Preview: StarCraft II

[KillerRabbit]

I seriously don't see anything to be excited about in Starcraft II.

It's a copy of Starcraft I with better graphics & a couple of more units! How groundbreaking, they have not tried to add any change in concept or add anything new at all!

At most this can be called an patch to Starcraft I, or an expansion. Personally I don't see a singel reason to buy this game, since I basically already own it.

Better luck next time, I hope Blizzards new "unique" project which is yet to be revealed will dare to venture into some new thinking at least.

 

[John Funk]

I seriously don't see anything to be excited about in Starcraft II.

It's a copy of Starcraft I with better graphics & a couple of more units! How groundbreaking, they have not tried to add any change in concept or add anything new at all!

At most this can be called an patch to Starcraft I, or an expansion. Personally I don't see a singel reason to buy this game, since I basically already own it.

Better luck next time, I hope Blizzards new "unique" project which is yet to be revealed will dare to venture into some new thinking at least.

What StarCraft II "looks" like and what it actually plays like are two different things. They've replaced a ton of units that change a ton of strategies, the new things like rich minerals, watchtowers, line-of-sight via trees and steam vents, even something small like new pathing...

When you play it, it feels like StarCraft, but it also feels like NOT StarCraft at the exact same time. It's much more than a patch or an expansion, but it's difficult to communicate without playing it.

I'm just going to say that I haven't yet spoken with anyone who is in the beta who doesn't absolutely love it. Not saying that they don't exist, but that I certainly don't know any of them.

 

[Nomad]

We have no idea what the final AI will be like; the only thing available in the beta is "Very Easy." And the Campaign is probably still going to be a great experience.

Yeah, I'm not questioning that part. What I was questioning was that you were saying that the AI isn't important - for some of us it is. I don't have any opinion about the SC2 AI, since I haven't seen it yet.

You can still play with your friends; there is absolutely nothing stopping you. You have an internet connection, do you not? We've been playing SC2 games over Battle.net here at work - all in the same room - with absolutely no problem. If you want to do the pseudo-LAN, how hard is it really to include an ethernet port into your setup? You'll still be able to LAN, you'll just need a *slightly* different setup than you had before.

It really does feel like making a mountain out of a molehill to me. We've been having a perfectly great experience over Battle.net so far, whether in the same room or miles away.

I get the feeling I didn't quite get my point across. I don't want to have to pick a location with my buddies based on internet access. And I don't want us to sit 3 miles apart while playing either - because that takes away half the experience. I don't want Battle.net 2.0 features, even if it ends up curing cancer. I want to play Starcraft with my buddies independent of our location.

I know it may seem like a stretch, but there *are* areas and households that don't have broadband connections in this day and age. One of the guys I want to play with still runs with a modem - another one doesn't have internet at all. I'd still like to be able to play at their houses, for example. It seems we'll be sticking to Starcraft I, however, because the mighty multiplayers decided we weren't worth the effort of including a feature that has been industrial standard for the last decade.

Internet costs money. Students generally don't have a lot of that stuff. I'm a student - and so are the bulk of my friends. Why should they have to shell out an additional $40/month besides the cost of buying the actual game? Starcraft should not be a MMO, and should not try to act like one... But then again, I felt the same way about the Warcraft franchise. Let me put it this way;
I have a monthly income of ~$1100. $700 of that goes directly to rent, water and electricity. $200 goes to food and other various household essentials. I personally have a car, which eats up a lot more, but I suppose I could get by with riding the bus... Which would cost me $70/month. Insurance and mandatory membership in the student union costs me $30/month. That means that with the remaining $100, I have to pay a TV license (yeah, we need those in Sweden), clothing, phone bills and any unforseen expenses... And simultaneously, I need to build up a buffer so I can make it through summer - when I will have no income whatsoever if I don't manage to claw my way to a job through masses of other students looking for the same thing. And even then, that's not counting any leisure expenses whatsoever... You tell me how it is fair to expect my entire demographic to pay a monthly expense just to be able to play Starcraft II? When it could just as easily be free if they had bothered to put in a feature that has - again - been industrial standard for a decade?

I had to convert my country's currency to $, so the numbers might be a bit off. The internal relations still stand, though.

Something I won't use? Mofo if Blizzard knocks this out of the park like they seem to be doing, I'll buy it in triplicate. And I hope you wouldn't only play single player if you didn't have LAN. Even if you hate online strategy, the custom maps still have endless possibilities.

It seems I have a great difficulty in getting my point across. My "something you won't use" comment referred to the fact that if you're buying an extra for me, you won't use it yourself. And since you thought it was okay for me to spend $60 on something I can guarantee I won't use, because "it will hardly bankrupt me", then it should be okay for you to spend $60 on something I can guarantee you won't use... Because it will hardly bankrupt you.

 

[John Funk]

Snip

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. But you're clearly already paying for internet (or else you wouldn't be chatting here...) so it isn't like there are additional expenses for you, personally.

If you're looking forward to StarCraft II, you're almost certainly a gamer (though it isn't a 100% thing, it's a pretty safe bet), and most gamers are ALREADY budgeting for the internet. I think it's kind of a strawman argument to argue that it's an additional expense when the vast majority of people who are gamers are probably already finding a way to pay for online. Obviously, not all of them, but a significant amount.

Clutches and manual transmissions were standard on cars for decades, too. Same with non-HD resolutions on televisions. Technology has evolved past them, and there will be a day when broadband achieves near complete penetration, and so pure LAN will literally be obsolete, if it isn't very close to being so already.

 

[John Funk]

Snip

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. But you're clearly already paying for internet (or else you wouldn't be chatting here...) so it isn't like there are additional expenses for you, personally.

If you're looking forward to StarCraft II, you're almost certainly a gamer (though it isn't a 100% thing, it's a pretty safe bet), and most gamers are ALREADY budgeting for the internet. I think it's kind of a strawman argument to argue that it's an additional expense when the vast majority of people who are gamers are probably already finding a way to pay for online. Obviously, not all of them, but a significant amount.

Clutches and manual transmissions were standard on cars for decades, too. Same with non-HD resolutions on televisions. Technology has evolved past them, and there will be a day when broadband achieves near complete penetration, and so pure LAN will literally be obsolete, if it isn't very close to being so already.

Still, paying for a connection sufficent for one person to get online for Starcraft is not the same as paying for one needed for 6 people. Most people that enjoy local multiplayer (often very underepresented in the gaming press, for some reason) enjoy the fact that the other players are in the room. You know, actual human socializing between matches and that sort of thing. Random people on the internet is not the same, to put it mildly.

Now, I actually enjoyed the single player of Starcraft 1 immensly, and it was the reason I still think it is among the best of it's kind. Most other RTS stories seems to be written by hacks. So I got to say I am a bit miffed that they seem to be crippeling the campagin by making me buy it in three installments, and having the most pedestrian and least interesting race dominating the first game.

Let's just hope the AI is up to snuff.

Again, I'm just saying this just based off of what they said about it without knowing what the final feature will look like (assuming it's in the game at all), but how I interpreted the "pseudo-LAN": If you're connected to the internet, just logged into Battle.net at all, you can enable the LAN functionality. The only internet data that passes through your pipe is the bare bones, not the full data stream necessary for six people to be playing a game online.

The connection is completely local, you just need to be in Battle.net WHILE you do it.

And I don't see how giving you campaigns 3x the size that they were in the first game is crippling it in any way.

 

[Nomad]

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. But you're clearly already paying for internet (or else you wouldn't be chatting here...) so it isn't like there are additional expenses for you, personally.

If you're looking forward to StarCraft II, you're almost certainly a gamer (though it isn't a 100% thing, it's a pretty safe bet), and most gamers are ALREADY budgeting for the internet. I think it's kind of a strawman argument to argue that it's an additional expense when the vast majority of people who are gamers are probably already finding a way to pay for online. Obviously, not all of them, but a significant amount.

Clutches and manual transmissions were standard on cars for decades, too. Same with non-HD resolutions on televisions. Technology has evolved past them, and there will be a day when broadband achieves near complete penetration, and so pure LAN will literally be obsolete, if it isn't very close to being so already.

I am obviously not getting through to you. I have an internet connection, because I can personally afford it. But if you examine my post more closely, you will see that I mentioned two of my friends don't... And that's just assuming we want to meet up at someone's house. We might also want to do it at the university, for example, where internet access is not entirely unrestricted, so to speak.

And again, if you examine my post more closely, you will see that I already mentioned several times that I am part of a minority. But the thing is that my demographic actually does exist, and although it is comparatively small, it still consists of a great deal of people... It's just that we aren't very well represented in these discussions because, you know, it's hard to argue on the internet if you don't have access to the internet. It's unfair to expect us to "find a way" to shell out that additional expense because we are ancient artifacts.

My point with LAN being industrial standard is that it obviously isn't a gigantic hassle to add in, so I see no reason why they chose to exclude it - apart from offline players "not getting full access to online features" (features that we don't even want to have access to) or "LAN being obsolete" (which it obviously isn't, since people are asking for it).

Virtually everyone can adapt to virtually everything. You could also adapt to your chair not having a cushion on it. It would be uncomfortable, but you could handle it. And it would be less of a hassle for your chair manufacturer if they didn't have to include a cushion. You could handle your car not having a windshield. It would be uncomfortable and very bothersome when it rains, but you could always drive a little bit slower and keep it under tarpaulin during bad weather - and it'd be a lot cheaper for the manufacturer if they didn't include a windshield. But it's industrial standard to include them, people expect them, they don't hurt anyone and the costs are comparatively small. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to include LAN functionality. None.

 

[Samcanuck]

Wait what, it is released. If not, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[John Funk]

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. But you're clearly already paying for internet (or else you wouldn't be chatting here...) so it isn't like there are additional expenses for you, personally.

If you're looking forward to StarCraft II, you're almost certainly a gamer (though it isn't a 100% thing, it's a pretty safe bet), and most gamers are ALREADY budgeting for the internet. I think it's kind of a strawman argument to argue that it's an additional expense when the vast majority of people who are gamers are probably already finding a way to pay for online. Obviously, not all of them, but a significant amount.

Clutches and manual transmissions were standard on cars for decades, too. Same with non-HD resolutions on televisions. Technology has evolved past them, and there will be a day when broadband achieves near complete penetration, and so pure LAN will literally be obsolete, if it isn't very close to being so already.

I am obviously not getting through to you. I have an internet connection, because I can personally afford it. But if you examine my post more closely, you will see that I mentioned two of my friends don't... And that's just assuming we want to meet up at someone's house. We might also want to do it at the university, for example, where internet access is not entirely unrestricted, so to speak.

And again, if you examine my post more closely, you will see that I already mentioned several times that I am part of a minority. But the thing is that my demographic actually does exist, and although it is comparatively small, it still consists of a great deal of people... It's just that we aren't very well represented in these discussions because, you know, it's hard to argue on the internet if you don't have access to the internet. It's unfair to expect us to "find a way" to shell out that additional expense because we are ancient artifacts.

My point with LAN being industrial standard is that it obviously isn't a gigantic hassle to add in, so I see no reason why they chose to exclude it - apart from offline players "not getting full access to online features" (features that we don't even want to have access to) or "LAN being obsolete" (which it obviously isn't, since people are asking for it).

Virtually everyone can adapt to virtually everything. You could also adapt to your chair not having a cushion on it. It would be uncomfortable, but you could handle it. And it would be less of a hassle for your chair manufacturer if they didn't have to include a cushion. You could handle your car not having a windshield. It would be uncomfortable and very bothersome when it rains, but you could always drive a little bit slower and keep it under tarpaulin during bad weather - and it'd be a lot cheaper for the manufacturer if they didn't include a windshield. But it's industrial standard to include them, people expect them, they don't hurt anyone and the costs are comparatively small. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to include LAN functionality. None.

We're getting nowhere with this. I realize that there are people for whom the lack of true LAN is inconvenient, but I believe that just because something has been a standard does not mean it's irreplaceable, and that nothing better will ever come along.

Developers have no obligation to put in any feature whatsoever, and the reason for not having LAN is simply because Blizzard didn't want to develop a game with LAN in mind. It's the furthest thing in the world from a deal-breaker for me, but for others it might be different.

I think you'll be missing out, but you are well within your right to vote with your wallet.

 

[Nomad]

Developers have no obligation to put in any feature whatsoever, and the reason for not having LAN is simply because Blizzard didn't want to develop a game with LAN in mind. It's the furthest thing in the world from a deal-breaker for me, but for others it might be different.

I would like to make one closing statement, because I feel I have once again been misunderstood;

I have never claimed they have an obligation to include something. Just like your chair-manufacturer has no obligation to include a cushion. But since there are obviously a lot of consumers that want this feature, it would be the intelligent thing to include it... Just like it is intelligent to include a cushion in a chair.

I don't know much about game development, but I simply cannot understand how they would need to make major adjustments to the game in order to include LAN play. I am not voting with my wallet. I am simply not paying for a product that I do not want - and Starcraft II is not a product that I want, as long as it doesn't include the one thing I would want it for. It is not a moral statement, it is not a cry of outrage. It is an observation that the upcoming product does not meet my requirements, and I will therefore not buy it. Just like I won't buy the next installment of the Twilight series or something - I just plainly don't want it.

 

[gelgamath]

you lost the game

 

[Timotei]

Can't wait for the game to come out.

I love the sound bit at the end. Aldaris is never satisfied.

 

[theultimateend]

I'm happy. It'll be nice to play an RTS that doesn't go by the newschool bullshit model of "People are too ADD to deal with resources" -.-

 

[Hawgh]

After delaying with 2, yes two, consecutive ebay scams of $100 each I finally got a sc2 key..

Ironically enough I got it for free from a site promotion, I thought it was a bait for my personal info. but it was legitimate.

Anyway the site URL is here: Link removed

hope everyone gets keys too.

Oh you gotta be shitting...well, everyone!

 

[Enai Siaion]

It seems we'll be sticking to Starcraft I, however, because the mighty multiplayers decided we weren't worth the effort of including a feature that has been industrial standard for the last decade.

Blame the pirates. Making an internet connection required to play is the ONLY way to prevent rampant piracy and third party LAN-emulation networks. You can probably still pirate single player, but that defeats the point of Starcraft II.

 

[Nateman742]

It seems we'll be sticking to Starcraft I, however, because the mighty multiplayers decided we weren't worth the effort of including a feature that has been industrial standard for the last decade.

Blame the pirates. Making an internet connection required to play is the ONLY way to prevent rampant piracy and third party LAN-emulation networks. You can probably still pirate single player, but that defeats the point of Starcraft II.

It's only a matter of time before private servers using custom clients start showing up; There's no stopping that process in today's market. A percentage of people always break the terms of service, and any legal action in this case would not only cost money but likely demonize Blizzard in the eyes of the gaming community. I don't think lack of LAN is an anti-piracy measure. They wanted to take the multiplayer in a new direction and they're doing it.

 

[Warped_Ghost]

I love blizzard rts games. BTW im pretty sure warcraft 3 had the replay option.

 

[Warped_Ghost]

I lost interest in Star Craft 2 loooong ago. I mean lets be serious here, how many RTS's have come out in the time starcraft announced itself never the less begun development

CnC3+expansion, CnC Red Alert 3+ expansion, CnC4!

3 games and two expansions before blizzards ONE game. I'm sure Starcraft 2 is going to be great and all but it's pretty unreasonable that that many games from one company can come out before their 1.

Like any good game they take time to make sur eit will be good.
Besides Blizzard doesn't look at the game and says its gotta compete with everything comming out now, it has to compete with stuff comming out for the next 12 years so they can complete starcraft 3.