Star Craft II- Is there anyone who will not be getting this game?
- Thread starter Sartan0
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I won't be getting it immediatly, can't say for sure in the long term. I'm not a huge RTS fan even though I play them once in a while, so the whole "Starcraft Mania" thing doesn't afflict me.Sartan0 said:
Well, it's more or less features that the average Starcraft player wouldn't really have much of a concern for. But they're still important for a lot of people, such as cross region play, where if you have any friends in Europe (or if you were in Europe and you had friends in North America), you can't play with them without buying a European Starcraft 2. Chatrooms are missing, which despite all the spammers, is important if you want to organize any kind of game.Sartan0 said:
I'd argue that ME2 was only so different from ME1 not because of planned differences, but because they were just aiming to correct what was crap in the first game. ME3, likewise, will be just correcting what was crap in ME2.Dexter111 said:
If you've been following the interviews, it's been clear that - while the same basic GAMEPLAY will remain the same - SC2Z and SC2P will take very different approaches to the single-player. SC2T has Jim Raynor walking around the ship, upgrading stuff, talking to people - you aren't going to spend much time chatting with the Hydralisk, for example. Blizzard isn't going to just slap a Zerg skin on the thing and call it a day.[/quote]
Okay, yes, I'm not going to deny that they're kind of a mix between expansions and sequels. Then if they're priced as expansions, what's the problem? Relic released what, four expansions for DoW? And nobody called foul.
You still have all 3 playable races in multiplayer and challenge mode (which they've said is the *real* intro to multiplayer, not the campaign).
I've never heard them once say that the Trilogy idea was due to financial reasons. The reasons they've always gave were that their options were: Cut out everything they wanted to include, or delay the game until after the apocalypse in 2012, neither of which were good options.
Let's be honest here: They've been working on SC2 for so long that no matter what, it's going to be very hard to be profitable. Paying an entire development team for 8 years is expensive. And even if it's a HUGE SELLER, even if they price both expansions at $60, any potential profits are going to still be dwarfed by the revenue that comes in yearly from WoW. It's going to be a drop in the bucket either way.
What I was trying to say is the single player will be mostly the same as the first game, I remember them saying they wanted to keep what worked the same(and lets face it that was damn near everything). Also I'm going to just point out that what LordNue said about it being 1/3rd of a full game is true. They took the full game, cut it up, and are having it come out in 3 parts. That's not a trilogy it's just a fragmented game. Fromw hat I can tell the good old days of blizzard being a company that actually cared is far over, they are up there with Activision for trying to screw people out of money.John Funk said:If you have something against $60 games, then by all means more power to you. I'm just pointing out that this is, unlike how some would claim, not new territory for Blizzard. They've been doing it since D2.Cody211282 said:
And hell, at least it's not like the N64 days when games cost $80
It isn't 1/3rd of a game, and where did they say that? They're expanding on the concept of the first game's singleplayer tremendously. I've been nothing but pleased with what I've seen of SC2's singleplayer. It could be smoke and mirrors, but I seriously doubt it.
The bad parts of SC2 now are the lack of LAN and Battle.net 2.0. The game itself is shaping up fantastic.
Uh, it's going to be as much the "same story told from three different perspectives" as the first game was? Zerg campaign picks up where Terran campaign ends, Protoss campaign follows suit - maybe with a little bit of overlap?LordNue said:Starcraft 2 is not a trilogy. A trilogy is an overarching story spanning over three different installments each with its own story. Starcraft two is most likely going to be the same story from three different perspectives, that is not a trilogy. It's the same damn game with different characters that they want you to buy three times. By the way, you shouldn't use logical fallacies when trying to defend something you like, it just makes you come across as a raging fanboy.John Funk said:Yeah, it is.LordNue said:
Which is why you should be glad that SC2 is the first, and not the second.
And yes, they are more expensive. So can I assume you've been boycotting Mass Effect and Gears of War then? Or the Half-Life 2 episodes? Trilogies are bad!
It's an intentional logical fallacy, because I think the argument itself is weak. Intentionally absurdist, if you will.
When it's complete. This incremental release thing just irks me. I also hate the lack of lan, but I've got pretty sound reasons for avoiding online play anyway. I never in my life thought I'd be the one to say this, but I'm actually more interested in the new Civ game, and I'm not even really a fan of that series, at least not until recently.
I refuse to have my pocket picked for some withheld map packs and cinematics.
I refuse to have my pocket picked for some withheld map packs and cinematics.
I'm fairly uninterested in the title. I never really cared for the original in terms of it's single player campaign and I don't at all like that particular style of multiplayer RTS. I'll undoubtedly pick it up at some point but I'm not in any hurry.
You should play Perimeter. It's one of the strangest RTSes ever, yet It's pretty fun.geldonyetich said:
That's because they added stuff and shook up how the game was played with every expansion.John Funk said:
Winter Assault: 2 main story lines that branched for 4 different ending and added the IG as a playable race.
Dark Crusade: Completely redid the single player to a more risk like board, added persistent goals and the need to defend areas instead of a linear story mode, added in Tau and Necrons.
Soulstorm: Basically made the risk like map bigger and added Sisters of Battle, oh and bugs. Probably the weakest and least liked DOW yet.
I think that making one game and selling it 3 times and calling the last 2 expansions is sorta BS.
Except... it won't. When did SC1 have a (somewhat) branching storyline? When were you able to fulfill alternate objectives during missions in order to research upgrades and tech for your units in SC1? When were you able to hire mercenaries that include units you couldn't ordinarily build yourselves? (Okay, okay, WC3, fine).Cody211282 said:What I was trying to say is the single player will be mostly the same as the first game, I remember them saying they wanted to keep what worked the same(and lets face it that was damn near everything). Also I'm going to just point out that what LordNue said about it being 1/3rd of a full game is true. They took the full game, cut it up, and are having it come out in 3 parts. That's not a trilogy it's just a fragmented game. Fromw hat I can tell the good old days of blizzard being a company that actually cared is far over, they are up there with Activision for trying to screw people out of money.John Funk said:If you have something against $60 games, then by all means more power to you. I'm just pointing out that this is, unlike how some would claim, not new territory for Blizzard. They've been doing it since D2.Cody211282 said:
And hell, at least it's not like the N64 days when games cost $80
It isn't 1/3rd of a game, and where did they say that? They're expanding on the concept of the first game's singleplayer tremendously. I've been nothing but pleased with what I've seen of SC2's singleplayer. It could be smoke and mirrors, but I seriously doubt it.
The bad parts of SC2 now are the lack of LAN and Battle.net 2.0. The game itself is shaping up fantastic.
It may have started as one game, but that was a very old design plan. I would be very surprised if they'd even moved beyond general concepting on how they're going to do the Zerg expansion.
It's one full game with two full-length expansions.
I mean, I hate to pull the "industry" card because it does seem like a cheap trick, but every time I've talked with the Blizzard guys I've come away with nothing but the impression that they genuinely think this is the best way to do the game quality-wise. And designers/artists/etc aren't very good at doublespeak - that's what PR people are for
Not that DoW was bad, but I remember the expansions introducing some imbalance issues (For multiplayer anyways), which usually comes as a disadvantage to introducing new races in any RTS.Cody211282 said:
True they sorta did, the didn't bug me so much as if they hadn't changed anything. But then again i don't play multiplayer oh so much so that might be why to.TerranReaper said:
There is absolutely no doubt I'll be buying the game eventually, if not perhaps right away since I'm a bit short on cash these days.
To be honest I find the entire 'controversy' around Starcraft 2, demonstrated by this very topic, to be often ridiculous and puerile. Just as often also completely misinformed as well, such as with the whole 'trilogy' thing. Oh No, the game will have expansion packs, the end is nigh surely this is a sure sign of the apocalypse... oh wait, Blizzard nearly always release expansions for their games, the only difference being that this time they had the misguided optimism to announce them in advance.
Welp, don't worry, you showed them.
I can understand why many people wont like the game, no one game no matter how well made can appeal to everyone. But damn, give the game a chance before decry it at least!
The game isn't even out yet, and everything so far indicates it'll be fantastic. I'm not a big fan of the Starcraft rts treatment, and have never been a fan of playing such games multiplayer. But even so I've played the beta and there's absolutely no denying this is one slick piece of work. Then you've got previews and people who've had much more experience with the game, such as John Funk in this very topic, saying that it looks like it'll be grand. And on top of even that, this is Blizzard we're talking about here, they've never released an unfinished product. Indeed they're the only developer I can think of that not once, but twice have canceled games that were already years into development and in a playable state not out of funding problems, but because they didn't live up to the companies high standards.
How much more evidence does one need that this is the 'real deal'? Don't see any reason why a fan of rts wouldn't want to check it out.
But maybe I'm just having an odd burst of optimism. Happens every once and awhile, even to me!
To be honest I find the entire 'controversy' around Starcraft 2, demonstrated by this very topic, to be often ridiculous and puerile. Just as often also completely misinformed as well, such as with the whole 'trilogy' thing. Oh No, the game will have expansion packs, the end is nigh surely this is a sure sign of the apocalypse... oh wait, Blizzard nearly always release expansions for their games, the only difference being that this time they had the misguided optimism to announce them in advance.
Welp, don't worry, you showed them.
I can understand why many people wont like the game, no one game no matter how well made can appeal to everyone. But damn, give the game a chance before decry it at least!
The game isn't even out yet, and everything so far indicates it'll be fantastic. I'm not a big fan of the Starcraft rts treatment, and have never been a fan of playing such games multiplayer. But even so I've played the beta and there's absolutely no denying this is one slick piece of work. Then you've got previews and people who've had much more experience with the game, such as John Funk in this very topic, saying that it looks like it'll be grand. And on top of even that, this is Blizzard we're talking about here, they've never released an unfinished product. Indeed they're the only developer I can think of that not once, but twice have canceled games that were already years into development and in a playable state not out of funding problems, but because they didn't live up to the companies high standards.
How much more evidence does one need that this is the 'real deal'? Don't see any reason why a fan of rts wouldn't want to check it out.
But maybe I'm just having an odd burst of optimism. Happens every once and awhile, even to me!
