of building, for 1 quick 30-second fight, then its game over".

I like the asymmetry of Starcraft 2. Three completely different races with different units and 'intended' strategies. But the entire tech tree, all of the later units, upgrades, racial difference and the niceties of expanded gameplay become pointless and redundant when in online matches the game is over purely depending on whoever builds the first Marine or exploits the game mechanics the best (Like making a Marine run in circles to avoid missile fire)

The last decent RTS games to come out were Dawn of War 2, Sins of a Solar Empire and Supreme Commander 1. There hasnt been anything remotely like a 'proper' traditional RTS since.

[Venrez]

I'd also like to add that yes, it is a very firm line drawn between people who play online purely for the player-versus-player, versus those who enjoy the RTS game for its story, its gameplay and the campaign.

I do both. I play a bit of online, but I am also a campaign completionist. I love playing skirmish matches versus the AI or doing co-operative stuff of a similar theme, but at the same time I do sometimes enjoy the difference of tactics required for player-versus-player online play.

What kills online gaming though, for RTS games, is how people seem to want the game over as quickly as possible. They want steamroll victories with as best a strategy as possible with as little losses to their own side. Whilst that makes sense in a 'tactical' way of thinking, it just isnt fun when you consider that it means, through human nature and gameplay elements, that games are locked on the fastest speed, units move unrealistically fast or matches and techtrees are designed to be overcome as fast as possible, and that 'balance' revolves primarily around exploiting the mechanics of the game, within game parameters, as much as possible without stepping outside of them to be considered cheating. See the 'Marine-running-in-a-circle' example.

Its just disappointing.
Gone are the days when we had a lengthy tech-tree with research to do and upgrades to process in order to acces later-tier units. Gone are the days of constructing several bases and fighting over larger portions of the map. Gone are the days of having back-and-forth battles where you could be losing but manage to turn the tide provided you had the right counter and skill.

[AstartesPanda]

Everything Venrez said. Dead on. I miss the long battles you speak of like in Total Annihilation with the UTASP mod me and my brother would spend an entire day back and forth. The map got so full of wreckage we had to switch to air attacks with huge fleets of fighters and bombers.

The reason i loved TA was also the multi player fit into the story very well. It felt like you were still taking part in a fight in the universe if that makes sense. Same with Dawn of War, the warhammer 40k universe, there is only war, constant non stop fighting.

Dawn of War 2 could have been so much more. But had THQ as a boss who were pissing away MILLIONS on uDraw which pretty much killed them. Think of the expanions they could have done for dow2 and if they had a bigger surrport team for patches etc ? and marketing. I mean you know the Tau was in the works for the next expanion Last Stand was kinda used as a preveiw of things to, as it was for the intro of chaos, then ig.

I loved C&C, then i found SC1 more of the same kinda rts style i was used to still good. But then....Total Annihilation happend and it blew everything away. 3D terrain, being able to set patrols, a huge wealth of cannons to build, proper aircraft, bombers, fighters. TANKS omg i thought the mamoth tank was powerful. And the Krowgoth some huge badass mech. and NUKES they did what it should everything on the screen was more or less GONE. The scale was so vast. No game not even SupCom oddly enough has been able to match TA on scale and all the diff ways a battle could turn at any moment.

im rambling but point is it should not be the Warhammer 40k universe is far better, huge and rich. Dawn of War 2 while it stepped away from base building more needs alot more thought behind every battle and feels alot more satisfiying when you win a battle. Ive come back from very close games 1vp to their 300vps SC2 to me is just SC1 with a new lick of paint and a few new units. It does not justify the LONG wait neither to 3 seperate full priced games thats are clearly expanion packs. Or is that old now ? dlc ? Its fine to come out with a half finished Expanion pack game in terms of content and sell the rest as dlc. whoo

[JshT]

First of all starcraft II is balanced.
Second races have individuality on starcraft, Example: People use range as orks, ORKS!!!!! They are meant to be in close combat.
Lastly DOW2 is awful compared to Soulstorm and Dark crusade

[Sigmar's Faithful]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpmeOB0Zyu0

[Silver]

To me Dawn of War II (and of course its related cousin Company of Heroes) just seems so much more complex than Starcraft II. The strategies and possibilies are nearly limitless because each unit itself has so many armament options and special abilities, while SC II has a pretty simple rock-paper-scissors approach.

In DoW II Line of sight matters, facing matters, terrain matters, gaining experience and leveling up during the game matters....having all these elements matter are signs of a game earning the title "Strategy" more than one that doesnt have any of this.

I really dont understand why memorizing hotkeys and having perfect build orders is considered the epitome of RTS ("Real Time Strategy") worldwide, rather than actually taking the units you have built and employing tactics on the battlefield with them to overcome the opposition rather than simply coming up with a pre-determined recruit- and build-order at home before you even start the game and then winning the game for having a higher APM count than your opponent.

[AstartesPanda]

in the 40k universe orks dont give a ♥♥♥♥ how they kill you as long as they do. So no Josh, they are not meant to be melee only. Thats why DoW2 is better in terms of more strat needed, your army can be as versiatile as you need. The SC2 style of RTS is old, its fact. It passed back in the day but times have changed. Its fast paced, which kinda strays from the spirit of an RTS like somone else pointed out. But this fast paced style gameplay with the popularity of MOBA....etc etc. But its that Blizz fan base, and the fact they have cash to back it.

Hell Total Annihilation is many ways is still has better features.

[skada]

Originally posted by Venrez:

exploits the game mechanics the best (Like making a Marine run in circles to avoid missile fire)

I see where you are coming from, but for the example -- SC2 units never miss.

There is dodging banelings though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJP0BgvUPA

Anyways, the way I see RTS games... mechanical skill and strategy are two parts of the same pie chart. The more a game focuses on mechanics and hand speed, the less strategy is involved, and the opposite is true as well (for example, chess and turn based games).

A game 100% reliant on mechanics has 0% strategy, a game 100% about strategy has 0% mechanics. Comes down to user preference on where that balance should be.