StarCraft 2 Beta Defended from Zerg Rush of Criticism
;)
;)
StarCraft 2 is still in beta but has come in for unwarranted criticism.
Having waited so long for StarCraft 2 to emerge from the locked vaults of Blizzard’s development team, whispers had begun online that one of the most successful real-time strategy (RTS) games of all time had lost its edge.
Critics have accused StarCraft of being a relic of a past age: “As far as strategy games go, StarCraft just isn’t that great any more,” stated Fruzsina Eordogh writing for True/Slant.
“I think I can safely reveal my honest impressions of the game, which actually didn’t blow me away as much as I had expected. StarCraft 2 is, it turns out, just a game,” Joe Martin almost apologised to his readers in bit-tech, awaiting the howls of Blizzard fans who would inevitably flame him for his heretical opinions.
I’ve been excited about StarCraft 2 ever since the legendary Blizzard cinematic was released two years ago. Yet whilst criticism mounts against StarCraft 2, from what I have seen and played in the beta, the game remains as absorbing, challenging and fun as it has ever been.
Here are my thoughts on how StarCraft 2 can answer its critics:
Not Enough Warriors
One of the criticisms levelled at StarCraft 2 is that the scale of the game is too small. “If I am going to wage war, I want massive amounts of soldiers,” Ms Eordogh complained.
Whilst this may well have been true of the original game, which had a frustrating limit on the number of units that could be controlled at any one time, StarCraft 2 is easily the equal of Dawn of War (DoW) or Command & Conquer (C&C) in its scope of available units.
It’s unfair of Ms Eordogh to compare StarCraft (or DoW or C&C for that matter) with Total War. Players may command huge armies of thousands of troops in Total War, but the reality is that those troops move in large blocks of infantry and cavalry, reducing the player’s control to a handful of maybe 10 or 12 units.
If anything, StarCraft 2 gives players more control over individual units, providing a much greater scope and flexibility to its game than Total War, and with the new unit caps huge epic battles can take place like never before in the StarCraft universe.
Furthermore, the sheer range of units now available in the new and improved game is staggering. Terrans for example have four infantry, three heavy vehicles and five air units to choose from, providing much greater tactical flexibility to the game.
Utilising Terrain
Another weakness of StarCraft 2 highlighted was the lack of engaging terrain: “When waging a battle you should be able to utilize the terrain around you. If you are attacking, or defending, you would use the hills or buildings differently.”
True, StarCraft 2 does not provide cover bonuses as players get in DoW, but this does not mean that the terrain does not affect the tactics of a battle in the game. Unlike in other RTS games which tend to have quite open fields, the terrain in StarCraft 2 is usually quite cumbersome, presenting a tough battlefield to negotiate for unwary ground units.
Wily players use the terrain to place their bases in difficult to reach spots, being able to fly bases to new locations presents additional tactical options. Where StarCraft 2 differs from other RTS games is that it has an extraordinary amount of flying units and vehicles – Terran players are going to love the new Vikings.
The flyers can circumvent the terrain obstacles, but unsupported by ground units, flyers are often picked off easily. It is the master StarCraft player who can make his opponent’s attacks disjointed by forcing ground units around the terrain whilst annihilating the more freely moving flying units.
It’s all about zerging
The phenomenon of zerging – the early swarming of an enemy in a battle using cheap and expendable troops – began with StarCraft (attributed to the Zerg hordes), and became one of the most utilised, if hated, tactics in modern RTS gameplay.
“Clever players know that a good build plan will give them three or four low-level infantries before their enemy has even assembled a refinery – and that, at that stage, that’s all you need to win,” commented Joe Martin.
Whilst it is a sad truth that zerging will continue as a trend in StarCraft 2 tactics, this is hardly a unique phenomenon in RTS games. Blizzard have created barriers on some maps of StarCraft 2 which make zerging much harder to accomplish. The barriers protect a player’s base, and require a lot of damage from low level troops to breach, giving players enough time to prepare defences against the rush.
It’s all about build pattern
The deeper criticism here with reference to zerging is that StarCraft 2 is more about build pattern than it is about tactical micromanagement of units.
“So, simply put, StarCraft 2 is a strategy game which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t actually involve any real battle strategy. Instead, the focus of the game (at least, if you want to win a game) is pretty much solely on economic strategy – which is an admittedly odd observation to make of a game that simplifies everything in the world down into three resources. Still, it’s true.”
This is where I take real issue with Mr Martin, because although a strong build pattern can certainly help bring you victory in StarCraft 2, games in the beta have proven that it is by no means a guaranteed route to success.
Perhaps more than any other RTS game, StarCraft is a game of successfully exploiting the weaknesses of your opponent’s army.
The new Terran super-unit Thors can make an absolute mess of ground units, but if you throw enough small zerglings at them they will crumble. Equally a Protoss Stalker can be perfectly countered by multiple Terran marines.
The beauty of StarCraft 2 is that there is no ultimate build pattern that can lead to certain victory. Any player that relies on one tactic alone and a set build pattern will eventually be crushed by a player who can adapt their game plan to counter their opponent’s strength.
Of course, players who master efficient management of build patterns to make their forces more quickly have a significant advantage in the game, but that is true of any RTS and is a mark of a quality player, not a weak game.
The key to winning StarCraft 2 is to make the most of your scouting units so that you can spy on your opponent and prepare your armies to be most effective at neutralising his forces. The new Xel’Naga Watch Towers can assist with this, providing early warning “listening posts” for controlling players which clear the fog of war from around a given area.
To suggest that he who perfects the build plan wins is an overly simplistic statement, and one that ironically has seen me through a number of defeats in the beta because I over-relied on a particular tactic that had worked against other opponents. Micromanagement by effectively using activated abilities of units such as Thors or High Templars at key moments can still swing the course of a battle, even for a player slower on their resource build pattern.
StarCraft 2 more than ever teaches you to be tactically flexible and resourceful.
It’s Still The Same Old StarCraft
It’s hard not to notice that StarCraft 2 looks and feels almost exactly like the original StarCraft, which is what prompted this initial wave of rebellion against the game. If StarCraft hasn’t moved on since 1998 then why has it taken so long to develop?
All I can say is thank God for Blizzard staying faithful to their fans. How many times do fans pull their hair out when game developers change a fundamental part of a beloved game in order to spice things up a bit and attract new audiences?
Peter Molyneux caused a hell of a stir when he announced Fable III was ditching its XP bar, Blizzard at least have not tampered with what is regarded by many as RTS perfection.
Starcraft 2 remains true to the original, updating tired graphics but keeping the core gameplay as fast, furious and enjoyable as ever. I have no doubt that when StarCraft 2 finally hits the shelves it will be a monster hit, and that’s without seeing anything that the sumptuous single player mode has to offer…
Nice article, it’s good to finally see someone seeing the game for what it is. Too many people new to StarCraft and RTS in general are reviewing this game.
Sometimes I get tired assessing criticism by people who just do not get the game. The beauty of this game, I feel, stems from a near perfect and believable storyline, a captivating cast and mood and great music. Those who criticize the game probably do not know how to appreciate positively what I just mentioned.
Thanks for your input to this incredible game by the way.
I loved StarCraft in college, especially the innovative user created multi-player maps. My big issue then, which I worry about with StarCraft 2, is in the original StarCraft air superiority was too powerful. Whoever built the most starports and air vehicles first, won. Has this aspect been fixed or balanced in StarCraft 2 so more than one unit of type is now viable?
It wasn’t really a problem in the first one… If you watch pro games, you would see that it wasn’t the first person to build air units. It was just a matter of who could control their units the best.
I’ll put my massed hydralisks with defiler support against your air units any day of the week.
This game is StarCraft. If you played StarCraft when it first came out or you are still playing it, you will enjoy SC 2. So many games change up their formula way too much. Thank god Blizzard realized, “Hey people still play the first SC after 12 years – maybe we should keep the basics.”
Thank you David Finklehorn – SC2 is great and everything you mentioned the other journalist wrote is so wrong…
Sad how he probably got waxxed 30 times by good players online and the only thing he could do is whine in some publicity.
The low money maps in StarCraft are designed entirely for old pros and veterans to enjoy themselves. It seems to me that Blizzard has done an excellent job maintaining that element of gameplay.
Every complaint I see here could also be directed at the original StarCraft. Early on, many people complained that StarCraft was just another WarCraft II, only set in space.
Obviously, this has been proven wrong.
But the other arguments seem to come from someone who does not know how to play the game. Build orders have always been and always will be an integral part of the RTS genre.
StarCraft II is just a natural evolution of the game, which is exactly what it should be.
Great article. I’ll admit that I am a Blizzard fanboy, but I find it comforting that someone recognizes the game as being a good one.
Also, Blizzard has stated that there are strategies and features of the game that beta players have not even come close to uncovering for themselves.
It is sad that people are critical of this game. You have to be good enough at RTSs to enjoy it.
I appreciate your opinion. It will not change anything. The fact that people are willing to pay $400 for a BETA key is an already good indication of how GREAT the game is.
“So, simply put, StarCraft 2 is a strategy game which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t actually involve any real battle strategy. Instead, the focus of the game (at least, if you want to win a game) is pretty much solely on economic strategy which is an admittedly odd observation to make of a game that simplifies everything in the world down into three resources. Still, it’s true.”
This was basically true of StarCraft 1, and it’s actually what I liked about the game. It’s OK if he doesn’t like that, but this is hardly a step backwards.
Personally, I hated the fact in Warcraft 3 it was all about micro, and that most units could win against most other units. I *want* to have no chance if my opponent built the counter to my units. Certain units *should* just be crushed by their counter, no matter how good you are at micro.
StarCraft 2 the greatest thing ever and I don’t agree with this other post.
Sadly, she doesn’t truly understand StarCraft. It’s a very simple game. People don’t understand that no matter what, you cannot be perfect, you will always be beaten, no matter how many times you win.
All you have to do is, build units, protect your base(s), and kill your opponents, very simply said, but in most cases not done. To win the game, you need a strategy, and in most cases, almost a truck load of luck your opponent isn’t doing something to exploit your weakness(es). Very simple, very fun, and always unpredictable, nobody is flawless…
Joe Martin on bit-tech brings me fond memories of the old days when not every idiot with a keyboard was able to post online.
It was obvious that he was completely uninformed about what the beta is about. He complained there were no tutorials or explanations of how to learn the game. His inexperience led to loss after inevitable loss at the hands of simple rushing strategies, and so he blamed the game.
Sometimes I really wonder if some people just like reading their own words on a computer screen, regardless of whether they’re accurate or noteworthy. Sheesh.
StarCraft is like chess, if you are a beginner and you are playing a grandmaster, it won’t be fun.
The grandmaster is toying with you and honestly isn’t having that much fun himself. The beginner, however, is outsmarted at every move and feels cheated.
I would assume most of the people that got into the beta through BlizzCon are big fans of SC 1. So when new players get their keys, they get on and get spanked. After their spanking they complain.
However, what Joe Martin (and other new to SC reviewers) don’t get, is when experienced players play other experienced players, a true match begins. Even when a beginner plays a beginner, both parties have more fun. What they are experiencing is a beta filled with players vastly more skilled than they are.
Blizzard already has plans for matchmaking that will match players with similar skills. So that’s another thing people should stop whining about. Don’t worry Joe, more NOOBS will come. LOL!
Exactly! I have always felt that SC1 was like chess. BTW, I love chess. Similarities: Opening = Rush, Mid-Game = Tech/Advanced Units, End Game = Resource Exhaustion/High Tech Units. I have found that SC2 has stayed true to this formula, if you cant survive a rush, you don’t deserve to make it to the middle game, if you make it to the middle game then it is skill vs. skill, and if you make it to the end-game it is who can advance in research and not run out of resources.
SC2 Beta has shown me how important flexibility is, on top of this. For example, I have won many games on a very efficient Zealot rush, however, when faced with someone who has repelled my rush, if I do not begin focusing on new tech then I will lose. You can’t mindlessly continue the same strategy relying simply on numbers. If your opponent has found the counter, you need to move on. SC2 does not reward stubbornness, only thought and flexibility. Exception being Voids, they wreck everything.
if by voids wreck everything, you mean any sufficient quantity of AA wrecks voids. They have a counter like anything else
Nice article! Stumbled across this article considering many of these weaknesses in Starcraft 2. Definitely worth reading:
http://www.touchebitches.com/2010/03/starcraft-ii-beta-revolution-or-remake.html
It does more generally rehash some of this territory, but I feel it does do it in a more rational, measured way than many other critiques. That and it gives Blizzard a lot of credit for their decisions.
Interesting.
Decent article. Agree with it, feel like some good explanations were left out/unclarified though.
RTS games with any sort of resource management are based around economic strategy. Duh. And any good player will tell you that economy deals much more than with build order alone.
Harassment, production, battles themselves all hinge on/are affected by the economy at any point in the game. And good unit micromanagement can help you keep or gain that advantage.
Someone even using the existence of the economy in this game as criticism towards it needs to understand it is a matter of personal taste whether one likes this style of RTS or not. If they don’t, they can go play DoW FFS.
There’s a reason Blizzard kept the economy and other aspects of the game very similar, if not identical to its predecessor: It works.
It’s a proven formula that has stood the test of time for 10+ years now, and they added just enough content and polish to make it exciting again as well as attract a whole new audience. Job well done IMO.
I agree if you make a great game and make a sequel don’t mess around with the core. Sure maybe spice up the units, make new ones.
RTS is more, I think, an acquired taste. It takes time to get good and time to become better, but ultimately even if it’s only as good as the original, it will be epic. Sure there are new graphics and those sort of things but look at the tech we have today. Sometimes you need to leave things mostly as they were.
Excellent commentary. I couldn’t agree more. Too many critics are too n00b to understand the depth of StarCraft strategy.
Thank you for your defense.
StarCraft is like many games where experience and knowledge of the game greatly helps in terms of understand and appreciation of the game. There will always be a niche of players who only want to see the largest amount of units engaging in a fight.
200 Supply fights between BCs and Carriers will always be apart of StarCraft, just not the ladder system. It sounds like the people who are criticizing the game are taking a “BGH”/Massing approach and trying to play in the ladder system. That is simple mistake.
StarCraft is a balance between spending resources to either (A) gain more resources (B) produce more units (C) research better technology. Focus or forget any one aspect and you will find yourself on the wrong end of a beating stick.
Before anyone “reviews” StarCraft II, perhaps they should do some research on how the game is played. YouTube has a number of commentators trying to teach and grow the SC Community.
BlizShouter aka Crota
Diggity
HuskyStarCraft
HDStarC
SC has always been a 50/50 game. On a map with low resources, as stated by a fellow poster, veterans will have a tough time ascertaining their opponent’s army’s ability.
I can’t tell you how many games have ended in a draw based on the sheer indecision of the opposition. What I am saying is, if you don’t adapt your strategy correctly, both parties will be tossing their units into a fire…no exceptions. SC requires a great deal of scouting and resource management. Those who say otherwise can play Age of Empires or Total Annihilation. Great games, but based purely on army size and build pattern.
-You rule David.
I really, really don’t understand how this game has taken so long to develop. Especially since it’s basically the same game as the first with better graphics and a few new additions.
It makes me wonder if they had been working on implementing something really new in gameplay terms or engine wise, but then abandoned it when they realised it meant the game wouldn’t be ready till 2012, or that it just wouldn’t have worked and the game would have sucked. So in the end they fell back on sticking to the original in terms of gameplay.
I mean, it is exactly the same game as the first one gameplay-wise and hasn’t added anything new to the traditional RTS elements. I guarantee everyone that when you do eventually get to play this game, all of you are going to ask the very same question, to which of course, there will be nothing but an uncomfortable silence in answer.
If you are asking yourself this question, you should search the internets for the answer. Blizzard stated that they did not start on the game development (not artwork) until ’05. After development started, resources were diverted to WoW and developing its next expansion, which took about a year. To your comment on the game being exactly the same, I say, kind of. Those of us who have not been able to play the campaign have only been able to experience the multiplayer, which is very similar to the original in many aspects. However, the single player campaign has been flooded with new play systems. If you are curious to what those are, again just search the internets. It would not be convenient to mention those here in much detail.
I rolled the best players in that game and had them crying cheats. All I can say is bring on the map hackers.
Why on earth would this article show images of the game with the settings turned all the way down?
Not many of those screen shots are very up to date. (Though I have no idea what the last screen shot in “It’s all about zerging” is. Are those Tauren? Or cow level? Hmm)
Anywho, the game looks a lot better now (even on my crappy comp). Damn good game so far. About 25 matches in and I’m starting to figure things out again.
Meh – I’m sure it will be a fun game, but people are expecting too much from it and therefore it is guaranteed to disappoint. Crysis, Spore etc. Not the RTS genre but the same marketing hype = epic fail if they don’t OVER deliver, regardless of whether its a good game or not.
When last did anyone play a RTS game that had the same impact on your level adrenaline that Dune 2 / Red Alert did. They need to reinvent the RTS genre a bit and come up with something new. World In Conflict was a refreshing change with some exciting moments. SC2 will be just another game if they don’t bring something new to the table.
I for one will buy the game, just dont expect too much from it.
I have to say that StarCraft has been, is, and always will be a piece of art, and forever a standard for ALL RTS games to go by.
Guy who wrote the original article sounds like a complete noob at StarCraft and doesn’t even grasp several of the fundamental concepts of the original game, let alone the qualities that made it such a great game in the first place. Do yourself a favour and shut up.
The OP is trying to play StarCraft as a game it is not. StarCraft is not Supreme Commander. Every unit counts. Its very micro intensive.
StarCraft isn’t a game where you just build massive armies and a them.
My favorite thing about SC2 (and I’m in the beta) is that it’s new, but still old. It has an updated feel but the spirit of the original StarCraft universe remains perfectly intact. They’ve done a fantastic job overall, and the beta has just started! There’s tons to do from game balance, to unit design to the base of it all.
She’s a she. Enough said.
This is the only real-time strategy game in existence for this era, everything else nowadays are just real-time tactics games, that is why nobody understands it.
You stupid fag, this game is perfect! Son of the bitch!
To the guy who asked, “Why the long wait?” and then proceeded to talk a load of shit:
Dude do you know anything about game development nowadays? Bliz has not been creating SCII for 12 years FFS… They made other games like WC3 and the WoW MEGA franchise which has really been taxing…
SC2 out of concept and in development is probably no older than 3-4 years now… and that’s probably too long.
It’s not like than can just PORT the old Sprite 2d SC1 into the new Overhauled SC2 engine.. It takes time, art teams, musical scores, epic amounts of testing and balancing… listening to the fans, etc…
I love the fact it is true to the original… It’s awesome like that…
The one and only gripe I have is the LAN issue… but that’s the way it goes…
Can’t wait to hear Raynor say, “Hell Yeah!” again with that voice that sounds like he has throat cancer.
Epic, nay… BIBLICAL!!
Well, there you have it!! LOL. Just goes to show how game developers get away with it, time after time, after time! “As long as it’s still the same as the first one, it’ll be just fine!” OR “If you don’t like it, then go play DoW FFS! LOL!!
When you’ve got people who don’t even work for the developer sticking up for the developer and worse, acting like they are their brother’s keeper, who needs things like innovation and all those other big words? These posts on here aren’t OPINIONS, these posts are the cries of the dumbed down who know they’ve been dumbed down but want more of it anyway!
That’s exactly what I hate hearing.
How can someone say that the game is to similar to StarCraft I?
FOR GODS SAKE THIS IS STARCRAFT II WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT A COMPLETELY NEW GAME, IT’S MEANT TO BE SIMILAR.
I have tried out the beta, in an internet cafe, and I must say, on resolution 1650×1150, everything maxed out, running silky smooth, I got to truly enjoy the game to its limit. Not saying graphics are everything, but it’s just an added bonus.
I tTried out every race, but played Terran the most. Still going there regularly to play it, just started yesterday actually, from the date at which I’m posting this. The game is simply EPIC, and it’s still just BETA!
I can’t say everything that I love about it, because there is so much to name it here. However, in my opinion, Blizzard is going in the right direction to make a perfect sequel to the original, and hands down, one of the greatest games of all times.
I love SC but wasn’t that blown away by the new units… it just felt like the game was rearranged.
But as I started listing the changes that I thought made sense, there were a lot (zealot charge, 2 interchangeable add-ons for terran buildings, reapers & colossus cliff changing, creep tumors, etc, etc).
I think the better graphics, improved unit control and single player campaign will make this a great game in themselves but hope for some more creative and strategic unit additions with the expansions.
All I can say is… StarCraft rocks!!!
For me StarCraft is the father of LAN games (RTS games), it spawned the gaming revolution. When I started playing StarCraft way, way back in college (I’m a doctor now) LAN gaming was at its infancy and StarCraft revolutionized it. Then the others just followed.
To all the critics… StarCraft is not media-hyped. The reason why we’ve been waiting for this game is that this is the best game we’ve played in college. Mostly original SC players may already be on the 25-35 age range, we don’t have PSP, Wii, Xbox, cellphone is still rare these days… but nevertheless… we have STARCRAFT…
You are all such fags.
SC wasn’t half as good as you remember it to be its just nostalgia, and SC2 is hopelessly outdated. It just sucks monstrous amounts of penis.
Company of Heroes and even DoW has so much more tactical depth, SC skills are 99% micromanagement ADHD, there IS NO TACTICS. Ofcourse a super stupid, super simple game such as SC2 gets interesting again when the players get uber good at it and invents all kinds of ways to force tactics into the gameplay, but that’s at a skill level none of you SC1 fans will ever reach here because if you loved SC1 you are to fucking old by now.
CoH people, that was the best RTS ever made, period.
Hi. If you think there are no tactics in SC, you are a ****.
No elaborate reply needed.
After having played the beta extensively, I can say this game is not all about build order. I have won games after surviving devastating rushes on my drones early game. I have also lost games where I devastated the enemy drones.
SC2 is a game that will rip you a new one if you do not do your homework and learn about the early build orders. You will eventually find one you like. You will learn to defend against the early rushes and might even get to the point where you scout out what your enemy is doing in order to field correct units to counter his actions.
I don’t micro at all and I managed to win at least half my games. The new SC makes for a lot harder micro-management and units that can cross terrain become very valuable to people who know how to maximize their use.
It is just not a game in which you will do well within your first 10-20 hours of online gameplay unless you watch reviews and strive to see what your opponents do that you don’t.
It’s a game where learning about each of your possible tools to victory is a must otherwise you might very well get outplayed.
The learning curve is steep but once you get there, it’s hella fun. I didn’t play the first SC and I am not a fan of RTS in general, but SC2 is very good already at the beta stage and it will get better.
Once again Blizzard doesn’t break the mold and gives us a well packaged game with mechanics we are familiar with and we like. Blizzard NEVER innovated a lot but they took concepts we had seen before and made them work very well.
No reinventing the wheel here, just giving us a very good system that has been proven to work.
Look, I loved StarCraft. For its time, it was a great game. It became what it was because it rocked the RTS genre.
StarCraft 2 does not in any way do that. It offers not one single thing that’s innovative. The gameplay is the same as the first, which is great if you want to play StarCraft but not when compared against the other modern games in the genre. The RTS genre has come A LONG WAY since StarCraft and the sequel just didn’t innovate at all.
The scale is too small. The popcap is still a pathetic 200 despite that pathfinding limitations that forced developers to keep to small groups 11 years ago are a thing of the past. The races are the same. The units are different but the races still occupy the same role.
Zerg for fast cheap troops, Protoss for expensive and slow to train troops, and Terran for a good middle guy. after 11 years, they can’t change the balance a little bit?
And story? If you play the sequel for the story, explain to me why you’re researching so many technologies that you had to in the first game? (siege mode, personal cloaking, armor and weapon lvls 1, 2, and 3, etc.)
It’s ridiculous. I’m not saying that it’s not a good game, but it’s not at all what the first was in its day. If blizzard thinks that stuffing it with DRM will widen its appeal, they’re sorely mistaken.
Paying a lot for a beta key doesn’t mean that it’s a good game. Still being able to buy it in stores 11 years after it was released means it’s a good game. Given how there are many RTS games are already out that are better than this, doesn’t speak well for its staying power.
This game is l33t – I poo my pants when I see it.
I’m really, really looking forward to SC2. I’ve watched dozens of Beta games but have yet to play. Although a great game, I would enjoy more strategy around terrain. The high ground and depot blocks are cool, but perhaps swamp land that only affects some units would add more depth?
The more strategic elements to the game the better.
Same old, same old, with better graphics. Love the commercial – they should make an anime movie.
Thank god they kept the same formula. This is truly an awesome game. I was scared that it would be ruined in the same way Command & Conquer was by messing with some of the original elements of the game.
First off this has definitely been up for a while now but I just stumbled across it today. Fruzsina Eordogh, man your opinion could not be less valid in terms of assessing StarCraft as a strategy game. The bestselling RTS of all time, not to mention the beginning of pro-league competitive RTS in Korea speaks naturally to the popularity and success of the first game.
Now as most people know betas are designed to test out the games dynamics with a basic rubric. There’s a corellation between what goes and what stays for the release which public forums influence surely, but ultimately game dynamics in the beta versus the release are two different pies. Now if the overload ability of the phoenix from the beta was kept, mutalisks would never be built against protoss players. The graviton beam is cool, but that overload ability would have come in handy in some games I’ve played!