John Funk said:
Re: the LAN issue... if they go forward with the "you get LAN pings but you need to maintain a net connection" I don't think it'll be much of a problem. We live in the era of widespread wifi and broadband; tech-savvy folks are almost SURE to have stuff like that. I can't remember the last time I LANned without an internet connection.
And my lag on B.net has been extremely miniscule if any.
I have never ever LANed
with an internet connection. So that's kind of a dealbreaker for me. And although people like me are likely a minority, we still exist... And I can't imagine it would be that hard for them to include LAN functionality. The reason they give - "so people will have access to all the features" - is really not valid in my eyes. I don't
want those other features. I don't
want to be able to communicate with my friends list or something, the people I want to communicate with will be sitting in the same room as me - and we will likely be able to chat in-game if we've lost our voices. What I
want to have is the ability to actually play the game with my friends without having to pick a location based on internet access.
John Funk said:
You're putting waaaaaaay too much emphasis on AI, honestly. It's nice, but hardly a crucial element of a game IMO.
The AI is very important to those of us who regularly play against the AI. I, for example, prefer to team up with my buddies against the computer. Having a stupid AI makes the game very tedious then.
John Funk said:
The only problem is that you're saying "no" to the wrong thing. Say no to UbiSoft's insane scheme, sure. Say no to install limits. But Battle.net 2.0 is actually really cool, it works very well, and doesn't come with any of the insane limitations of most other DRM.
Logging onto GFWL feels like a chore. Battle.net 2.0 works wonderfully so far.
That sounds suspiciously much like an opinion, in which case I find it odd to claim someone else's opinion is wrong. I admittedly haven't tried Battle.net 2.0, but I'm sure there will be things about it that bother me. Like, for example,
the need to be connected to the internet.
John Funk said:
AI CAN ruin a game, but it's hardly a make or break thing. ICO and Shadow of the Colossus have very limited AI, but they're still spectacular, emotional experiences.
For you. For those of us that enjoy computer opponents, it
is a make or break thing. If you're going to make a game that only caters to the pvp audience, then make it a strictly pvp game. And then the game should be clearly marked for exactly what it is - a multiplayer game.
Nateman742 said:
If you're such a stickler for LAN, why did you post on this board if it's not LAN format? It's just not the same as sitting in computer class with all your friends and passing messages back and forth through AIM, so why bother?
Because, you know, this isn't a game... But rather a discussion board. The difference is that this place is based on the exchange of opinions and arguments via text, while a game is usually an independent program where you use visual and auditory aids to supply information to the players.
Nateman742 said:
I don't mean to attack you, but I'm really just miffed at all these people flat out avoiding this game because they can't replicate LAN party experiences they had ten years ago. I have not yet heard a good reason to give up a potentially great game in its entirety, without even trying the revamped online system, because it's missing a feature you liked a decade ago. It's like saying, "Pfft, I don't want that shiny new concept car even if I did love the old model intensely, and this model improves upon it, and it looks like an awesome vehicle. It doesn't have cupholders for all my friends. How can they expect everyone to hold their own drinks all the time? Pass."
... Except that we who complain about the lack of LAN are people who aren't planning to play with our friends ten years ago, but rather
in the future. Stop assuming we're conservative 80-year olds who beat teenagers with wooden canes when they step on our lawns.
Nateman742 said:
Sheesh, at least give it a test drive. 60 dollars won't bankrupt you, and if you really find absolutely no redeeming qualities with the game now that you can't play it through LAN, maybe you didn't like Starcraft in the first place. EBay it, make a profit, stick it to the big bad Blizz. Maybe if you lash out, you'll be able to make it through your massive disappointment to survive another day.
No. I will not pay that kind of money for a game I will not play. How do I know I won't play it? Because I don't like playing strategy games by myself. I want my friends to tag along, because the camaraderie is half the experience. And the other half isn't that great... I've tried. But hey - if you buy the game for me, I might try it out. After all, 60 dollars won't bankrupt you. And if you expect me to pay 60 dollars for something I won't use, then you should have no problem paying 60 dollars for something
you won't use.
- though did Blizzard go ahead with the plan to split the singleplayer plot into 3 parts, only 1 of which comes with the game? i.e. the rest are downloadable content..?
