Annihilation. Not Planetary. Better.

I...

...wait, this has, Planetary, and Annihilation, not in that order, in it's title. Was this always here? I could have sworn...

...nononoo, nvm, well, I think, a lot of people though "multiple battlefields at once" is too much for a single person. It is just their visual seperation. It is like playing 4 chess games at once, if the pieces could travel between the boards. Just, try that one day if you are bored.

Anyway, it can be done and it works right now either way as fluently as possible. The teleporters were the key to simplicity in this sadly. You still have visual seperation, but it is a "global handicap" that players teach themselves to overcome.

Not to mention that while well polished, the starcraft 2 campaign is actually quite bad.

It's nothing but gimmick mission after gimmick mission with very little actually gameplay that even resembles the way you play skirmish or multiplyer.

But when ever I bring it up, most SC2 fans get kinda hurt that id not like the very polished voice acted and supposedly good story lines introduced and all the work blizzard did for them.


You know the best part of starcraft 2's campaign? starcraft 1's campaign.

You say a campaign that's just a string of gimmicks like it's a bad thing. I mean, yes, it won't teach you proper online play, but you'll still familiarise yourself with all the side's tech and general tactics, and I'd say it's way more interesting than a string of skirmish matches with 'story' stuck on it. Starcraft one's campaign too was made up of missions that played very little like a skirmish. Mainly on two fronts, less emphasis on requiring player expansion, and the opposing forces having built up fortified positions at the start.

Not to mention both had the gradual unlocking of units over the course of the campaign. I will say that I thought the SC2's story was not as well told, but that each mission had different gimmicks and objectives was a strength, not a weakness. The single unit type focus of some of the missions was a bit exasperating, but less of an issue on the higher difficulties.

But it is a bad thing!

And you won't really familiarise yourself with tactics after a single mission that can be won by only building that one unit that gets introduced.

And sure it's more interesting with skirmish match with story, but few RTS campaigns actually do that, most give you a skirmish like environment without it being a literal skirmish.

Starcraft 2's campaign was terrible in comparison because of the gimmicks, as you could never get used to actually playing the game when the missions specific gimmick made you play the way the mission wants you too rather then letting the player learn and discover it themselves.

Starcraft 1's campaign allowed the player to learn how to properly build up a base, explore the map and attack their enemy's based on what they had learned, allowing them to become better at the game, rather then sitting by the mission specific gimmick and till they are brought victory by playing the mini game.

Players could play how they felt best rather then what was the literal only way to play or lose.

I liked Red Alert 2's storyline, even though it also doesn't teach you much more than "this unit does this" and next mission is "this unit does this, don't forget the previous units" and next mission is "this structure does this, don't forget all the previous units".

It was alright nonetheless. Wasn't aimed at making excellent multiplayer, was aimed at being fun. Constantly introducing a new unit as a focus of a mission amidst existing previous stuff, making it like it is literally the keystone win-button of the mission, is fun. It isn't realistic expectations, but it is fun.

and once again you promote a game in such a aggresive manner ...
yeah making games is hard .... as is making something like PA .... welcome to the real world ...
do you see anyone else try what uber trys to make?
so far i didn't ...