But looking slick isn't exactly the be all, end all. Their other game has been around 10 years for a reason. Being slick isn't all there is to it. And I have played that old game, and still own it. I have also owned other RTSs in that time, and enjoyed them.
But you are also showing what the problem is. You are taking what they put in front of you as their very best product. I KNOW that they can do Battlenet 2.0 better. Much Better. I know that right now the modding community is quite unhappy with how things look for them. And they are what kept Blizzard going. They are what made custom maps, shunning them is like punching the guy who returns your wallet to you. You can do it, but you're an ass for doing so.
And that Final Date is looming close.....I doubt they have given themselves the time they need to make it all right before release. Which would be slightly disastrous...because people will still buy it.
B.Net 2.0 has a lot of room for improvement, no one's going to deny that. However, it didn't take Starcraft 1 to get to where it's at overnight. It may take a few patches or even until the next expansion to perfect it. In any case, if Blizzard can keep their shit together, then Starcraft 2 should be fine.
UnusualStranger said:
Not G. Ivingname said:
I can understand. Getting killed within the first five minutes because somebody managed to baingling bust their way into your base and just slaughter you in a brief moment when you just got your second base up and you were creating troops isn't fun is it?
Although it is quite funny win by landing your Command Center next to an enemy Protoss player and converting it into a Plantary Fortress before their very eyes.
Hehe.....I have watched some replays. Good times indeed! Absurdity is great.
But the thing is, it just seems too fast and far too much dedication for me. I play games in a very casual manner (Which is why I like single player.) Building an army of....mass reaper just for the hell of it. I can't ever play with Dark Templar because they are so high up in tech and cash that I am usually being blasted before I can get to them.
And others seem to put the APM of 150 behind the game. That just sounds like they are working on this game, not really having fun.
I mean, the game is supposed to be fun, right?
True and at the same time, false. APM isn't everything, it doesn't determine if you are better or worse. I personally have an APM of around 120 (Or so says the counter anyways) and I've lost to people with lower APM than me. The common misconception is that people think that it's all on the APM, when the APM is really just the execution of the strategy that you intend to use, as well as the control of your units. You can have a high APM but no idea on what to do and no grasp on the things that you need to do in order to succeed.
UnusualStranger said:
DrEmo said:
Blizzard knows this and embraced it when making SCII. The game is not easy for newcomers but what'd you expect? It's a PC RTS, the sequel to a highly technical/beloved decade old game. I like SCII even if I get my butt handed to me on a silver platter on every single match.
Right here is the biggest problem I have. Your game isn't all that amazing if only those with those skills can possibly stand a chance. No game should be to the point in which newcomers have no chance of winning. It just sounds like a hopeless situation.
Ranked ladders are here for a reason, but I do see your point. The thing is, you cannot have a game where this is probably not the case. Given enough time, a game will evolve to the point where the communities of that game will have develop skills that any newcomer will have an extremely hard time of competing against. Even if newer games are made, these "pros" will probably migrate and take their skills to these other games. At the current moment, the ranked ladders are already made so they seperate different skill levels (Surely you must know this by now). It is inevitable that any newcomer will be crushed, but if they are willing to learn, then there is no problem.
Your probably right, in that: if the game doesn't live up to expectations or comes under attack from critics for whatever reason, that the RTS fans out there will buy it immediately and not wait on a patch to fix the issues, which of course means the issues won't be fixed because they are NOT reducing the game's profitability.
In my case, not being an RTS fan but a fan of WC3 custom games. If I hear the game editor is bad, or the custom game base is limited, or anything other than its surpassed WC3's custom game level, in all ways, then I won't be buying it.
Well, there IS a singleplayer campaign than most people seem to be forgetting about...
I'll stick to that, and not worry about professional online matches.
A lot of people seem to fear the community of those that have played the first game for a very long time. Are we forgetting how b.net 2.0 is set up? Wasn't it made to place you in with people your own skill level? That and they have a practice mode that's set for a lower speed for those just learning the game to play at a slower pace.
There is a lot that Blizzard is doing to make the game friendly for newcomers that I feel that a lot of people are overlooking... If you call me a die-hard fan willing to protect the game at any cost for posting this, then I must call you silly, because these things are in the game. I haven't got the chance to play the Beta due to financial issues, but I am still aware of these facts.
They lost my immediate sale when they announced the game would be in three parts. I honestly don't care how amazing the 30 level Terran campaign will be, the biggest draw of the first game was the fact that it had three different races and campaigns right out of the box. If they release all three campaigns in a $50 set then I'll buy it, but I have a feeling I'll be waiting to play Starcraft 2 for about 4 more years.
Without commenting on the quality of the game at all, I am not sure your logic tracks very well.
Here is what I am reading:
"Since the game is guaranteed to make money regardless of quality and the creators know that it will make money regardless of quality, they will glaze over any flaws in design (or implementation, sounds like). Since they know that they can release crap and still be successful, they will release crap."
That last bit is a bit loose on what you said, I know, but saying it like that is the most concise way of putting what I'm getting at. I'll leave it to others to bring in pudding (where the proof is), I'm just noting that you left out a step or two.
Without commenting on the quality of the game at all, I am not sure your logic tracks very well.
Here is what I am reading:
"Since the game is guaranteed to make money regardless of quality and the creators know that it will make money regardless of quality, they will glaze over any flaws in design (or implementation, sounds like). Since they know that they can release crap and still be successful, they will release crap."
That last bit is a bit loose on what you said, I know, but saying it like that is the most concise way of putting what I'm getting at. I'll leave it to others to bring in pudding (where the proof is), I'm just noting that you left out a step or two.
They lost my immediate sale when they announced the game would be in three parts. I honestly don't care how amazing the 30 level Terran campaign will be, the biggest draw of the first game was the fact that it had three different races and campaigns right out of the box. If they release all three campaigns in a $50 set then I'll buy it, but I have a feeling I'll be waiting to play Starcraft 2 for about 4 more years.
There were several Starcraft and Brood war single player campaign levels that consisted of playing both the race you chose plus another race there to help you with the task, for example
The last level of the protoss campaign where the Terran helped you take down the Overmind.
To have 30 some levels of a single player campaign dedicated to strictly 1 race would be silly. I myself came to the conclusion that they would have several of these levels that involve playing with multiple races when they announced that they were splitting it into 3 parts. It would be a great way to introduce the new units they made for the Zerg and Protoss races for Starcraft 2.
Not to mention that I've heard they were giving the players of the single player campaign the ability to use units from Starcraft 1 that were taken out of the Starcraft 2 multiplayer.
Actually, the game didn't change at all in its core gameplay. It is no different from SC1, it is more like expansion, that removed some units, added some other and updated graphics to current standards. It is essentially the same starcraft, looking different.
You play, win and loose in the very same way as you did in SC1. Sure strategies needed tweaks, 6pooling is not that good anymore, Queens can vomit larvas allowing really silly gimmicks in zerg late game, Warp Gates for Protoss are amazing tool and Terrans got M.U.L.E.'s and Depots that can be used as blocks.
But yeah. Thats about what changed. Avarage player that doesn't bother with competitive multiplayer will have hard time using those properly. But hey, it is the reason why multiplayer is competitive.
RTSes that build their community around multiplayer are similar to shooters in that regard. You either are good at it, or you can't hope for much. Was like that in SC1, WC3, DoW, CoH, DoW2 and now SC2. In all those games, if you don't know some game specific laws of gameplay, you will get stomped in first minutes. All those games are based on build orders and transitions between different unit productions.
Most people will buy SC2 because it is SC2. Majority won't ever play competitive multiplayer as was the case with all previous RTSes. They will play singleplayer, they will play co-op AI-stomps with friends, they will play mod maps like DotA, if someone manages to get one past the idiotic Battle.Net 2.0 limitations. That is how 'casuals' play RTSes.
So you're accusing a company that spends years developing games before even announcing them, then years working on them before they announce a release date, then at least 5 delays of said release date... of not caring about the quality of their games? 0_o
I have a issue with this one sentence. This isn't Blizzard anymore. A lot of people have thrown around the fact that "This is Blizzard. They do no wrong". They merged with Activision remember and are not a seperate thing. People think its a two headed monster thing with them and its not. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that blizzard want to make money just as much. Yes, they take a lot of time to make things but thats there way of doing things (And i respect them more for it) but don't cut half of there new joint group because you don't like the link.
Starcraft 2 was FUNDED by Activision as well as themselfs. I doubt greatly the 100 million used to put Battle.Net and the rest together was simply from Blizzard. If it was, WoW would of been paying for another game outside of itself which i don't think a lot of WoW players would of liked. The issue i have with Starcraft does come from what someone said before. Its Multiplayer seems built only for pro gamer types and not us common folk. I cheated to finish the first game. Il admit that. I play league of legends and other RTS style games. Im not worried about competitive play. What i am worried about is the fact that this game seems very simply set in a way that im not part of. Its for Korea and the pro gamers.
While you can also say "You have single player"...so do they, but none of us are daunted by single player now are we. Id need proof that the multi was fair to all players of all skill levels before i even think of buying this right now. I resubs to WoW because of the cataclysm stuff. Il admit, thats a direction i like to see with a game gone stale. Half kill it and reinvent it with all the know how you've gotten over the years. Even Diablo seems to go that way. Starcraft doesn't seem to of moved...at all....ever.
Judging by the INCREDIBLE quality in the beta I've seen so far, I have no doubts that this is Blizzard's top-notch work. Seriously, this is the most polished beta I've ever participated in.
Also, there's no such thing as "catering too much to good players". That's what EVERY game company should do. If only Blizzard would apply that philosophy to WoW, maybe there'd be less mouth-breathers spamming trade chat with non-sense.
I have a issue with this one sentence. This isn't Blizzard anymore. A lot of people have thrown around the fact that "This is Blizzard. They do no wrong". They merged with Activision remember and are not a seperate thing. People think its a two headed monster thing with them and its not. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that blizzard want to make money just as much. Yes, they take a lot of time to make things but thats there way of doing things (And i respect them more for it) but don't cut half of there new joint group because you don't like the link.
Starcraft 2 was FUNDED by Activision as well as themselfs. I doubt greatly the 100 million used to put Battle.Net and the rest together was simply from Blizzard. If it was, WoW would of been paying for another game outside of itself which i don't think a lot of WoW players would of liked. The issue i have with Starcraft does come from what someone said before. Its Multiplayer seems built only for pro gamer types and not us common folk. I cheated to finish the first game. Il admit that. I play league of legends and other RTS style games. Im not worried about competitive play. What i am worried about is the fact that this game seems very simply set in a way that im not part of. Its for Korea and the pro gamers.
While you can also say "You have single player"...so do they, but none of us are daunted by single player now are we. Id need proof that the multi was fair to all players of all skill levels before i even think of buying this right now. I resubs to WoW because of the cataclysm stuff. Il admit, thats a direction i like to see with a game gone stale. Half kill it and reinvent it with all the know how you've gotten over the years. Even Diablo seems to go that way. Starcraft doesn't seem to of moved...at all....ever.
Starcraft 2 is fine.....just that B.N.2.0 sucks....I have a beta key, but hell I can't play it because the region locks me into Korean.....WTF, I don't understand a single word....
RTSes that build their community around multiplayer are similar to shooters in that regard. You either are good at it, or you can't hope for much. Was like that in SC1, WC3, DoW, CoH, DoW2 and now SC2. In all those games, if you don't know some game specific laws of gameplay, you will get stomped in first minutes. All those games are based on build orders and transitions between different unit productions.
Thank you for posting this, I've wanted to say this in several of my earlier posts but couldn't find the correct wording.
It's not like the core of the community isn't willing to share their strategies either. One quick google search or even a youtube search will help you learn a thing or 2 about the game that those from the community have taken the time to type out or film to help those who are struggling with build orders.
Heck, you can find that with just about any multiplayer game to be honest. When I first got Team Fortress 2 not so long ago, I was a HORRIBLE spy! I decided... Okay I need to learn a thing or two or I'm not going to get far with this class. So I decided to hop onto youtube, did a quick search, and now I am playing the spy as if I owned the game for several years now.
The same could be done with Starcraft 2! I did a google search for Zerg strategies when I played Brood Wars a lot, it has helped my game play a lot, and a lot of people out there will share their knowledge of the game to help improve your APM as well. Heck, there are even communities out there where people will take you in game to teach you things about it so you can play at a level you didn't even think you would reach.
I feel that starcraft 2's community is different from other gaming communities where there are a LOT of players out there that will are overall noob friendly. So the fear of getting falcon punched in the game should only exist if you don't take the time to search for help when/if needed. Even if you don't wish to take the time to do all that, they still have things in game to help newcomers. IE this video
Though I'm sure there will be people out there that will say that "You shouldn't need help to learn how to play the game at the level that most people play at." I fully disagree with this. In almost every multiplayer game I have ever participated in, I would play for a bit, take a break and go on and search up little tips and tricks that would help me improve in the game.
There is always something to be learned in a multiplayer game, and I myself have taught people how to play games before. Even when I was teaching, I was still learning new things that I have never discovered before, then I would practice them and perfect them in my own little way.
Heck, there are people out there that have published books on CoD4 that contain tiny little details about the game that the majority of the community doesn't know about.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
