# Problem: StarCraft II sucks.  Solution: Ban game-reviews.



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2010)

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/07/23/no-starcraft-2-reviews-before-lunch/

Really?  No reviews at all before the game is released? I detect major fail with this game...


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 23, 2010)

Why? Beta is out there, and many media outlets are talking about it. Over-react much?


----------



## Marineborn (Jul 23, 2010)

the game is no  diffrent then the first with updated graphics sure glad it took so, long, FAIL EPIC FAIL PEICE OF SHIT! sorry i have really started to dislike tactics of blizzard. i refuse to buy anything from them anymore.


----------



## erocker (Jul 23, 2010)

I don't care for Starcraft, but after playing the beta I think people who do enjoy this type of game will be pleased.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 23, 2010)

Marineborn said:


> the game is no  diffrent then the first with updated graphics sure glad it took so, long, FAIL EPIC FAIL PEICE OF SHIT! sorry i have really started to dislike tactics of blizzard. i refuse to buy anything from them anymore.



I can't believe you expected more.

This is the first of three installments for StarCarft, as far as I understand, so it's not even the complete game, as most "traditional" gamers would consider it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Why? Beta is out there, and many media outlets are talking about it. Over-react much?



But the beta is not the final game.  There really isn't any other good reason to not allow reviews other than being scared of what the reviews have to say.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 23, 2010)

Yeah, I agree. I don't think that's the reason though.


Of course, I'm ignoring that little else makes sense.... but the whole thing surrounding this title doesn't make sense to me. This was never a day-one purchase for me. There aren't many choices in this genre, so I'll buy anyway, no matter what reviews say. If I like it...then I'll buy two or more.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 23, 2010)

Marineborn said:


> the game is no  diffrent then the first with updated graphics sure glad it took so, long, FAIL EPIC FAIL PEICE OF SHIT! sorry i have really started to dislike tactics of blizzard. i refuse to buy anything from them anymore.



Were you really expecting SCII to be that dramatically different from the first?, i think Blizzard really wants to have that stable fanbase from the first to be able to mirgrate easier, if they decided to go all out and create a drastically different feel for the game, it'd be to risky for such a high profile game. Instead the best thing to do is create the same kind of ''base'' as the first, but instead build upon it without turning people off.




erocker said:


> I don't care for Starcraft, but after playing the beta I think people who do enjoy this type of game will be pleased.



Agreed,


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 23, 2010)

what i laugh more about is the 3 seperate campaigns over time at $60 each so to own all of SC2 you gotta spend $180 and the new battlenet means any user mods are completely owned by blizzard and they can charge for user mods. Said mod makers have no choice in the matter either


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 23, 2010)

So let me get this straight, they are not offering a demo?


----------



## Depth (Jul 24, 2010)

One DVD per campaign, three parts of a massive game. Can't wait


----------



## Jaffakeik (Jul 24, 2010)

Never played any of blizzard strategy games.But this was kind of looking good game.But still  I need some rewiews to consider a buying option.


----------



## DannibusX (Jul 24, 2010)

Starcraft was one of the greatest RTS games I have ever played.  It was just plain fun.  Starcraft 2 should be somewhere around the same, but I'm probably not going to play it for a few years to wait for all 3 races to be available in a pack of some sort.  I'm still irritated they split the races into the game plus 2 expansions, I don't care how many missions each race gets.

But, it should still be a good game, except for the BattleNet/RealID thing they have going on.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2010)

good game,n what do you mean that starcraft 2 i just like the first. I suppose as said the basics are the same, but the tactics and strategic options to defeat an opponent are more varied compared to first. It's also much faster paced, several several new units for each race. And no the beta isn't the final, compared to when the first beta came out, game's changed a lot so i can see why they don't want reviews yet. They're using the beta mostly for balancing the stats of units between the 3 races. My bro has the beta n i play it often and it is a different game from the first if you played the first like crazy as i did, but on top of that i definitely think it'll live up to the first's rep.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jul 24, 2010)

i have decided not to pick up the retail of this game primarily on the precedence of the 3 disc purchase, i typically only play multiplayer games so the missions don't mean anything, but like myself who is turned off by this tactic, so are many others and i have a feeling those on the multiplayer are going to be rediculously good at the game and i am not, so i feel that i'll be at a disadvantage.  just my 2 cents


----------



## stuartb04 (Jul 24, 2010)

whats starcraft??????.....


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 24, 2010)

stuartb04 said:


> whats starcraft??????.....



Look it up. 

It's considered to be one of the best RTS games of all time.


----------



## stuartb04 (Jul 24, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> Look it up.
> 
> It's considered to be one of the best RTS games of all time.



i was trying to be sarcastic

which went down like a lead ballon

sorry

im just not impressed with this sequel

(i should stop drinking and typing now)


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 24, 2010)

stuartb04 said:


> i was trying to be sarcastic
> 
> which went down like a lead ballon
> 
> ...



Ah ok... sarcasm is hard to detect on the interwebs.


----------



## r9 (Jul 24, 2010)

I`m not too big fan of RTS. But knowing how popular was and I believe still is. Even if  StarCraft II is just updated graphics it would be enough for the large fan base that it has.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 24, 2010)

No offense but its seems as if these people get one thing right and can't do anything else. Unlike Valve who explorers many ideas and know the meaning of the word creativity.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 24, 2010)

so many haters


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 24, 2010)

AltecV1 said:


> so many haters



Not hatin just sayin.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 24, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> No offense but its seems as if these people get one thing right and can't do anything else. Unlike Valve who explorers many ideas and know the meaning of the word creativity.



That's what makes Valve stand out, you can see the effort they put in there games and updates showing that they actually give a damn about there players, and a lot of devs still have yet to do this, not just Blizzard.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2010)

It might have a lot to do with the Activision/Blizzard merger.  A lot of Activision mentality (which is similar to EA from which it spawned) may have rubbed off on Blizzard...


In any case, I withhold judgement until after I play it.


----------



## douglatins (Jul 24, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> But the beta is not the final game.  There really isn't any other good reason to not allow reviews other than being scared of what the reviews have to say.



If a beta says anything about a game then MoH will be a MAJOR FAIL


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2010)

i agree with the creativity part, other dev's definitely need to step up and make something, not rework what's already been done. And to those that said valve is creative, f'n A they are, i have yet to play 2 of their games that are identical or share the same gameplay. Yea, kill the other team but the way you go about doing it is different in all of their games, and on top of it Valve releases free games, give outragous discounts on games. Valve is where it's at.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 24, 2010)

douglatins said:


> If a beta says anything about a game then MoH will be a MAJOR FAIL



It just didn't.....feel fun....if that makes any sense.  I mean it looks like a weird mix of Call of Duty: Modern Warfail 2 and BFBC2, but sucks at pretending to be either.

On the Valve note.  With Alien Swarm, I know the original was an Unreal Engine mode (I forget the name right now), but the free one that Valve is giving away on Steam has menu's that look a lot like Portal and L4D2?  Did they buy the game and rebuilt it with Source?


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 24, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> It just didn't.....feel fun....if that makes any sense.  I mean it looks like a weird mix of Call of Duty: Modern Warfail 2 and BFBC2, but sucks at pretending to be either.
> 
> On the Valve note.  With Alien Swarm, I know the original was an Unreal Engine mode (I forget the name right now), but the free one that Valve is giving away on Steam has menu's that look a lot like Portal and L4D2?  Did they buy the game and rebuilt it with Source?



Another reason to give out Alien Swarm for free. Its pretty much a regurgitation of L4D and TF2 attributes with out it being either. But because both those games or so much fun all they had to do was add a new theme to it and BAM Alien Swarm.


----------



## wahdangun (Jul 24, 2010)

after their butcher lan,and make it three separated games, it really fail in my book,


----------



## Dazzeerr (Jul 24, 2010)

As I do with all RTS games, I'll wait for reviewers and friends to play it. I find with RTS' they can change small or simple parts of the game that make it a lot less enjoyable to play.


----------



## Phxprovost (Jul 24, 2010)

i hope the game fails, what they've done to it pisses me off beyond belief :shadedshu


----------



## a_ump (Jul 25, 2010)

do elaborate phxprovost. i haven't gotten used to all the tactic changes but i def don't dislike em.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2010)

When they ditched lan that was enough for me to want this game to fail.


----------



## Champ (Jul 25, 2010)

So, three campaigns over three CDs at full price per CD?  I'll be....errr.  It's probably cheaper wait for all three to release and they make the bundle pack.  My boy works at BB and was gonna try to get me into the release party, but now I find out it's not the completely game.  That's crap!!!


----------



## KainXS (Jul 25, 2010)

yeah usually if the game sells like shit the price will drop after a few months, im not even gonna trust reviews though

money talks you know


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 26, 2010)

Either way im going to play the game.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 26, 2010)

So glad I never gave a shit about this franchise.


----------



## Cheeseball (Jul 26, 2010)

> what i laugh more about is the 3 seperate campaigns over time at $60 each so to own all of SC2 you gotta spend $180 and the new battlenet means any user mods are completely owned by blizzard and they can charge for user mods. Said mod makers have no choice in the matter either



There are no "user mods", they're all created within the Campaign Editor.

I'm still going to buy this game. I've got a bone to pick with some Korean players in my region.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 26, 2010)

As someone who has played starcraft 2 for several months now on the beta I'd say it's actually a fantastically fun game with a few issues:

1. LAN play should have been allowed. I used to play starcraft at my cottage with a few friends over LAN but this wouldn't be possible for starcraft 2 because of no internet.

2. It's not as responsive as starcraft 1 is. Basically it's harder to micro a few units quickly to do the most possible damage. For most players this isn't an issue but for high end 250++ apm players this could be a huge issue.

Outside of those issues it's an incredible fun game and it's not just like the old game. A lot of the basic game dynamics are completely different and the game definitely has a different feel to it. Have to wait and see if the campaign matters or not.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jul 26, 2010)

erocker said:


> I don't care for Starcraft, but after playing the beta I think people who do enjoy this type of game will be pleased.


Lemme guess.. koreans? Dunno.. just a wild guess..


----------



## CJCerny (Jul 26, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/07/23/no-starcraft-2-reviews-before-lunch/
> 
> Really?  No reviews at all before the game is released? I detect major fail with this game...



I got $5 that says that Starcraft II is anything but "major fail". In the long run, I suspect it will run up the sales charts all the way to #2 behind all the Sims games. You may not like the "no pre-release review" thing or the "this game is gonna cost you $150 if you buy each release when it is new" thing, but I'm pretty sure that the fine people at Blizzard have done enough homework to know that the demand for the game is gonna run right over those small speedbumps.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Jul 26, 2010)

hopefully this game fails fast and hard ...


D3 anyone?


----------



## KainXS (Jul 26, 2010)

CJCerny said:


> I got $5 that says that Starcraft II is anything but "major fail". In the long run, I suspect it will run up the sales charts all the way to #2 behind all the Sims games. You may not like the "no pre-release review" thing or the "this game is gonna cost you $150 if you buy each release when it is new" thing, but I'm pretty sure that the fine people at Blizzard have done enough homework to know that the demand for the game is gonna run right over those small speedbumps.



you think starcraft 2 is gonna sell as well as the sims games . . . . . . . 

the sims is targeted towards pretty much . . . . . . everyone and has high sales because of that, starcraft though is targeted towards a specific group of gamers, its not gonna happen.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 26, 2010)

I just don't know why there is so much hate towards it.

I mean of course game reviews aren't going to happen until the game is actually released. Everyone got to play the beta but by no means did we have the full game. They regularly made fairly substantial changes to the game play on a week by week basis.

Yea they're releasing the campaigns separately but who is to say that they're not 3 extremely well made campaigns that are each capable of being their own game? No one was mad when there was half-life episode 1, 2 etc etc. 

Use a little logic before you dis on the game. Just because there is 3 separate campaigns doesn't mean each one isn't worth the money. Basically stop being a bunch of babies about a game most of you haven't played and none of you have played fully then wish it to fail.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 26, 2010)

> I just don't know why there is so much hate towards it.
> 
> I mean of course game reviews aren't going to happen until the game is actually released. Everyone got to play the beta but by no means did we have the full game. They regularly made fairly substantial changes to the game play on a week by week basis.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Although reviewers should get early access to help you fence sitters decide on the game, but besides that its still a great game. The beta helped rid it of some issues (primarily balance). Each separate installment is meant to have 25+ missions in the campaign, and if you dont want to buy the others, you dont have to. It wont limit your online experience much (there may be added maps and such with the zerg/protoss expansions; not much info on this).

If you change the game too much, it won't be starcraft anymore.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 26, 2010)

I am not looking forward to it, and I really dislike Blizzard after Diablo 2 grew old (and that one was only fun because I was of the age to enjoy a mindless click-fest back then), but I don't expect it to be outright bad. It won't be anything spectacular, either, and it will probably get insanely good reviews (Just like GTA IV did, for example....and that game was quite sucky) from biased/bribed/fanboy'ed review sites.

In general: Starcraft 2? Meh. Gimme a good Jagged Alliance 3 instead.


----------



## CJCerny (Jul 26, 2010)

KainXS said:


> you think starcraft 2 is gonna sell as well as the sims games . . . . . . .
> 
> the sims is targeted towards pretty much . . . . . . everyone and has high sales because of that, starcraft though is targeted towards a specific group of gamers, its not gonna happen.



Read my post again. BEHIND the Sims games.

Not sure where all the hate is coming from on this game. Maybe it's because Blizzard is big and successful. Maybe they want too much $$ for their product. I dunno. News flash--they got big and successful because they make great games that appeal to a lot of people and price them accordingly. This is called capitalism. That's how the free world operates. I don't expect StarCraft 2 to be any different.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 26, 2010)

CJCerny said:


> Read my post again. BEHIND the Sims games.
> 
> Not sure where all the hate is coming from on this game. Maybe it's because Blizzard is big and successful. Maybe they want too much $$ for their product. I dunno. News flash--they got big and successful because they make great games that appeal to a lot of people and price them accordingly. This is called capitalism. That's how the free world operates. I don't expect StarCraft 2 to be any different.



No ones arguing that though, we all know why Blizzard bathes in a pool of money. I don't even think they have said a price for it yet, so i don't see a reason or anyone to get mad at that.

This game will see like crazy with or without the money of the people posting negitive things about it.


----------



## CJCerny (Jul 26, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> No ones arguing that though, we all know why Blizzard bathes in a pool of money. I don't even think they have said a price for it yet, so i don't see a reason or anyone to get mad at that.
> 
> This game will see like crazy with or without the money of the people posting negitive things about it.



Every ad I saw for it in the local newspaper yesterday shows the regular release at $60 and the SE at $100, so the prices have definitely been set.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 26, 2010)

CJCerny said:


> Every ad I saw for it in the local newspaper yesterday shows the regular release at $60 and the SE at $100, so the prices have definitely been set.



Unfortunatly a lot of PC games being relased these days are starting to move to the $60 price tag especally high profile games, so it's not just SCII.

Whether or not thats to much is all opinion on if you think it's worth it. If it's to much, don't buy it or wait till it's cheaper.

I don't see why we just can't wait till the game is out to really start critisizing the game.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 26, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> Look it up.
> 
> It's considered to be one of the best RTS games of all time.



No. It's considered one of the most popular rts of all time. Though I don't think that's fair, it really needs it's own genre. More micromanagement, less strategy. It's like those old school arcade games with limited avenues of tactical victory, high importance on just the raw speed of your micromanagement. A typical rts you can be much more devious and clever with your numerous paths to victory, they're more like life in their complexity.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 26, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> No. It's considered one of the most popular rts of all time. Though I don't think that's fair, it really needs it's own genre. More micromanagement, less strategy. It's like those old school arcade games with limited avenues of tactical victory, high importance on just the raw speed of your micromanagement. A typical rts you can be much more devious and clever with your numerous paths to victory, they're more like life in their complexity.



Considering i myself don't play RTS games, all i can do is believe thats a fact. It has to be popular for a reason and i assumed it's because it was one of the best. No doubt its popular, but it being the best is debatable and a matter of opinion.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 26, 2010)

> No. It's considered one of the most popular rts of all time. Though I don't think that's fair, it really needs it's own genre. More micromanagement, less strategy. It's like those old school arcade games with limited avenues of tactical victory, high importance on just the raw speed of your micromanagement. A typical rts you can be much more devious and clever with your numerous paths to victory, they're more like life in their complexity



Not sure how you can say there's less strategy. While your building up and such, you need to gradually expand, keep an eye on the opposition to see what theyre doing. And based on waht they're doing you can tailor your tech/armies/plan to counter their strategy. Or go for an opening that you see. For example maybe they expanded quickly, therefor they have a smaller army than you and its a good time to strike.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 26, 2010)

Lan play isn't allowed;

Because everyone has broadband connections for the most part
Theft prevention by forcing people to register online

If you don't like it, don't play it.

I have been in the beta for a while, and it's a great game so far.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 26, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> No. It's considered one of the most popular rts of all time. Though I don't think that's fair, it really needs it's own genre. More micromanagement, less strategy. It's like those old school arcade games with limited avenues of tactical victory, high importance on just the raw speed of your micromanagement. A typical rts you can be much more devious and clever with your numerous paths to victory, they're more like life in their complexity.



You couldn't be anymore wrong. The reason why SC is so popular was because of the incredible amount of strategy that was in the game. I don't know if i can think of another RTS that has as much strategy as SC does. Why do you think it's so popular?

It's more like chess in the sense the vast majority of players don't even realize the amount of strategy required to properly play it.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 26, 2010)

i am not going to bother with the game, but lack of reviews does not mean major fail. truth is most games don't get reviewed prior to launch. maybe you should complain about all of them, too?


----------



## erocker (Jul 26, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am not going to bother with the game, but lack of reviews does not mean major fail. truth is most games don't get reviewed prior to launch. maybe you should complain about all of them, too?



Many games that do get reviewed prior to launch are pretty bad anyways. Far Cry 2 comes to mind. Not a great game, but many reviews said otherwise.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 26, 2010)

We don't need game reviews, we need demo. I disagree with most reviewers anyway.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2010)

I take previews (usually played at the devs HQ) with a grain of salt.
However, the objective portion of reviews (not the fun factor) can inform you of gamestopping bugs, crashes, shoddy controls and opressive DRM.
Well worth the time to read, IMO.


----------



## Easo (Jul 26, 2010)

Will get it and play it. And it 101% wont fail, at least money wise, too big fanbase and too much hype.


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 27, 2010)

Easo said:


> Will get it and play it. And it 101% wont fail, at least money wise, too big fanbase and too much hype.



You may be right, but we have to diffentiate between sales and quality: the game might succeed in the market, primarily of interest to company shareholders, and yet fail amongst enthusiasts. In other words, the game might not live up to expectations.

Does this employ similar DRM to the Ubisoft always-on crap, or does it simply involve online registration like Games for Windows?


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 27, 2010)

I expect something similar to CoH, login to play or insert disc when not online.

I have been playing the beta, and it feels as smooth as the first one. Unlike other RTS games when making their transition to 3d it became so sluggish.


----------



## zithe (Jul 27, 2010)

Apparently you've never beta tested before. People are under NDA until release. They can't say jack about the game until the first game flies of the shelf usually. I wasn't allowed to do anything. Apparently they didn't appreciate me saying the game sucked donkey butts.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2010)

zithe said:


> Apparently you've never beta tested before. People are under NDA until release. They can't say jack about the game until the first game flies of the shelf usually. I wasn't allowed to do anything. Apparently they didn't appreciate me saying the game sucked donkey butts.



I'm sure they're not cruising on forums looking for him, or me for that matter. They gave away literally thousands upon thousands of beta keys. I'm sure they expect word to get out about SC2.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 27, 2010)

meh star craft isnt about tactics or avenues of victory all that matters is your APM actions per minute end of story


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> meh star craft isnt about tactics or avenues of victory all that matters is your APM actions per minute end of story



Yes. You mash a bunch of hotkeys to get 400 apm and i'll use tactics with 220 apm and we'll see who wins.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 27, 2010)

who said anything about me i never said i had that high an APM but im fairly sure any higher ranked tournament player would probably drop you fairly quickly i personally dont really enjoy these rts games ill stick to the Total War series where proper troops and coordination win not apm hot keys and what not. after all i sure as hell dont call this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpCLqryN-Q gaming in any way that dosent look like fun at all to put it bluntly lol so ppl can have that kind of gameplay id rather play the game not do the above.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> who said anything about me i never said i had that high an APM but im fairly sure any higher ranked tournament player would probably drop you fairly quickly i personally dont really enjoy these rts games ill stick to the Total War series where proper troops and coordination win not apm hot keys and what not. after all i sure as hell dont call this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpCLqryN-Q gaming in any way that dosent look like fun at all to put it bluntly lol so ppl can have that kind of gameplay id rather play the game not do the above.



I know it's only a minor quip but i was actually a highly ranked tournament player who was in WCG and ranked to low B's on WGTour.

Basically there is an immense level of planning and skill that goes into that game. That being said when you look at people with hyper apm (mine used to be in the 300 range) it makes up a very small population of the gamers. 

But what it comes down to is that faster APM is only good if you can use it. Being faster means you can build troops quick, scout your enemy better so you know what to build, and manage your troops in a superior fashion. It takes a high apm player to cause a diversion at the front of your base while dropping something in your base to kill your workers while continuing to build new units in their own base.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 27, 2010)

which is precisely why i play the total war games lol dont need a high apm dont need anything just a good mind and sound tactics knowledge and common sense


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 27, 2010)

zithe said:


> Apparently you've never beta tested before. People are under NDA until release. They can't say jack about the game until the first game flies of the shelf usually. I wasn't allowed to do anything. Apparently they didn't appreciate me saying the game sucked donkey butts.



There under NDA, because it's not the final version of the game.  I do like that we can obtain demo's of games alot easyier now a days.  I vastly prefer TRYING a game to reading what some cooperate shill thinks.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 27, 2010)

> There under NDA, because it's not the final version of the game. I do like that we can obtain demo's of games alot easyier now a days. I vastly prefer TRYING a game to reading what some cooperate shill thinks.



I dont remember signing an NDA. People here asked on the forums how it is and I told them. simple as that.

Picking up the game after work woot.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 27, 2010)

I would run to the store to pick up my copy right now... IF it includes all 3 campaigns.

But no it isn't.


----------



## Frick (Jul 27, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> I would run to the store to pick up my copy right now... IF it includes all 3 campaigns.
> 
> But no it isn't.



And you don't care that the first campaign alone is about as big as the entire first game? This is a non-issue to me.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 27, 2010)

I am going to go ahead and assume that the expansions change the dynamic by deepening tech tree's and adding units just like the original, and it's expansion.  The only difference is this go round, there are 2 expansions...

And if you haven't guessed already, these companies aren't not-for-profits here to entertain you, there business's designed to make...MONEY, in any way shape or form they can.  If you don't like it, don't buy it.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 27, 2010)

I haven't read much into the story mode. Is it over 30 missions?


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 27, 2010)

Alright for you "blizzard is raping our wallets with 3 seperate games for 3 campaigns" Lets look at the Halo series. Each has about 10-15 hours of gameplay i believe. You pay $60 for each one new. And then get an online experience. Now the online experience has changed in minor ways from game to game. New mechanics, new features and such. But its still a fps when it comes down to it. This is absolutly no different. Or what about call of duty, a franchise i love. The campaigns for those are in the 10 hour range as well. For online, the guns change and theyve added things like perks and levels over the years. Which is without a doubt more than these sc2 expansions will add im sure. But still 30 missions a game, thats quite a bit of hours to do there. Certainly more than 15.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Jul 27, 2010)

so will all the races be on the first release? like online play? or will everyone be one race till the xpack come outs?


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 27, 2010)

All races are available for online, skirmish. For the campaign you just play terran.

I also wanted to add, besides campaign its unknown what the expansions will have. Whether its new maps, new units or whatever.


----------



## Frick (Jul 27, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> I haven't read much into the story mode. Is it over 30 missions?



I've seen numbers like that. It's said to be over 20 hours of gameplay. In the Terran Campaign.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Jul 27, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> All races are available for online, skirmish. For the campaign you just play terran.
> 
> I also wanted to add, besides campaign its unknown what the expansions will have. Whether its new maps, new units or whatever.



well thats cool i dont play single player stuff anymore I get bored way to fast


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 29, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> I dont remember signing an NDA. People here asked on the forums how it is and I told them. simple as that.
> 
> Picking up the game after work woot.



you didnt sign one, you probably clicked through one, and no court has held that up...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 29, 2010)

The hype is getting to me!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH must resist!


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 29, 2010)

> The hype is getting to me!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH must resist!



BUY IT!!!. Its awesome.

Goliaths are in the campaign!! And the protoss have scouts. Maybe the protoss campaign in the last expac will have dragoons


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 29, 2010)

Yukikaze said:


> I am not looking forward to it, and I really dislike Blizzard after Diablo 2 grew old (and that one was only fun because I was of the age to enjoy a mindless click-fest back then), but I don't expect it to be outright bad. It won't be anything spectacular, either, and it will probably get insanely good reviews (Just like GTA IV did, for example....and that game was quite sucky) from biased/bribed/fanboy'ed review sites.
> 
> In general: Starcraft 2? Meh. Gimme a good Jagged Alliance 3 instead.



Well, a fancy struck me today and I bought Starcraft II. What can I say? Very similar to the original, but way more polished in the storyline and character department. At least so far. Most certainly not a bad game, and worth the money spent. It hasn't wowed me yet, but I am not that far in yet.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 29, 2010)

> Well, a fancy struck me today and I bought Starcraft II. What can I say? Very similar to the original, but way more polished in the storyline and character department. At least so far. Most certainly not a bad game, and worth the money spent. It hasn't wowed me yet, but I am not that far in yet.



Usually the biggest wow moments are when you get totally owned online. In the beta i was fighting a protoss player. He brought probably 20 stalkers to my chokepoint. I had a mix of zealots and a few stalkers i think. I sent them to attack his stalkers. Once his stalkers got weak, he blinked them back behind his army. He didnt lose a single one and cleared my base. haha


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 29, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Usually the biggest wow moments are when you get totally owned online. In the beta i was fighting a protoss player. He brought probably 20 stalkers to my chokepoint. I had a mix of zealots and a few stalkers i think. I sent them to attack his stalkers. Once his stalkers got weak, he blinked them back behind his army. He didnt lose a single one and cleared my base. haha



I really, really, really, really dislike multiplayer games. I only play single player on any title I own, and I play games for their storyline first. Think of it as my way of reading a good, interactive book, or watching a good interactive movie (depending on the game). I also read tons, so I guess that's where it comes from.

Multiplayer just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## caleb (Jul 29, 2010)

IMHO Its not awesome in anyway. Well maybe besides the fact its been 12 years.
The GFX style is not Starcraftish in anyway. You can see WOW/Warcraft dominating the game. Its not anything like Starcraft GFX style anywhere. Sarah Kerrighan looks like a manga girl. The gameplay after few single player missions is OK and thats all I can say about it - not much after 12 years of waiting eh ?.
I doubt it will be such an epic game like SC1 was. I think it will be a fun game to play and another money making machine for Activision/Blizzard. Seperate Single player Campaigns for 60e each ? No thanks.
To put it simple I was hoping for that feeling I had with Diablo2 or Starcraft when I first played those I was overwhelmed by everything the game brought with it. Dont expect it from SC2.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 29, 2010)

I dunno they look like starcraft units, just 3D. kerrigan does look like a mangle girl, cant say I thought of that. One thing to keep in mind though too a lot of the concept artists work both WOW and SC so its why there is certainly some recognition.

10 years ago though, SC and D2 didn't have as much to compete with as they did back then. So they won't feel as epic as they once did. And I honestly think D3 will fall in the same boat. It will be great but not awesome. Awesome is hard to achieve in all aspects, especially for RTS gameplay. Its something thats hard to revolutionize and truly WOW you when there's so many games in the genre.


----------



## caleb (Jul 29, 2010)

Yeas its hard to make epic games. What Im trying to say that they (not only acti/blizzard) arent even trying these days. Every genre becomes poop titles that we just buy because the previous titles had something unique,original and addictive. 
And I dont agree that I shouldnt expect an epic game from SC2. From a company that has infinite founds,has made best games ever made and 12 years for developement a sequel this should be an epic game.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 29, 2010)

i'm laughing at all the americans saying 'OMG ALL THREE GAMES COST $150 WHAT A RIPOFF"

why am i laughing?

cause its $100 here, per f*cking game...

this game will be massively pirated, and they'll wonder why... oh yeah, fucking over their userbase with removal of lan play, thats why. grrrr.


i was never a big starcraft gamer, but i am a big RTS gamer. no one i know will VS me 1v1 because i utterly rape them... and how did we play these games? LAN events. with P2P games the host always has an advantage with responsiveness due to ping, with no LAN that means no lag free gaming... and thats going to suck.


oh and to the people who dont think very much and say 'everyone has broadband!' - do you have your own broadband just for yourself? or do you share it? have you tried having three of four gamers on the one internet connection trying to play the same game and arguing over port forwards, or fighting for bandwidth, or having someone fire up torrents in the middle of a tournament? Offline MP is NECCESARY for big games... and these companies are going to realise it soon enough.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 29, 2010)

Increased game costs is absolutly retarded for Australia. But aside from that, I dont think people should be complaining about the fact there are 3 separate games. If they titled em starcraft 3 and 4, would people complain? not likely. I made a post earlier, they each have the content amount of an individual game just like from any other series. Whether its halo, call of duty, metal gear solid, gears of war, etc.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 29, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Increased game costs is absolutly retarded for Australia. But aside from that, I dont think people should be complaining about the fact there are 3 separate games. If they titled em starcraft 3 and 4, would people complain? not likely. I made a post earlier, they each have the content amount of an individual game just like from any other series. Whether its halo, call of duty, metal gear solid, gears of war, etc.



what these are, is expansion packs. they're just charging full price for them.

look at company of heroes, same deal: one original game, with SP campaigns* added into the expansions. All they're doing here is selling an expansion at full game prices because they can.



*Yes it adds more than just SP campaigns - but not that much. the extra races were only in one XP pack, for example.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 29, 2010)

How long now before the online cheating starts?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 29, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> How long now before the online cheating starts?



dunno, but i give it a month before someone (koreans?) have cracked servers just like they do now for WoW...


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 29, 2010)

I hope that cheating doesn't become a problem.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jul 29, 2010)

copenhagen69 said:


> well thats cool i dont play single player stuff anymore I get bored way to fast


Once youve tried out the single player campaign, youll be hooked.




Mussels said:


> oh and to the people who dont think very much and say 'everyone has broadband!' - do you have your own broadband just for yourself? or do you share it? have you tried having three of four gamers on the one internet connection trying to play the same game and arguing over port forwards, or fighting for bandwidth, or having someone fire up torrents in the middle of a tournament? Offline MP is NECCESARY for big games... and these companies are going to realise it soon enough.


Tourneys will be hosted the same way, with all people being in a single event. I doubt if they have the luxury to fire up torrents, forgetting to configure port forward, or not having a fast net connection


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 29, 2010)

You only need to port forward if you're hosting a game, with the exception to orginal starcraft. It would bitch if you played online with someone on your LAN and someone else on the internet. Not everyone could join.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 29, 2010)

There are a lot of dangerous vids on youtube (huge spoilers).

I suggest people that haven't finished the game should avoid watching youtube, lol. 

Even some vid titles have spoilers.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Jul 29, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i'm laughing at all the americans saying 'OMG ALL THREE GAMES COST $150 WHAT A RIPOFF"
> 
> why am i laughing?
> 
> ...




no worries it will be pirated and custom servers setup soon enough


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 29, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> I dunno they look like starcraft units, just 3D. kerrigan does look like a mangle girl, cant say I thought of that.



Come to think of it: The human Kerrigan looks suspiciously like FF XIII's Lightning.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> Once youve tried out the single player campaign, youll be hooked.
> 
> 
> 
> Tourneys will be hosted the same way, with all people being in a single event. I doubt if they have the luxury to fire up torrents, forgetting to configure port forward, or not having a fast net connection



n, tourneys will not be. it requires internet bandwidth to do it... and outside of FIOS i cant imagine internet that can handle 500 gamers at once.


----------



## L|NK|N (Jul 30, 2010)

Just started SP campaign. So far so good.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

i caved in


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 30, 2010)

GJ mussles. We should 1v1 when the australia/NA lock is opened up in a couple months. As you say no one can beat you. I rise to the challenge


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> GJ mussles. We should 1v1 when the australia/NA lock is opened up in a couple months. As you say no one can beat you. I rise to the challenge



dunno about SC (never played the original), but if you want to challenge me in CoH or supcom, feel free


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 30, 2010)

> dunno about SC (never played the original), but if you want to challenge me in CoH or supcom, feel free


 I tried supcom for 5 minutes maybe, borrowed from a roommate. Didn't like it really. Age of empires 3 is the only rts besides sc/wc that i've put time to. But sc/sc2 is the only series i really like.

But it'll give you a couple months to learn the game, so you have no excuse when I kick your ass


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> I tried supcom for 5 minutes maybe, borrowed from a roommate. Didn't like it really. Age of empires 3 is the only rts besides sc/wc that i've put time to. But sc/sc2 is the only series i really like.
> 
> But it'll give you a couple months to learn the game, so you have no excuse when I kick your ass



ah, so you like the rush games. if you didnt like supcom, you should see SOASE... some of the larger MP games i've played took several days.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 30, 2010)

> ah, so you like the rush games. if you didnt like supcom, you should see SOASE... some of the larger MP games i've played took several days.



 Geez could clear icecrown in wow in less time than that. In starcraft 2 beta, the longest game I had was probably 45 minutes. Most games are about 15. Yesterday my final 1v1 placement match was 25 minutes; which I lost


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Geez could clear icecrown in wow in less time than that. In starcraft 2 beta, the longest game I had was probably 45 minutes. Most games are about 15. Yesterday my final 1v1 placement match was 25 minutes; which I lost



gah, short RTS games are hardly worth the effort  its just a rush match, not a true strategy game.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 30, 2010)

> gah, short RTS games are hardly worth the effort  its just a rush match, not a true strategy game.



Well in sc here are things to keep in mind for strategy:
you have to constantly spend your money
You have to expand faster than the other player
You have to watch what the other player is building to be prepared and counter for it
Watch other expansion spots on the map to know when they're expanding
Plan an attack that they are un prepared for or cannot handle
While you're attacking, keep building units to reinforce the attack.
Micro manage your attack force to minimalize losses.

Not sure what more strategy a game can offer.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Well in sc here are things to keep in mind for strategy:
> you have to constantly spend your money
> You have to expand faster than the other player
> You have to watch what the other player is building to be prepared and counter for it
> ...



hehehe, trust me, SC has more than that. There is hundreds of units and buildings each with their own strenghts and weaknesses, not a simple rock/paper/scissors setup.

SC is simple - that doesnt mean its easy. SC has always been about speed and timing, not so much using an overarching strategy to win.


----------



## caleb (Jul 30, 2010)

I think the original starcraft was very interesting after the rushing was over. When it became a bit campy it was risky to attack and loose it because vs a good player its mostly a lost game but I guess its with every good RTS that way. 
So its still not released over there in Australian Britain ?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

caleb said:


> I think the original starcraft was very interesting after the rushing was over. When it became a bit campy it was risky to attack and loose it because vs a good player its mostly a lost game but I guess its with every good RTS that way.
> So its still not released over there in Australian Britain ?



didnt i post a picture not long ago, showing my copy + the free Tshirt? or was that another thread?


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jul 30, 2010)

> didnt i post a picture not long ago, showing my copy + the free Tshirt? or was that another thread?



You did.


> I think the original starcraft was very interesting after the rushing was over. When it became a bit campy it was risky to attack and loose it because vs a good player its mostly a lost game but I guess its with every good RTS that way.
> So its still not released over there in Australian Britain ?



Yeah its released. Right now there's region locking for Australia, they can't play with north america. Blizzard has promised to open that up so Australians and North Americans can play together, but it take approximately 60 days after release.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

Mussels said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/100730/Capture154.jpg
> 
> 
> i caved in



That t-shirt looks like it's around or over XXL in size.lol, you're really that big?


----------



## caleb (Jul 30, 2010)

Was refering to that locking Hybrid mentioned and you could buy your Starcraft in Africa and then fly to Australia hence the stupid question.
There are games that are locked for Poland or EU countres so I was wondering if that was the case.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jul 30, 2010)

Mussels said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/100730/Capture154.jpg
> 
> 
> i caved in


Nice shirt. So is that SEA copy? Or do Australia get the EU?


----------



## happita (Jul 30, 2010)

Yukikaze said:


> I really, really, really, really dislike multiplayer games. I only play single player on any title I own, and I play games for their storyline first. Think of it as my way of reading a good, interactive book, or watching a good interactive movie (depending on the game). I also read tons, so I guess that's where it comes from.
> 
> Multiplayer just doesn't do it for me.



I cannot agree with you more.

I was never good at any RTS games. I loved Starcraft though and mostly for its storyline. I have hardly played it in over 3 or so years. But SC2 looks like it has a rich story behind it. It is actually a little sad that they will expand this storyline across 2 more expansions or full games (whatever Blizzard decides to do with them) at full price.

However, I cannot wait for Diablo 3. That is 1 multiplayer game that I will get carpal tunel syndrome for


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> That t-shirt looks like it's around or over XXL in size.lol, you're really that big?



its only a large, the only size they had




Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> Nice shirt. So is that SEA copy? Or do Australia get the EU?




what?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

Mussels said:


> its only a large, the only size they had



Ah ok, it looks huge in the picture. lol

Enjoy the game.


----------



## wahdangun (Jul 30, 2010)

hmm so mussels is it better than supcom? and btw no lan support really a let down for me because broadband connection in my country is maxed at 3 Mbps, so it really make me sad, because i really like RTS, but some how i never played SC.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 31, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> hmm so mussels is it better than supcom? and btw no lan support really a let down for me because broadband connection in my country is maxed at 3 Mbps, so it really make me sad, because i really like RTS, but some how i never played SC.



i still prefer supcom, but thats cause i like epic scale. I'm good at APM, but my real strentgh lies in massive strategies - staying 5, 6 steps ahead of human enemies and manipulating them into doing things my way (sending in air attacks from the get go to make them focus on anti air, then sending in ground attacks from the opposite direction, and then when they're distracted i hit their side/forward bases... and once they're split up i splat them with some random attack of choice)

you cant really play like that in SC, its slowed down and you get too few units... but its a different style of game, so thats ok. i still have fun in SP, and wont play MP til i've beaten SP.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jul 31, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> hmm so mussels is it better than supcom? and btw no lan support really a let down for me because broadband connection in my country is maxed at 3 Mbps, so it really make me sad, because i really like RTS, but some how i never played SC.


I sometimes play it on my wireless, capped at 256kbps, but has a low ping latency, I experience little to minimal lag. Am still able to do rush etc. 3mbps wont be a problem. As long as your registered in the south east asia / korea region, your good. I suggest finding a friend who has a guest account, download the SC2 client and try it .. then log on in, do some skirmishes with some random chinese and rape them (im sure your good at it ;P ).


----------



## newconroer (Jul 31, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> Were you really expecting SCII to be that dramatically different from the first?, i think Blizzard really wants to have that stable fanbase from the first to be able to mirgrate easier, if they decided to go all out and create a drastically different feel for the game, it'd be to risky for such a high profile game. Instead the best thing to do is create the same kind of ''base'' as the first, but instead build upon it without turning people off.



True...it shouldn't be drastically different, but the only noticeable change is the graphics engine. The more minute features, such as race updates, stratagem and miscellaneous convenience (which are few giving the lack of control you have over game settings) should not be the small aspects of this type of game, it should be THE thing that defines it.

Rather they took nearly a decade -let that sink in a minute- A WHOLE DECADE, and all they really came up with, was Starcraft with Warcraft 3 engine visuals.

It's like Duke Nukem Forever being released with a new 'episode' of level missions, a few new guns and a moderate update to the visuals. 

All the hype would have been for nothing.

On that merit alone, Starcraft 2 is an utter waste of time and complete disappointment.

A lot of us will still play it, but to me Blizzard is just milking the status of a legend, that they themselves cannot live up to.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2010)

I agree.  The game doesn't feel like it has 29,220 hours of work in it per staff member.  It really doesn't stand out from other RTS titles.  It's pretty obvious the cutscenes are way up there in terms of fit and finish but beyond that, it's really barely more than note worthy.

I wouldn't call it a "complete disappointment" nor "waste of time."  It's a good game--it's just not likely to knock your socks off.


----------



## Kaiser Kraus (Jul 31, 2010)

I am really not impressed with what Blizzard has done with its Starcraft franchise. I was expecting something that would push the boundaries of the RTS genre. For a game that took so long to make, one should expect it to be ground-breaking, revolutionary, genre-defining in some ways. Exclusively for the PC, Starcraft II should have at least bothered to implement DX10 or 11 features. I think they created a game knowing that a lot of the previous fan base they accumulated over the years (majority are Koreans) will buy the game (I know it they would). But come on, Blizzard is better than this. If game ratings for this game do come, and ends up with more than 90%, then those critics are just rating the game for its nostalgic value. I can't even call this game evolutionary. More like a graphical update (well I do know Blizzard at least "tried"). They should have called it "Starcrap II" for all I care......


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jul 31, 2010)

Soooo, i stated earlier that i had decided not to pick this up, and i liied, i ended up getting the collectors edition as i didn't own the orignal sc games, and wanted the art book because i have a thing for art books from video games.  I have been hooked for days on the multiplayer, it's just as diverse as i thought it was going to be, and seems fair and balanced between the three factions.  This game is completely worth buying and i'm sorry for saying earlier that i was not going to get it, i say, GET THIS GAME!!!!


----------



## Mussels (Jul 31, 2010)

exodusprime1337 said:


> Soooo, i stated earlier that i had decided not to pick this up, and i liied, i ended up getting the collectors edition as i didn't own the orignal sc games, and wanted the art book because i have a thing for art books from video games.  I have been hooked for days on the multiplayer, it's just as diverse as i thought it was going to be, and seems fair and balanced between the three factions.  This game is completely worth buying and i'm sorry for saying earlier that i was not going to get it, i say, GET THIS GAME!!!!



i have to agree, its just that the spit and polish put in isnt apparent from the get go.

is gameplay simple compared to supcom? hell yes.

is combat less diverse compared to CoH? hell yes

is it still fun? yes.

and the SP campaign is VERY well done with the RPG elements and choices in mission selection, research, upgrades and plot branches - all of which actually llook good, making a second or third play-through very plausible.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Aug 1, 2010)

And thats that. Enough with the hatin and on to playin'!


----------



## wahdangun (Aug 1, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i still prefer supcom, but thats cause i like epic scale. I'm good at APM, but my real strentgh lies in massive strategies - staying 5, 6 steps ahead of human enemies and manipulating them into doing things my way (sending in air attacks from the get go to make them focus on anti air, then sending in ground attacks from the opposite direction, and then when they're distracted i hit their side/forward bases... and once they're split up i splat them with some random attack of choice)
> 
> you cant really play like that in SC, its slowed down and you get too few units... but its a different style of game, so thats ok. i still have fun in SP, and wont play MP til i've beaten SP.



then its no go for me, i don't like game like that, if it have lan maybe i will buy it, because i like to play RTS with my friend




Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> I sometimes play it on my wireless, capped at 256kbps, but has a low ping latency, I experience little to minimal lag. Am still able to do rush etc. 3mbps wont be a problem. As long as your registered in the south east asia / korea region, your good. I suggest finding a friend who has a guest account, download the SC2 client and try it .. then log on in, do some skirmishes with some random chinese and rape them (im sure your good at it ;P ).




no, you never know indonesian internet is crappy as hell, i can't even play BF:BC2 with my friend in singapore, its really lag, but luckily BF:BC2 have dedicated server so i still can play lan party with my friend.


----------



## EwX (Aug 1, 2010)

I've never played the first Starcraft,but i do like Starcraft II. 
It looks very similar to Warcraft 3 in terms of graphics design and gameplay elements.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 1, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> then its no go for me, i don't like game like that, if it have lan maybe i will buy it, because i like to play RTS with my friend
> 
> no, you never know indonesian internet is crappy as hell, i can't even play BF:BC2 with my friend in singapore, its really lag, but luckily BF:BC2 have dedicated server so i still can play lan party with my friend.



they do need LAN play, even if it just routes traffic over the LAN when possible.

i just played some games with chaos + flip, was fun.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 1, 2010)

so many haters. what would you have changed about it? and revolutionary? starcraft itself is already that. There isn't a single game out there that has the same mechanics and unit variety as SC does. Its the only game with 3 completely different races with completely different unit sets. Can't really think of anything more revolutionary. And if u played SC enough, u'd notice that SC2 is a lot different when it comes to strategies. ALOT of different units hav been added as well as some removed. I'm personally very satisfied with it, tho i do feel the $60 price tag is a bit steep especially for a series, so as someone mentioned b4, u'll spend roughly $195 bucks to get all 3.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2010)

a_ump said:


> so many haters. what would you have changed about it? and revolutionary? starcraft itself is already that. There isn't a single game out there that has the same mechanics and unit variety as SC does. Its the only game with 3 completely different races with completely different unit sets. Can't really think of anything more revolutionary. And if u played SC enough, u'd notice that SC2 is a lot different when it comes to strategies. ALOT of different units hav been added as well as some removed. I'm personally very satisfied with it, tho i do feel the $60 price tag is a bit steep especially for a series, so as someone mentioned b4, u'll spend roughly $195 bucks to get all 3.



total annihilation and supcom certainly have as much unit variety, but i must admit SC2 has done very well with the units now that i've played a few MP matches.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 2, 2010)

i've never played supcom, but i assume that the same variety of units are available no matter what yes? whereas starcraft 2 has a variety of units but due to the 3 races, every unit is different from another. Does supcom have different races?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2010)

a_ump said:


> i've never played supcom, but i assume that the same variety of units are available no matter what yes? whereas starcraft 2 has a variety of units but due to the 3 races, every unit is different from another. Does supcom have different races?



three races, well over a hundred units each in four different tech tiers. (land, sea and air)

and unlike starcraft, aircraft are FAST.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 2, 2010)

haha, that is a good point bout sc, air always have been slower than one would logically think they should be. Are there any of the same units between the 3 races in supcom? if not then i stand corrected there is another game like starcraft. But the thing i've always liked about sc is that each race is unique as none of them share the same units.


----------



## noob79healer (Aug 2, 2010)

Well still no critics for now since I really enjoy the game a lot and I still have faith on it that SC2 is the greatest real-time strategy game of all time and found the whole campaign entertaining. All the scarifies that made by not buying wow gold for a month just to have the SC2 copy are all worth it.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2010)

a_ump said:


> haha, that is a good point bout sc, air always have been slower than one would logically think they should be. Are there any of the same units between the 3 races in supcom? if not then i stand corrected there is another game like starcraft. But the thing i've always liked about sc is that each race is unique as none of them share the same units.



similar, but not the same. each race has its own unique style that influences the units - so even teh most basic T1 grunt units vary. One race (UEF) has a basic marine style with a rapid fire gun, while the aeon are slightly different with a more powerful, slower firing one. (and i cant even remember the cybran or seraphim ones)

even if they do the same job, the variations make them work very differently with microing or when Vsing other units. the only thing really in common with all races is the factories (unit production buildings) - they're pretty much identical.


----------



## kid41212003 (Aug 2, 2010)

Sup Com and SC2 is totally 2 different RTS type, even CoH can't fit in any of these. Especially, I hate small units without grouping, my eyes are annoyed by them.

SC aircrafts are not slow. I haven't seen any FAST battleships. Let put a battleship in spacez and... think about it.

3 Races in SC is actually 3 races, and they actually look different if you know what i mean.


----------



## AltecV1 (Aug 2, 2010)

just finished the game and OMG "Pure Awesomeness" cant wait for the next chapter


----------



## a_ump (Aug 2, 2010)

yea, i haven't played the campaign yet, my bro has tho and he says it's sweet n he's only on the 5th mission


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Aug 2, 2010)

AltecV1 said:


> just finished the game and OMG "Pure Awesomeness" cant wait for the next chapter



Yeah, I can't wait for the rest of the story, which should launch in 12 years.


By the time Starcraft 3 comes out, I bet most of it won't even be sci-fi by then.


----------



## kid41212003 (Aug 2, 2010)

I was expecting something under a year.

But: ETA Heart of the Swarm.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 2, 2010)

u know what i also just htought about. the game by the time the 3rd installment is out i could def see taking 20gb, probly more HDD space. Pretty nuts for a game.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Aug 3, 2010)

Kaiser Kraus said:


> I am really not impressed with what Blizzard has done with its Starcraft franchise. I was expecting something that would push the boundaries of the RTS genre. For a game that took so long to make, one should expect it to be ground-breaking, revolutionary, genre-defining in some ways. Exclusively for the PC, Starcraft II should have at least bothered to implement DX10 or 11 features. I think they created a game knowing that a lot of the previous fan base they accumulated over the years (majority are Koreans) will buy the game (I know it they would). But come on, Blizzard is better than this. If game ratings for this game do come, and ends up with more than 90%, then those critics are just rating the game for its nostalgic value. I can't even call this game evolutionary. More like a graphical update (well I do know Blizzard at least "tried"). They should have called it "Starcrap II" for all I care......





Blizzard made this game just for the Koreans. /thread
JK, NOT!


----------



## noob79healer (Aug 13, 2010)

1.5M copy sold in just two days, great number but I was still expecting more. SC2 is one of the best game and I couldnt stop playing it. Its that fun and dynamic. Now just imagine how awesome Diablo 3 is going to be.I may say all the sacrifices that made by not buying warcraft gold for a month just to have the SC2 copy are all worth it.


----------

