Starcraft 2: Crap....you will buy it anways.
- Thread starter UnusualStranger
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Starcraft 2: Awesome so I will buy it. I lucked into the demo for the past two weeks because I have a crappy computer. I wasn't particularly good to begin with, as I had never played an RTS other than the first one for about two weeks. Yet I love the game. And I thought I would hate the series altogether.
Battlenet2.0 ... Yeah, I don't know. Didn't they make no LAN to prevent pirates? Most of the other junk people are complaining about, I don't really care. I'll probably just play with friends or randomly pub a 1v1 or 2v2, so problems with guilds and all that don't matter to me. The country isolation? Eh, kind of disappointing, but at least now I won't wander into some SK pro's domain and die in three minutes to an army of Thors.
Battlenet2.0 ... Yeah, I don't know. Didn't they make no LAN to prevent pirates? Most of the other junk people are complaining about, I don't really care. I'll probably just play with friends or randomly pub a 1v1 or 2v2, so problems with guilds and all that don't matter to me. The country isolation? Eh, kind of disappointing, but at least now I won't wander into some SK pro's domain and die in three minutes to an army of Thors.
Heh, I already used my key, and everyone here keeps missing where I say I think the game is fine. I just worry that they are scraping by with what they want.BlindMessiah94 said:
Excellent point. However, I am unfamiliar with how long it actually took Starcraft to become a competitive thing there.Internet Kraken said:
But you have restored my faith, if only slightly.
Again, saying the game is near perfect is the problem. I think everyone is putting what they were given on a high horse without checking to see if the horse has legs.Kaill said:
However, I am just going to assume you have never done a LAN party. The connection is dependable all the time, and it is fun to have the guy you are fighting a few feet away so you can chat normally later.
LAN is sometimes what makes some computer games so awesome, and really helps laptop sales!
Just because I have never failed in riding an elevator doesn't mean that the elevator will never fail while I am in it.Tzekelkan said:
Odd sayings aside, you are doing exactly what I don't want people to do. You are taking what you are given and calling it good when you actually could have gotten more. LAN support, or other improvements can be gotten.
I see what you mean. I used to play Starcraft LAN with my neighbours, but then I moved out of the country so the best LAN we could get is Hamachi.UnusualStranger said:
But if you know a way to get full LAN support instead of pseudo-LAN support from Blizzard, then I'm all for it. I'd love me some of that, but I don't think it's realistic to get your hopes so high.
I hate having to compromise as much as you, but I can't help but be grateful that we don't have to play the singleplayer online all the time, that we don't get limited installs, that it doesn't have to phone home every 10 days etc. It could be worse.
And about the continent-wide only servers... that's really strange, though I remember hearing somewhere that it would be only temporary? I don't know, kinda sucks.
Can the popularity of Starcraft cause Blizzard to release a crappy sequel that will sell millions regardless? I think the possibilty does exist. I call it "George Lucasing" and it makes all your favorite things suck.
However, the backlash for doing things like that can be pretty severe. Imagine, if Stracraft 2 totally sucked and erveryone hated it then nobody would play it. All the money for development and marketing is shot to hell. They don't make a good profit and have no money on hand to invest in another WoW expansion. The entire world ceases to rotate and we are flung off the surface of the planet by the sudden stop. Anybody who manages to hold themselves to the surface (guys who own those velcro suit and inflatable wall things) will be devoured by a plague of locusts o'er the land. The locusts will be killed by global warming. Earth's orbit will deteriorate preventing evolution from having a chance to repopulate the planet as it crashes into the sun.
And so you see, if Starcraft 2 sucks all life in our galaxy will be snuffed out in 72 hours.
However, the backlash for doing things like that can be pretty severe. Imagine, if Stracraft 2 totally sucked and erveryone hated it then nobody would play it. All the money for development and marketing is shot to hell. They don't make a good profit and have no money on hand to invest in another WoW expansion. The entire world ceases to rotate and we are flung off the surface of the planet by the sudden stop. Anybody who manages to hold themselves to the surface (guys who own those velcro suit and inflatable wall things) will be devoured by a plague of locusts o'er the land. The locusts will be killed by global warming. Earth's orbit will deteriorate preventing evolution from having a chance to repopulate the planet as it crashes into the sun.
And so you see, if Starcraft 2 sucks all life in our galaxy will be snuffed out in 72 hours.
I've tried to play 4 games so far of the beta. Won the first because the guy was trying to build a bunch of carriers like a noob and I took them out with marines lol. So he left. That was fun. The, I bought a second 5850 for crossfire and tried to play. Well, turns out SC2 doesn't like crossfire so I get invisible areas on the map like invisible crystals and if I send units into these invisible zones they can pass through but if they stop, I can no longer select them. So yea that sucked and used up my next 2 games which I quit within 5 mins due to brokennes. And finally I grudgingly disabled crossfire and got about 10 mins in and then BSOD - although that one was my fault for not fully checking stability yet.
Anyway, given that I've really only got 1 game under my belt I can't comment much on balance but regardless I really like what they've done with it and am certainly looking forward to it's release. I don't care about LAN. I like the competitive Bnet AND that it classes you with equivalent competitors. Takes some of that fear out of it lol. And of course there's still use map setting games and players vs computer if you want (I think I saw that) so really I have no complaints. Looks great, can't wait, quit your bitching
Anyway, given that I've really only got 1 game under my belt I can't comment much on balance but regardless I really like what they've done with it and am certainly looking forward to it's release. I don't care about LAN. I like the competitive Bnet AND that it classes you with equivalent competitors. Takes some of that fear out of it lol. And of course there's still use map setting games and players vs computer if you want (I think I saw that) so really I have no complaints. Looks great, can't wait, quit your bitching
Not being a programmer keeps me from understanding what it takes for a game to support LAN. Darn.Tzekelkan said:
Anyway, I find you looking at very limited examples of the scenarios you listed. I'm pretty sure the games that did that got a lot of bad press, as did the companies who did them. Meaning the chances of it happening to Starcraft 2 were pretty minimal.
And I hope that the continental thing is temporary. Because the original is continental, and the second one not being so seems like a step backwards.
So, I take it I should begin making offerings to the gaming gods requesting that they bless the Starcraft 2 so that the world does not stop spinning and the Earth is destroyed?Treeinthewoods said:
Because that just sounds like a bad day.
Seriously though, I think you summed it up perfectly. George Lucasing. You should trademark that.
I did not say it sucks. I am trying to make you read. READ DAMMIT! I SAID IT WAS A FINE GAME!Xzi said:
What I was getting at is that the game might not be as good as it could be because people will simply pick it up because it is Starcraft 2, and so damned popular.
And hoping that someone will figure out LAN is not how it is supposed to be. If LAN is still going to be put in the game by other means, shouldn't it be put in by the game creators?
Though I do know being placed in a lower league. I like that. Its a good change, especially if you want to rise through the ranks and all that stuff.
Especially since they fixed the points system where everyone started at 1000 I think it was? Meaning you would HAVE to get slaughtered by experienced players before finally getting to your level of play.
So your main complaint is, literally, that it is 'too popular'.
I'm sorry, but that's just silly to my thinking. Sometimes things become popular for a reason, not always mind you, but sometimes. This is one of those cases. Starcraft is popular because it's damn good, and judging from what I've played from the Starcraft 2 beta, it's likely to continue the trend of being damn good to a new generation of gamers.
Could Blizzard lax off and release a subpar product relying solely on the brand name recognition for advertising and sales? Sure they could, plenty of other studios have done that and will continue to do so for years to come. But this is 'BLIZZARD' we're talking about here, the developer that continues to release patches and new content for games they released over ten years ago. I know it's been quite a long time since they released anything new and everyone and their pet dog likes to bash World of Warcraft because it's the cool thing to do on the internet, but we're talking about the only developer I know of which has not once, but *twice* canceled production of a game not because they ran out of funds but because the games in question didn't live up to the developers high standards. And we're not talking about games that were still in the 'what if' phases here, we're talking once which have already had years worth of time and money invested into their development.
If there's any developer out there who you can trust not to release a sub-par game, I suspect Blizzard is it! I'm not even a huge fan of em, never did buy Diablo 2 for example, just borrowed it from a friend. But damn, they've got one of the best reputation in the business.
Besides, as mentioned, I've played the Starcraft 2 beta. Not really to my tastes, I never was into Starcraft multiplayer. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't one of the most slick and polished games I've ever seen and, amazingly enough, this is still considered a beta! Sweet Bouncing Balloons Batman, that's insane!
One game can't appeal to everyone though, no matter how polished. Maybe you're just like me and don't really suit the multiplayer scene? Doesn't make the game itself any less amazing, just not my style and perhaps not yours either. No shame in that!
I'm sorry, but that's just silly to my thinking. Sometimes things become popular for a reason, not always mind you, but sometimes. This is one of those cases. Starcraft is popular because it's damn good, and judging from what I've played from the Starcraft 2 beta, it's likely to continue the trend of being damn good to a new generation of gamers.
Could Blizzard lax off and release a subpar product relying solely on the brand name recognition for advertising and sales? Sure they could, plenty of other studios have done that and will continue to do so for years to come. But this is 'BLIZZARD' we're talking about here, the developer that continues to release patches and new content for games they released over ten years ago. I know it's been quite a long time since they released anything new and everyone and their pet dog likes to bash World of Warcraft because it's the cool thing to do on the internet, but we're talking about the only developer I know of which has not once, but *twice* canceled production of a game not because they ran out of funds but because the games in question didn't live up to the developers high standards. And we're not talking about games that were still in the 'what if' phases here, we're talking once which have already had years worth of time and money invested into their development.
If there's any developer out there who you can trust not to release a sub-par game, I suspect Blizzard is it! I'm not even a huge fan of em, never did buy Diablo 2 for example, just borrowed it from a friend. But damn, they've got one of the best reputation in the business.
Besides, as mentioned, I've played the Starcraft 2 beta. Not really to my tastes, I never was into Starcraft multiplayer. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't one of the most slick and polished games I've ever seen and, amazingly enough, this is still considered a beta! Sweet Bouncing Balloons Batman, that's insane!
One game can't appeal to everyone though, no matter how polished. Maybe you're just like me and don't really suit the multiplayer scene? Doesn't make the game itself any less amazing, just not my style and perhaps not yours either. No shame in that!
Er, sorry, when I said "the fallout", I meant "the potential backlash when the game is released (e.g. due to Battle.net 2.0 etc)" and not the Fallout series.666Chaos said:
That said, I really should invest in Fallout 1 & 2 off GOG, and Fallout 3 GoTY is on my list of Games To Buy When I Have A New PC. So, yeah. (Excuse the off-topic post)
If the beta is any indication, it will be. It's already far better than I expected.UnusualStranger said:
Vow, what a shameful word it is. Alas, I daresay that weakness of the spirit shall be superior, as it has always been.Internet Kraken said:
No worries man.Delusibeta said:
To continue the offtopicness, I would suggest #1 in all its oldstyle and well done glory, but #2 just doesn't seem the greatest...maybe its because the world seems so much larger, but thats just me.
OT: So far, Battle.net 2.0 seems to be the biggest gripe at the moment. While it is in beta, it really doesn't seem to be much an improvement to me. Especially after the dreaded 13 patch.
I'm actually really enjoying the beta. I'm loving the changes that have been made towards the game, making it come more alive and fearsome than before. I liked the FFA for a while, because it was unranked. But when I turned to the melee stuff, I hated it. I'm not very good with multiplayer, and I wish I could get better at it. But when I set myself against an easy computer to give me some time to look at the new units, I could see that the amount of time that Blizzard spent in developing new units, graphics, physics engines, and special effects was well worth it.
With that being said, I'm looking forward for the single player mode and the MAP EDITOR!!! I have so many nerdy ideas with sci-fi themes that I want to integrate into maps!
With that being said, I'm looking forward for the single player mode and the MAP EDITOR!!! I have so many nerdy ideas with sci-fi themes that I want to integrate into maps!
Blizzard's insanely high quality standards go hand-in-hand with their staunch refusal to innovate anything. They've created a grand total of three licenses and three games in their now-long history, each of these repackaged 3-4 times by now. I'm not condemning their approach, really, but I'm not going to pretend they're god's gift to game development either. People are geeking out about SC2 and D2, and they have every right to, but none of them can argue that these aren't 3D facelifts for games they've already played.