Nah forget that. Splitting the campaigns into 3 different games all for 60 bucks a pop? For a game thats extremely similar to the one they released a decade ago? Ill pass.
Same. I will play it eventually, when it goes platinium collection, all three in one box for $20.
Tired beta, and wasnt really excited.
Now Diablo3 - that would be different story... But if they force us to buy different boxes to play different classes with, then i'm not going for it.
This will be me. I enjoyed the orginial, played it several times through, but I've sort of moved past single player games so I'll hold off until all 3 come in a single set and end up playing it more for the curiosity value.
It's just a game folks.....
I have to admit that for me if SC2 had been released a few years ago then I might have been interested enough to buy a single title on launch day. However, a decade since SC and resource-based RTS looks a bit tired, so best to wait till box sense for teeny bucks. Diablo 3 again has a release cycle that goes beyond how good the game actually will be, and my money is on Dungeon Siege 3 for the best dungeon crawler with online co-op play of the 2011.
Wow sening as how Dungeron Siege 1 and 2 paled in comparison to Diablo 1 and 2. dont see why your pinning your hopes on Dungeon Siege 3
I beta played Starcraft 2 and I ahve to say it is still a Zerg Fest, he who builds the most the fastest wins
not really my kinda game though, no challenge, apart from 'who can get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome the fastest' but I will skip that acheivement thanks........
You don't understand RTS one bit.
oh ho ho you didnt go there!!!
trust me at 33 and growing up in an era where 14kb ran games as a kid, I have tried every Genre and yes I do understand RTS,
There is a difference between being tactical in RTS adn just building as many cheap units as possible to overwhelm someone, thats not tactics thats just 'Can I churn them out fast enough'
And I didnt play the AI, I played against other players
oh and another reason to NOT buy this?
Region locking, nuff said, had friend buy both EU and NA copy so he can play friends in America, now thats jsut a con
You sir, are a poser. I see no merit in your arguments, for they are hollow.
Have to admit everyone is jumping on the blizzard sucks band waggon just because its the in thing to do. What have they done thats so horribly wrong.
They produced the worlds largest MMORPG 10million plus people, try to keep them happy, even if they kepts 99% of the people happy, 10,000 people would be pissied off spaming the interney saying wow sucks, the truth of the matter is that people who enjoy something wont complain about it and rarely if ever congradulate, becuase they congradualte the product by playing it.
I have to admit I find it funny that people got mad about blizzards real ID thing, oh god someone is going to know my real name, now my wife or gf will know I am closet geek.
That being said I cant wait for SC2 , a non linear campaign structure with branching missionss, and there going out the way to make this a much more story driving experience then any other RTS.
Still play the original no problem and dont care if I come against someone using hacks, as I just quit and its not the prevalent, dont care that its region locked, usualy just play against random AI anyway.
Blizzard has yet to really disapoint me, the only thing that ticked me off was allowing Alliance classes and horde classes to played by each side. But hey there trying to apease 10million people with a product that does 100 different things and if one of those things is bad, a million people yelll
So I say thanks blizzard your a decent company and I will be buying SC2 becuase to date I have enjoyed all your games.
I never really got into the original and I was given beta access to the 2nd one for last weekend but I was so damn busy that I never got a chance to try it out. I don't figure I missed much though. And that's not a knock on anyone who likes the game I'm just saying it's not a big deal for me.
I beta played Starcraft 2 and I ahve to say it is still a Zerg Fest, he who builds the most the fastest wins
not really my kinda game though, no challenge, apart from 'who can get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome the fastest' but I will skip that acheivement thanks........
You don't understand RTS one bit.
oh ho ho you didnt go there!!!
trust me at 33 and growing up in an era where 14kb ran games as a kid, I have tried every Genre and yes I do understand RTS,
There is a difference between being tactical in RTS adn just building as many cheap units as possible to overwhelm someone, thats not tactics thats just 'Can I churn them out fast enough'
And I didnt play the AI, I played against other players
oh and another reason to NOT buy this?
Region locking, nuff said, had friend buy both EU and NA copy so he can play friends in America, now thats jsut a con
You sir, are a poser. I see no merit in your arguments, for they are hollow.
Goodday, sir! I said goodday!
What he said was absolutely true, Starcraft 2 multiplayer is centered around resource and production management. Then again, it is one of the reasons I love the multiplayer, tastes vary.
I beta played Starcraft 2 and I ahve to say it is still a Zerg Fest, he who builds the most the fastest wins
not really my kinda game though, no challenge, apart from 'who can get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome the fastest' but I will skip that acheivement thanks........
You don't understand RTS one bit.
oh ho ho you didnt go there!!!
trust me at 33 and growing up in an era where 14kb ran games as a kid, I have tried every Genre and yes I do understand RTS,
There is a difference between being tactical in RTS adn just building as many cheap units as possible to overwhelm someone, thats not tactics thats just 'Can I churn them out fast enough'
And I didnt play the AI, I played against other players
oh and another reason to NOT buy this?
Region locking, nuff said, had friend buy both EU and NA copy so he can play friends in America, now thats jsut a con
You sir, are a poser. I see no merit in your arguments, for they are hollow.
Goodday, sir! I said goodday!
What he said was absolutely true, Starcraft 2 multiplayer is centered around resource and production management. Then again, it is one of the reasons I love the multiplayer, tastes vary.
Well the tech trees and their counters do matter. The zerg rush won't win it every time. It is a pretty fast paced game.
True, but if you fail in farming resources or production, you will be bulldozed before teching up. SC2 doesn't really have the tier based tech trees anyway, just certain buildings with certain technologies, no more 'increased dmg 1-3'.
EDIT: Scratch that, have slept for one hour, of course there's increased dmg and armor tech trees for units.
I loved Starcraft, but I'm not going to buy this one. Anyone who can be satisfied with a game released 10+ years ago with updated graphics (and not particular good graphics) need to reevaluate their standards.
Then again, I never understood the people who still play the old Starcraft. Whatever their reason is, I suppose this game should fit their needs.
What he said was absolutely true, Starcraft 2 multiplayer is centered around resource and production management. Then again, it is one of the reasons I love the multiplayer, tastes vary.
Well the tech trees and their counters do matter. The zerg rush won't win it every time. It is a pretty fast paced game.
True, but if you fail in farming resources or production, you will be bulldozed before teching up. SC2 doesn't really have the tier based tech trees anyway, just certain buildings with certain technologies, no more 'increased dmg 1-3'.
Certainly if you fail at the basics you'll never get to the advanced strategies. However if you bring an eggbeater to a gunfight you'll lose no matter how many eggbeaters you have. Starcraft isn't flat balanced like many games. The mix of units ou bring is important. Knowing what the other guy is doing is as important as the basic mechanics of harvesting and building. If you can mask your strategy you've got a leg up on the competition.
True, but in SC2 you either need to build a rush or anti rush defense in competitive games, or you will lose. That's what I love about the game, normal matches generically take between fifteen to twenty five minutes. You can't just frotress up like in Supreme Commander and start off by building the most powerful units. After the initial rush phase, you need to quickly adapt to what your enemy is building and what strategy they are using, there are just no lull periods in SC2 games.
Why would people quit playing a MMO to play a single player game? Does not compute. Besides Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander is better. Strategic zoom ftw.
You don't mess with success. A lot of people don't want to see Starcraft changed into something completely different. It's not a complex game because it's not meant to be. Blizzard got this one right. If you liked Starcraft you'll like Starcraft 2. If you didn't like Starcraft you're not the target audience and they don't care.
Not messing with success isn't always the case: Blizzard took a big step of change from Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3, with its races and its hero gameplay mechanics. The change from SC to SC2 over 10 years is besides the change to 3D more akin to a Guitar Hero glacial change from one to the next in the series.
Then again, the gameplay mechanics of SC were for its time that good that the current devs don't have to change much or think of something new for SC2 and the game will still be good.
But SC2 and from what I've seen from D3 leads me to believe that the current Blizzard dev and designer teams are different from the ones 10 years ago and not of the same level of brilliance: the current ones merely perpetuate with a few changes where the former ones created and even innovated. Or they got orders from higher up to leave things 'as is' and not change too much.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
obviously the OP got the date wrong in his calendar.
Civ5 comes out 22-september, not 27-july
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
As to the game it's self and all the flippant comments about how its all about zerging the opponents, try sending 100 marines at 3 collossi and tell me who wins.. well its the 3 collossi.. you can mass units all you like but if they are the wrong units you'll get stomped, thats where the S RTS comes from.
"we're only getting 1/3 of a game... blah blah", we get a 29 mission campaign an hour or so worth of CGI, full mutliplayer with a new league/ladder system so even the newbs can enjoy multiplayer, challenge maps designed to teach new players how to play SC2 multiplayer and ofc the map editor and custom games. Worth $60 of any ones money... or $45 if you pre-ordered.
I have been dissapointed with RTS games of late, DoW2 wants to be an RPG and is certainly not an RTS, Supcom2 should of been an expansion and not a new game as it offered nothing new over supcom 1. C&C4.. do I have to? the only light over the last 5 years is CoH (then they went and ruined it with the 2nd expansion).
People are ready for a classic style resource, base bulding RTS game.
obviously the OP got the date wrong in his calendar.
Civ5 comes out 22-september, not 27-july
win
Oh yeah, I was thinking that myself. Games with Sid Meier''s name on them don't dissapoint ( at least, not yet).Plus, CIV games are kind of refreshing when you stack them up against the click fests that rts games usually turn into.
Saying that, I'll most likely pick up SC2, the first one was fun and multiplay was intense. I'm just not planning to run out to a midnight or probably even an opening day release for it.
In around 2 hours time the SEA region (Austraila, Korea, Taiwan etc) will be the first to play Starcraft 2 when the Bnet 2.0 server comes online. Lucky &^%$!%.
I beta played Starcraft 2 and I ahve to say it is still a Zerg Fest, he who builds the most the fastest wins
not really my kinda game though, no challenge, apart from 'who can get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome the fastest' but I will skip that acheivement thanks........
You don't understand RTS one bit.
oh ho ho you didnt go there!!!
trust me at 33 and growing up in an era where 14kb ran games as a kid, I have tried every Genre and yes I do understand RTS,
There is a difference between being tactical in RTS adn just building as many cheap units as possible to overwhelm someone, thats not tactics thats just 'Can I churn them out fast enough'
And I didnt play the AI, I played against other players
oh and another reason to NOT buy this?
Region locking, nuff said, had friend buy both EU and NA copy so he can play friends in America, now thats jsut a con
You sir, are a poser. I see no merit in your arguments, for they are hollow.
Goodday, sir! I said goodday!
What he said was absolutely true, Starcraft 2 multiplayer is centered around resource and production management. Then again, it is one of the reasons I love the multiplayer, tastes vary.
Actually, what he said was:
"it is still a Zerg Fest, he who builds the most the fastest wins"
Basically implying that, say, 100 marines would do the job. Or 100 Marauders, or whatever. It's not as simple as that.
I'll be giving it a miss. I was thinking about it and I've actually never enjoyed a Blizzard game. From Warcraft and Starcraft up to World of Warcraft, I've never found any of them fun. All of them I've got bored after a certain amount of time. Like World of Warcraft I stopped playing at about level 30, Warcraft/Starcraft games I play a couple of battles then quit because it's just "Build up loads of units, charge enemy.". I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.
They do have their good points, like I do love their voices, especially the Warcraft peasant ones, "Wot? You da boss!". Personally I think they should just make movies, as their cutscenes are just incredible.
HOLY SMACK!!! They are trying to sell each individual campaign by itself at $60 a box?
That's absolutely insane. Blizzard needs to get down from their fuxing high horse. They are not curing cancer here. They are just creating an overly hyped yet average game.
Comments
You sir, are a poser. I see no merit in your arguments, for they are hollow.
Goodday, sir! I said goodday!
Have to admit everyone is jumping on the blizzard sucks band waggon just because its the in thing to do. What have they done thats so horribly wrong.
They produced the worlds largest MMORPG 10million plus people, try to keep them happy, even if they kepts 99% of the people happy, 10,000 people would be pissied off spaming the interney saying wow sucks, the truth of the matter is that people who enjoy something wont complain about it and rarely if ever congradulate, becuase they congradualte the product by playing it.
I have to admit I find it funny that people got mad about blizzards real ID thing, oh god someone is going to know my real name, now my wife or gf will know I am closet geek.
That being said I cant wait for SC2 , a non linear campaign structure with branching missionss, and there going out the way to make this a much more story driving experience then any other RTS.
Still play the original no problem and dont care if I come against someone using hacks, as I just quit and its not the prevalent, dont care that its region locked, usualy just play against random AI anyway.
Blizzard has yet to really disapoint me, the only thing that ticked me off was allowing Alliance classes and horde classes to played by each side. But hey there trying to apease 10million people with a product that does 100 different things and if one of those things is bad, a million people yelll
So I say thanks blizzard your a decent company and I will be buying SC2 becuase to date I have enjoyed all your games.
I never really got into the original and I was given beta access to the 2nd one for last weekend but I was so damn busy that I never got a chance to try it out. I don't figure I missed much though. And that's not a knock on anyone who likes the game I'm just saying it's not a big deal for me.
I am affraid the worst part of the MMO community will be drawn to SC2 ...
I havent played a non MMO ever since EQ, why would i play tjis game?
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
What he said was absolutely true, Starcraft 2 multiplayer is centered around resource and production management. Then again, it is one of the reasons I love the multiplayer, tastes vary.
You have a point, if you've had a narrow-minded and objective outlook on games since 1999, why bother to change now?
For some reason your post looked silly to me. To be frank, I don't think anyone gives a toss about you playing only MMOs since the nineties.
True, but if you fail in farming resources or production, you will be bulldozed before teching up. SC2 doesn't really have the tier based tech trees anyway, just certain buildings with certain technologies, no more 'increased dmg 1-3'.
EDIT: Scratch that, have slept for one hour, of course there's increased dmg and armor tech trees for units.
I loved Starcraft, but I'm not going to buy this one. Anyone who can be satisfied with a game released 10+ years ago with updated graphics (and not particular good graphics) need to reevaluate their standards.
Then again, I never understood the people who still play the old Starcraft. Whatever their reason is, I suppose this game should fit their needs.
For players who are competitive and play at a competitive level within an RTS enviroment, then this game will be for them.
For star craft 2 a little population will drop, not alot because the game simply isn't great.
It definately is not worth the money it asks for.
No way in fucking hell im paying 60 dollars for that game rofl.
True, but in SC2 you either need to build a rush or anti rush defense in competitive games, or you will lose. That's what I love about the game, normal matches generically take between fifteen to twenty five minutes. You can't just frotress up like in Supreme Commander and start off by building the most powerful units. After the initial rush phase, you need to quickly adapt to what your enemy is building and what strategy they are using, there are just no lull periods in SC2 games.
Why would people quit playing a MMO to play a single player game? Does not compute. Besides Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander is better. Strategic zoom ftw.
Not messing with success isn't always the case: Blizzard took a big step of change from Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3, with its races and its hero gameplay mechanics. The change from SC to SC2 over 10 years is besides the change to 3D more akin to a Guitar Hero glacial change from one to the next in the series.
Then again, the gameplay mechanics of SC were for its time that good that the current devs don't have to change much or think of something new for SC2 and the game will still be good.
But SC2 and from what I've seen from D3 leads me to believe that the current Blizzard dev and designer teams are different from the ones 10 years ago and not of the same level of brilliance: the current ones merely perpetuate with a few changes where the former ones created and even innovated. Or they got orders from higher up to leave things 'as is' and not change too much.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Looks like an insanely boring game. If i want RTS i'll stick with Company of Heroes tbh.
obviously the OP got the date wrong in his calendar.
Civ5 comes out 22-september, not 27-july
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
win
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
SC2 goona be huge.
As to the game it's self and all the flippant comments about how its all about zerging the opponents, try sending 100 marines at 3 collossi and tell me who wins.. well its the 3 collossi.. you can mass units all you like but if they are the wrong units you'll get stomped, thats where the S RTS comes from.
"we're only getting 1/3 of a game... blah blah", we get a 29 mission campaign an hour or so worth of CGI, full mutliplayer with a new league/ladder system so even the newbs can enjoy multiplayer, challenge maps designed to teach new players how to play SC2 multiplayer and ofc the map editor and custom games. Worth $60 of any ones money... or $45 if you pre-ordered.
I have been dissapointed with RTS games of late, DoW2 wants to be an RPG and is certainly not an RTS, Supcom2 should of been an expansion and not a new game as it offered nothing new over supcom 1. C&C4.. do I have to? the only light over the last 5 years is CoH (then they went and ruined it with the 2nd expansion).
People are ready for a classic style resource, base bulding RTS game.
Oh yeah, I was thinking that myself. Games with Sid Meier''s name on them don't dissapoint ( at least, not yet).Plus, CIV games are kind of refreshing when you stack them up against the click fests that rts games usually turn into.
Saying that, I'll most likely pick up SC2, the first one was fun and multiplay was intense. I'm just not planning to run out to a midnight or probably even an opening day release for it.
In around 2 hours time the SEA region (Austraila, Korea, Taiwan etc) will be the first to play Starcraft 2 when the Bnet 2.0 server comes online. Lucky &^%$!%.
Actually, what he said was:
"it is still a Zerg Fest, he who builds the most the fastest wins"
Basically implying that, say, 100 marines would do the job. Or 100 Marauders, or whatever. It's not as simple as that.
Yeah, now that's a game I'll leave an MMO for. Damn addictive in any format. Hell, I might just leave my MMO right now and go play IV lol
I'll be giving it a miss. I was thinking about it and I've actually never enjoyed a Blizzard game. From Warcraft and Starcraft up to World of Warcraft, I've never found any of them fun. All of them I've got bored after a certain amount of time. Like World of Warcraft I stopped playing at about level 30, Warcraft/Starcraft games I play a couple of battles then quit because it's just "Build up loads of units, charge enemy.". I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.
They do have their good points, like I do love their voices, especially the Warcraft peasant ones, "Wot? You da boss!". Personally I think they should just make movies, as their cutscenes are just incredible.
HOLY SMACK!!! They are trying to sell each individual campaign by itself at $60 a box?
That's absolutely insane. Blizzard needs to get down from their fuxing high horse. They are not curing cancer here. They are just creating an overly hyped yet average game.
i got a text saying my pre-order was ready...i made it abouyt two years ago and totally forgot about it
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon