Why is Luke Plunkett telling me in his StarCraft 2 singleplayer impressions that StarCraft has no tactics? 
 
He says that StarCraft is still about throwing waves of dudes at each other and watching them die. Am I the only one appalled by this? StarCraft is really a game where you get out what you put in. Luke in his impressions admits they couldn't make Company of StarCraft, on account of the competitive community's fanaticism for the game (which I experienced firsthand in South Korea); this doesn't excuse that his statement is completely wrong though. You can choose to be very tactical in StarCraft, usually it's about positioning and flanking, the very things that Luke states in his impressions are nonexistent. You can choose to make 70 zealots and attack order them until they die, or you can make 10, micro those well, get the enemy in a group and storm them; there is a ton of tactical variety.  
 
Do you think the reason people like Luke go about making claims like a game "having no tactics" is because the game doesn't make it a distinct game play feature? There are a thousand different ways to fight a battle in StarCraft 2 depending on positioning, your management of your troops, the timing of different elements of your attack, but because the game doesn't tell you this in some grand tutorial (but it tries with the challenge missions), are people misconstruing this game? 
 
TL;DR, Luke Plunkett and Kotaku suck. =D

Single player rts campaigns can mostly be completed by building a huge army and just zerging everything on the map.
 
Notice he's talking about the single player not the multiplayer. So apparently you don't need super high end tactics to beat AI in games now, wow this is some creative journalism

I think Luke is confusing tactics with strategy, but I understand his point. Sounds like the game is purely tactical (i.e. move guys here, have them die, rinse, repeat) as opposed to a strategic approach to the battle that isn't "more guys = teh win"

He got confused with strategy and tactics. In SP it doesn't require a whole lot of strategy other than spamming units at the other base and steamrolling them. However that's not going to cut it in MP unless you're playing something like 4v4 online.

I suppose everything is relative.  Compared to, say, Supreme Commander (one, not two) StarCraft has basically very little in the way of complex strategy or tactics.  It does, however, have an overabundance of micro management and a very zoomed in camera to make it feel more 'tense.'

So - websites make money from page impressions. Kotaku, for years, has been all about controversial headlines and articles making money for them. 
 
In the words of a great Admiral - "It's a trap!"

" So - websites make money from page impressions. Kotaku, for years, has been all about controversial headlines and articles making money for them.  In the words of a great Admiral - "It's a trap!" "

After reading the article, I think you may be misinterpreting him a bit.  For one, he clearly states that he's talking only about the single player.  And to an extent I have to agree with him.  To the degree that Starcraft 2 has tactics, it's almost entirely in the multi-player.  Tactics in Starcraft are all about counters, and the single player AI just isn't very good at countering your units.  If you're taking the path of least resistance through the game (as it seems he is), then you just end up spamming a bunch of high tech level units to steam role the AI.

Not gonna lie, for story I've just been macro-ing like hell and just fly by.   
 
I honestly dunno why I even go back to the story, just doesn't do it all that much for me.  x.x 
 
EDIT:  I also feel the re-made units will just hurt more for people who want to go into online after the story, I have no idea why Blizzard would do this as most newcomers playing online after story will be way more confused that they should be.

That statement only applies to SC2 when you don't know what you are doing, and just a-move wave after wave into the opponent's base. The tactics in SC2 aren't plainly displayed as formations and such. It's all of forcing your opponent to fight in chokes, sneaking a few harassment units into his base after his army moves out, getting away with being a greedy build order, etc.

He's wrong about there being no tactics...it's just that the tactics are stupid. It's what? 1000 years into the future? Yet your units essentially run at one another, stand still and shoot at one another. You can micro them, so apparently the best thing they have in the future (because they don't have cover) is running back and forth and in circles to avoid damage. It's just silly I suppose.

Well, SP on normal doesn't require much.
 
Multiplayer and Brutal SP do though.

" Single player rts campaigns can mostly be completed by building a huge army and just zerging everything on the map.  Notice he's talking about the single player not the multiplayer. So apparently you don't need super high end tactics to beat AI in games now, wow this is some creative journalism "

I haven't read the article but it is retardedly easy to beat the singleplayer missions on brutal just by macroing up a massive medic marine ball and steamrolling everything in front of you

Because it kinda doesn't, while some units like sentrys and high templar(i play protss) have a abilities, its just hey try and get your mob to kill the right stuff. Play some Dawn of War II with setup weapons, assault squads, cover, knockdown, abilities, and knowing when to retreat, when to take points, power harass, and such. Actual unit control means more in that game

" So - websites make money from page impressions. Kotaku, for years, has been all about controversial headlines and articles making money for them.  In the words of a great Admiral - "It's a trap!" "

I have not played Starcraft II at all, but I was always an enthusiast for Blizzard RTS games.  In the past I have beat Starcraft, Brood War, and Warcraft III all on the highest difficulty levels, but when Frozen Throne came out I hit a stone wall - the first campaign (Night Elf) on the highest difficulty was ridiculous hard and I never beat it.  I can't believe that they would go backwards for Starcraft II.  I expect that on the highest difficulties the AI will trash you if you just send waves of enemies against theirs. 
 
Similarly in WCIII skirmishes the best way to beat the Insane AI was to attack early.  If you creeped and let them get a huge army they would beat you every time with their larger army.  Anyway, like I say I haven't played it so I'm just guessing that we're dealing with a newb's opinion.

It doesn't have tactics, it has strategy.

Probably because he uses none?

idk cause they fail at it so they say it sucks

I dunno, I'm playing on hard, and the convoy mission was really tough!
I had to replay it 4 times, each time doing things a lil' bit different.
 
Building X bunkers with 2 marines and a firebat in X places did the job.
Had to make 4-5 medics surrounding the convoy at all time too.
 
SCVs on the road, and I had to make barracks closer to the goal.
 
It required tactics/strategy, and it was really satysfying.

I was expecting an easy game but yeah, singleplayer SC2 is mindblowingly rudimentary on normal. And the higher levels just mean you have to do the same things faster. Hard feels about normal, and Brutal doesn't feel "smarter" so what's the point. It just makes the same simple fights take longer. Like someone else said, after you've upgraded your medics tier 1 can just steamroll that shit.