Star Craft II- Is there anyone who will not be getting this game?

[Cody211282]

Of course they think it's a good idea, hell most people probably want an eternity to fine polish the game, but guess what as Duke Nukem Forever showed us, you don't get forever(and they have had just about the same amount of time). At this point they are just breaking the game up into 3 parts because they know it will still sell like weed at a Bob Marly concert even if they broke it down in to 6 parts. And no it's not a game and 2 expansions, it's one game over 3 parts, nothing new is added, all they are doing is not letting you play the Protoss and Zerg campaigns because gamers in general will pay damn near anything for one of their games. Thank god Valve doesn't think like them(but does work about as fast).

Name your sources, because otherwise it just sounds like you're making things up for the sake of generic internet rage fodder. How do you know the expansions will add nothing new? Give links, sources, proof.

Have you played the game? Talked to the developers? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't? Because otherwise I'm more inclined to believe the people who actually have talked with the developers and seen the full product, and they all seem to say otherwise.

I'm saying it because they don't have time to change up the gameplay, they will add a story and maybe a few new guys to the mix but that's it, no new races no new units(as far as I know).

 

[nofear220]

I can't.

I don't have a computer or the money to dump into a suitable device to run the game.

You know you could run starcraft 2 on a $200 computer... I wouldnt call it graphics intensive. I for one will not be getting it for the fact that Im just not fond of any RTS game.

 

[Canid117]

I planed on getting Starcraft 2 then have a blast with my friends,but i heard rumor about Starcraft 2 won't have Lan support,and that's pretty much holding me back from "definitely gonna get it"

That isn't a rumor it has been confirmed by Blizzard.

http://e3.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/696991/blizzard-explains-starcraft-iis-lack-of-lan-support.html

 

[Marter]

I won't be getting it. I never played the first StarCraft, and this one doesn't interest me in the slightest.

 

[John Funk]

That's pretty much what happened, as far as we've been told and one guy has even quoted it, it's just one game cut into thirds with different perspectives. If you have any proof otherwise then please share it.
But really dude, chill. People just said they don't like the whole 3 games thing and you jumped down their throats like and alien face hugger. No one really attacked you or your precious game, no need to be an ass over video games.

They've also said that they're not even thinking about (well, probably THINKING about, but not working on) the Zerg and Protoss campaigns until SC2T is out the door. Which is pretty poor form if they were just chopping up one game into three pieces.

Nobody's attacking anyone. It's an argument that I find tiresome, and posted my thoughts as others posted theirs. Read into them whatever you will, but if you want to yell at people to 'chill' you're barking up the wrong tree. Slightly facetious civility is still civility.

If you find it tiresome then why bother coming to a topic about reasons why people are not buying the game? It's unlikely your evidence less whining and fan boyish aggressive behaviors will convince anyone anything other then "If this is the kind of person who plays this game I'm glad I'm not getting it". And even if it's sarcastic or intentional, using a logical fallacy will never make your argument seem credible in any way.

Evidence-less whining? I'm far too tired to hunt for quotes, but everything I've said has come from the developers of the game. I've been following this game for quite some time; I'm pretty sure I know what they're intending on doing better than people who haven't been.

For all I disagree with him often, at least Dexter knows what he's talking about. What gets my goat about the trilogy argument is that it's almost always borne from ignorance and people not knowing the actual facts.

And once again, politeness is key. You can disagree, you can disagree SARCASTICALLY, but be polite. I'm just going to remind you, because this goes for you too.

SC1 had a something like that, in the Terran campaign of the expansion(you got to choose if you killed the nukes or the battlecruisers and had to fight off the others in the next mission, not exactly a good example but still it was an idea they have had for a time). Unless this is Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol like branching story lines, then it's probably nothing all that hard to implement.

Of course they think it's a good idea, hell most people probably want an eternity to fine polish the game, but guess what as Duke Nukem Forever showed us, you don't get forever(and they have had just about the same amount of time). At this point they are just breaking the game up into 3 parts because they know it will still sell like weed at a Bob Marly concert even if they broke it down in to 6 parts. And no it's not a game and 2 expansions, it's one game over 3 parts, nothing new is added, all they are doing is not letting you play the Protoss and Zerg campaigns because gamers in general will pay damn near anything for one of their games. Thank god Valve doesn't think like them(but does work about as fast).

When I say branching, my guess is more like DOW2. Different missions you can choose from, that affect the storyline in minor ways.

And, uh, nothing new is added? Other than whole new campaign mechanics (Kerrigan isn't going to be talking to her Hydralisk lieutenant and going down to the Tech Officer in the Zerg Engineering Bay to request upgrades) and new units that always come with Blizzard expansions? What?

 

[firedfns13]

I won't be. I love RTS games, but after Company of Heroes, I can't go back to the former style. It's too simplified, and the new Starcraft seems like a 3D remake of it, with some minor changes in the units.

I want a modern CoH, with 9+ variants of the HMMWV

 

[The Madman]

I'm saying it because they don't have time to change up the gameplay, they will add a story and maybe a few new guys to the mix but that's it, no new races no new units(as far as I know).

Actually, a quick google search says you're misinformed, and that Blizzard has every intention of introducing new units throughout the expansions as well as refining the games overall quality.

'Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void are considered to be expansion sets[25] and will be priced as such.[20]

Each will upgrade and expand multiplayer content in addition to containing a campaign,[29] such as the possibility of new units, abilities and structures.[25] New units available in the expansions can only be accessed if a player buys the expansion. Each product would have upgrades to the multiplayer, "that's the whole point of the expansion or the second part".[30] Each race will be enhanced in some way.[31]

Blizzard plans on adding "drawing" functionality for referees in Heart of the Swarm.[32]

Source. The websites own sources are listed as well, obviously.

And if you complain about the 'can only be accessed' bit, then I'd like to point out that that's how every single expansion out there works, including those of Relic games and the previous Blizzard RTS games.

I'm still not seeing any reason why people are so up in arms about this.

 

[Miumaru]

Me. Not because I do not want it though.

 

[Jfswift]

I probably won't, I'm also likely the only person on the planet not to have played 1 either (warcraft 2 was fun though)

 

[King Kupofried]

A few years ago I would've done anything to get my hands on Star Craft II, but I will not be picking it up now.
Separating the campaigns into three fully priced games struck me badly, I am one of those people who had more fun with the offline campaigns than the online games (Because I'm awful at RTS) but I still loved the game, knowing that in order to get the same experience than both Star Craft and the expansion brought me (Three full campaigns each) I'd have to spend $180 (That is, if as assumed, all three are equally priced).
The original and it's expansion cost me a total of I think $60, the price versus the content is simply not worth it to me anymore. Not to say that this one coming out does seem like it has a significant amount of content, but the options I had from the previous game seem much more vibrant and it feels like it was just chopped up for the sake of wringing more money out of it.

 

[ShockValue]

I won't be getting it. I was never really into real time strategy games.

 

[Wilbot666]

I probably won't be getting SC 2. It's not that i dislike the universe of SC or anything, it's more that I totally suck at RTS games if I don't cheat.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

I won't. I never played the first one, and I find Command and Conquer games to be a good enough RTS for me.

 

[kimba_lion]

dont kill me!!!

but i never got inot the game and a game that takes this many years to wait for seems not to be worth it...

 

[TheTim]

uhhh me because i only play warcraft 3 or company of heroes,

didn't care for starcraft.

 

[mew4ever23]

I'm not into RTS's enough for Starcraft or it's sequel.

 

[somedarnguy]

I shall not be getting Starcraft 2. I loved Starcraft, still play it every now and then, but I have not had any interest in Starcraft 2 since 29 June 2009.