My issue with SC2 is the fact that although Blizz dropped RealID from the WoW forums they apparently still want to use it elsewhere. So if you want to multiplayer in SC2, you must logon to Battlenet there is no LAN support even if your friends are sitting next to you.
Not sure why Blizz is getting so obsessive about this RealID thing. It's like they just have to share your personal information with as many people as possible. I understand the whole online accountability thing, but using real names and personal information is not the way to do it. Especially with indentity theft such a problem and WoW having so many issues with hacked accounts.
My issue with SC2 is the fact that although Blizz dropped RealID from the WoW forums they apparently still want to use it elsewhere. So if you want to multiplayer in SC2, you must logon to Battlenet there is no LAN support even if your friends are sitting next to you.
Not sure why Blizz is getting so obsessive about this RealID thing. It's like they just have to share your personal information with as many people as possible. I understand the whole online accountability thing, but using real names and personal information is not the way to do it. Especially with indentity theft such a problem and WoW having so many issues with hacked accounts.
the real Id and the no lan thing is two seperate things.
The real Id thing came about because of the facebook interation deal.
As long as they don't try and do like they were planning to do with the forums again, and you can stay opted out of it, I don't mind it being there.
As for the no lan/battlenet thing that was to curb piracy
Why buy the same game if you already own it? Isn't that like...a waste of money?
I notice you have yet to say what games you play......
Fact matter is we loved Starcraft and if all they did with starcraft 2 was revamp the graphics and have jumping units we would all be happy. I would list all the other new stuff such as the Action replay feature that works nicely with multiplayer games but i see thats already been done.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I personally bought SC2 because i knew it would not be a huge difference from the 1st one.
Just like I hope diablo 3 will keep with basically the same mold with a new story and better graphics. Sometime changing everything people enjoyed is not a good thing IMO.
Everyone already knew this..... an it IS EXACTLY why they bought it.
^This...plus a whole host of people who weren't into gaming back then. Nobody has claimed that SC2 set out to be a different game than SC1. From what I hear, that's a good thing and a sigh of relief to fans.
Gais god of war 3 is a face lift of god of war 1 and its expansion god of war 2, don't buy it because you already own this game. Because there is absolutely no chance that a fan of the first one will like the sequel. Oh and there is also no chance the company that made the first one will make a similar game with updated... everything. There is also no chance the two upcoming expansions will be worth your money because blizzard so historically makes bad expansion packs, their only good expansion after all was for diablo 1.
Now that I'm done trolling you, stop trolling us with haterade firmly grasped in your hand. The only way some one wouldn't like starcraft 2 is if they don't like rts games and if they don't try it.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Everyone already knew this..... an it IS EXACTLY why they bought it.
^This...plus a whole host of people who weren't into gaming back then. Nobody has claimed that SC2 set out to be a different game than SC1. From what I hear, that's a good thing and a sigh of relief to fans.
The single player campaign, the compettive missions and how the new battlenet is structured is what makes this game great. It is really is much more than the original game. Noone even has to participate in the multiplayer portion to get full value of the game which is also great too.
Why pay $60 U.S. for 1/3 of a 12 year old game? SC2 shoud've been a Graphics Upgrade Patch
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Its nothing more than the stereotypical type of clickfest rts, and on the top of that its just a copy of an old game with better graphics.
Not to mention the cap system who just makes players just to camp till they reach cap and the micro their blobs of units against each other, everyone using the same top building order in top games therefore all games are the same with the only difference being micro and where each blop of units will fight. The only clickfest rts game that had some potential and i would call it good was kanes wrath(overall concept and gameplay) but thats EA so you are assured to get a shity product with 0 support so multiplayer will never reach its competitive potential.
Sc1 was better in a competitive aspect because it had very few automatism and the player had to micro everything to prove that he is better(and they are calling these type of game STRATEGY).Anyway Sc2 now make unit abilities auto target another unit if you choose multiple units thus less micro needed thus sc1 is better in a competitive aspect.
And i am not gonna buy a game who is just incredibly overhyped and had insane marketing support to make this game look like the god of rts that it isnt
I've only played the single player campaign, but it's not just similar to sc1, it's similar to about every other RTS I've played.
Yea because every other RTS has the following features.
- Achievments
-Branching storyline
- Interactive bits between each mission.
- Mercenaries you can hire
-Reserch upgrades based on items you capture.
- Tech upgrades based on a cash system.
Yea they all have this
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I bought it and i regret it, warcraft 3 was superior.
- chessy, dumb down Holywood story, with some parts copied from W3.
- bad optimization
- 12 years old gameplay recipe
- horrible ending no with background layers, is like all that u did untill that point doesnt matter, find out in the next expansion for 60 Euros haha (gona pirate them all Blizzard, no more cashy from me)
- useless multiplayer if u played DOW I, DOW II, COH and other games that actually went next gen. Tho Relic is not doing that great these days, but we will see with the next project.
+ polish
+ good level design
+ adventure clicky feature which is nice + mercenaries and upgrades.
Its the first project that Blizzard actually rushed it. You can get that from bad loading times and campaign story and ending. I guess i will have to thank Bobby from Actifail for that. Blizzard ceased to exist after warcraft 3 for me anyway. I dont even wait for Diablo 3, ill play it from torrents and if is actually a good game and i will buy it, tho the art direction is already fucked up. From Gothic, dark art direction they moved to a cartoonish wow retarded just to please their retarded fun base. It will sell like pancakes since most of the current Blizzard fans are clueless. PUN INTENDED!
I also love the media whom are bunch of idiots most of them with their clueless reviews..9, 10. Gawd...Is like they never played a game in their live, they all look for the flash and chessy stuff. Of course most of them are payed with ADS campaigns.
If another company did this game they will get max 8.
Finished the game Score 7/10.
You can flame me, i am immune to idiots, but if is constructive thats cool.
There's still plenty of old games out there that you can try that are great fun and still have communities playing online, if the latest is too pricey and does not really change anything to warrant buying etc and then for packs 2&3 you will fork out more cash: eg Populous The Beginning, Civ games, Age of Empires etc etc.
The only thing wrong with SC2 multi would be the lack of channels and the lame popularity feature. Which on the B.net forums they already stated they were going to add/fix.
I think the disappointing aspect to SC2 is they Blizzard have cut up the game into three. I think there single player story campaign doable in just a few hours gameplay. That leaves you with the esports online battles, which are alright, but really not enough to justify the huge hype Blizzard got for what is just another descent RTS game.
I think the disappointing aspect to SC2 is they Blizzard have cut up the game into three. I think there single player story campaign doable in just a few hours gameplay. That leaves you with the esports online battles, which are alright, but really not enough to justify the huge hype Blizzard got for what is just another descent RTS game.
and the E-sport online battles are a joke.. IMO.. 90% of the are 10 min. long clickfest zergs.. There is no real strategy, it's basically whoever miss clicks first.. loses.. From what I gather as well, is that someone already did a min/max formula, so it's just a matter of time before 90% of all zerg battles will be done with the same faction and formula.. yeah.. that sounds challenging and fun...... NOT
I think the disappointing aspect to SC2 is they Blizzard have cut up the game into three. I think there single player story campaign doable in just a few hours gameplay. That leaves you with the esports online battles, which are alright, but really not enough to justify the huge hype Blizzard got for what is just another descent RTS game.
You should play the game rather than listen to the haters, took me over 25 hours to complete the single player on HARD difficulty... thats not 1/3 of a game, I will replay this close to the release of first expansion as I can choose different tech and missions.
Play it on easy and only do the key missions and yes you can complete it in a few hours... true for any RTS.
I think the disappointing aspect to SC2 is they Blizzard have cut up the game into three. I think there single player story campaign doable in just a few hours gameplay. That leaves you with the esports online battles, which are alright, but really not enough to justify the huge hype Blizzard got for what is just another descent RTS game.
and the E-sport online battles are a joke.. IMO.. 90% of the are 10 min. long clickfest zergs.. There is no real strategy, it's basically whoever miss clicks first.. loses.. From what I gather as well, is that someone already did a min/max formula, so it's just a matter of time before 90% of all zerg battles will be done with the same faction and formula.. yeah.. that sounds challenging and fun...... NOT
Play the game and make your own mind up rather than let others do it for you.
I think the disappointing aspect to SC2 is they Blizzard have cut up the game into three. I think there single player story campaign doable in just a few hours gameplay. That leaves you with the esports online battles, which are alright, but really not enough to justify the huge hype Blizzard got for what is just another descent RTS game.
and the E-sport online battles are a joke.. IMO.. 90% of the are 10 min. long clickfest zergs.. There is no real strategy, it's basically whoever miss clicks first.. loses.. From what I gather as well, is that someone already did a min/max formula, so it's just a matter of time before 90% of all zerg battles will be done with the same faction and formula.. yeah.. that sounds challenging and fun...... NOT
From what I've heard from a friend who has spent the last couple years in South Korea... they don't particularly care for SC2. In fact, they're still playing SC1 as much as ever, and pretty much ignoring SC2 for the most part. He didn't ask much about it, since he was there teaching English and doesn't actually know their language much, but the general reason they gave was that the game design wasn't true to the original.
Which is true, as a number of the core game mechanics don't work the way they did in SC1. On the surface these things may seem superficial, if not the same, between the two games. The truth however, is that SC2 was pretty much dumbed down tactics wise, and then made more 'difficult' by speeding things up.
Seems to be the trend in Blizzard's design philosophy lately...
I think the disappointing aspect to SC2 is they Blizzard have cut up the game into three. I think there single player story campaign doable in just a few hours gameplay. That leaves you with the esports online battles, which are alright, but really not enough to justify the huge hype Blizzard got for what is just another descent RTS game.
and the E-sport online battles are a joke.. IMO.. 90% of the are 10 min. long clickfest zergs.. There is no real strategy, it's basically whoever miss clicks first.. loses.. From what I gather as well, is that someone already did a min/max formula, so it's just a matter of time before 90% of all zerg battles will be done with the same faction and formula.. yeah.. that sounds challenging and fun...... NOT
From what I've heard from a friend who has spent the last couple years in South Korea... they don't particularly care for SC2. In fact, they're still playing SC1 as much as ever, and pretty much ignoring SC2 for the most part. He didn't ask much about it, since he was there teaching English and doesn't actually know their language much, but the general reason they gave was that the game design wasn't true to the original.
Which is true, as a number of the core game mechanics don't work the way they did in SC1. On the surface these things may seem superficial, if not the same, between the two games. The truth however, is that SC2 was pretty much dumbed down tactics wise, and then made more 'difficult' by speeding things up.
Seems to be the trend in Blizzard's design philosophy lately...
The reason not for every one in SK dropping SC1 the day SC2 was released it due to sponsers, pro gamers have contracts with sponser to play SC1 in future events, it will take a year or so for the swing to happen but if you follow TeamLiquids site you'll see many pro gamers making the switch. But right now many gamers are locked on deals to play SC1 in already planned events.
There are also the professional bodies who organise the events, Blizzard now require that they are involved in these events and some fo these bodies jsut dont want blizzard there. and So will stick to SC1.
Everyone already knew this..... an it IS EXACTLY why they bought it.
Actually, I did know... but this is why I stayed away lol. Graphics are nice, but if thats the only significant difference then I'd have to pass which I did lol.
Yes there are some who did, but the 800k preorders and the millions of sales they'll have before next week even starts shows that people like having the really old game repackaged to be nice looking.
And this means what? That there are at least 800k people that could be suckered into buying something they already own just because this new version looks better? I already knew the world was full of people that are easily suckered by pretty pictures lol.
Look at how they have sold cars and beer for decades lol, get a chick in a bikini to sit on the car or hold the beer and count the money that rolls in lol.
Yep and you're easily suckered into the blizzard hate train... if you were decently intelligent you'd simple say "well if they enjoy it more power to them."
Nah, I'm actually a Blizzard Fanboy especially since I'm a long time MTG player :P. I really liked WarCraft and SC. Never got into WoW it wasn't my thing.
Thing is, I'm a fan of the things that they do well lol, this for me wasn't one of those things that they did well.
In any case if you trully enjoyed the product you'd simply move on and ignore me because what I say shouldn't matter. If you purchased it for other reasons though I could see why my post riled you up, it's what many do when they are trying to defend their purchases when the purchase something just because it's "trendy" lol.
Why are you hating on a game you haven't played? The single player alone is worth 60$ if we compare it to the industry norm now.
The multiplayer is what I bought it for though, especially being one that never played starcraft 1, I fell in love with SC2.
The custom maps are also fun as hell.
There's nothing wrong with keeping the same formula which is what they did. However the same formula doesn't mean the same game. The improvements, campaign, map editor, and the fact they are releasing it for another generation to become in love with it is fantastic.
Let me guess though, you are SOO HYPPED FOR THE NEW CALL OF DUTY THOOOOO.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I bought this game, started playing the campaign and loved. I absoloutely loved it. It was ALMOST better than sex.
Then .. I finished the campaign and started playing skirmishes against the AI and other players, and realized to my horror, that except for better, way better I must say, graphics and a few minor unit changes, the game was the same one I've been playing for about ten yeras. Now I don't feel there is anything wrong with that but I do not feel anywhere near the desire to log in and playnow that the campaign is over. And honestly RTS games such as Supreme Commander one and two and the Dawn of War games have spoiled me for the older slower micromanagement of Star Craft.
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, riddle 'em with bullets
Okay there is two sides to this coin. One there is the people who feel that the game was too similar IE: the people who didn't play the original starcraft much, or the people who did and wanted a change. Then the other side is the people who feel it wasn't similar enough, I have many friends who were competetive in the original starcraft and say that they changed it too much for them. I honestly can't say either, since I really only played starcraft for the custom maps and maybe a skirmish here and there, but I love starcraft 2. It was fun through the whole campaign, and it continued to be fun even on the very few custom maps that are out right now. It still feels fresh, even if to some it was only a coat of paint on an old game.
Comments
My issue with SC2 is the fact that although Blizz dropped RealID from the WoW forums they apparently still want to use it elsewhere. So if you want to multiplayer in SC2, you must logon to Battlenet there is no LAN support even if your friends are sitting next to you.
Not sure why Blizz is getting so obsessive about this RealID thing. It's like they just have to share your personal information with as many people as possible. I understand the whole online accountability thing, but using real names and personal information is not the way to do it. Especially with indentity theft such a problem and WoW having so many issues with hacked accounts.
the real Id and the no lan thing is two seperate things.
The real Id thing came about because of the facebook interation deal.
As long as they don't try and do like they were planning to do with the forums again, and you can stay opted out of it, I don't mind it being there.
As for the no lan/battlenet thing that was to curb piracy
I notice you have yet to say what games you play......
Fact matter is we loved Starcraft and if all they did with starcraft 2 was revamp the graphics and have jumping units we would all be happy. I would list all the other new stuff such as the Action replay feature that works nicely with multiplayer games but i see thats already been done.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I personally bought SC2 because i knew it would not be a huge difference from the 1st one.
Just like I hope diablo 3 will keep with basically the same mold with a new story and better graphics. Sometime changing everything people enjoyed is not a good thing IMO.
^This...plus a whole host of people who weren't into gaming back then. Nobody has claimed that SC2 set out to be a different game than SC1. From what I hear, that's a good thing and a sigh of relief to fans.
Now that I'm done trolling you, stop trolling us with haterade firmly grasped in your hand. The only way some one wouldn't like starcraft 2 is if they don't like rts games and if they don't try it.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
The single player campaign, the compettive missions and how the new battlenet is structured is what makes this game great. It is really is much more than the original game. Noone even has to participate in the multiplayer portion to get full value of the game which is also great too.
I've only played the single player campaign, but it's not just similar to sc1, it's similar to about every other RTS I've played.
Why pay $60 U.S. for 1/3 of a 12 year old game? SC2 shoud've been a Graphics Upgrade Patch
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I wont buy it.
Sc2 is not worth it imo.
Its nothing more than the stereotypical type of clickfest rts, and on the top of that its just a copy of an old game with better graphics.
Not to mention the cap system who just makes players just to camp till they reach cap and the micro their blobs of units against each other, everyone using the same top building order in top games therefore all games are the same with the only difference being micro and where each blop of units will fight. The only clickfest rts game that had some potential and i would call it good was kanes wrath(overall concept and gameplay) but thats EA so you are assured to get a shity product with 0 support so multiplayer will never reach its competitive potential.
Sc1 was better in a competitive aspect because it had very few automatism and the player had to micro everything to prove that he is better(and they are calling these type of game STRATEGY).Anyway Sc2 now make unit abilities auto target another unit if you choose multiple units thus less micro needed thus sc1 is better in a competitive aspect.
And i am not gonna buy a game who is just incredibly overhyped and had insane marketing support to make this game look like the god of rts that it isnt
Yea because every other RTS has the following features.
- Achievments
-Branching storyline
- Interactive bits between each mission.
- Mercenaries you can hire
-Reserch upgrades based on items you capture.
- Tech upgrades based on a cash system.
Yea they all have this
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I like SC1 more
but at least we have a map editor to make SC2 to everything
I bought it and i regret it, warcraft 3 was superior.
- chessy, dumb down Holywood story, with some parts copied from W3.
- bad optimization
- 12 years old gameplay recipe
- horrible ending no with background layers, is like all that u did untill that point doesnt matter, find out in the next expansion for 60 Euros haha (gona pirate them all Blizzard, no more cashy from me)
- useless multiplayer if u played DOW I, DOW II, COH and other games that actually went next gen. Tho Relic is not doing that great these days, but we will see with the next project.
+ polish
+ good level design
+ adventure clicky feature which is nice + mercenaries and upgrades.
Its the first project that Blizzard actually rushed it. You can get that from bad loading times and campaign story and ending. I guess i will have to thank Bobby from Actifail for that. Blizzard ceased to exist after warcraft 3 for me anyway. I dont even wait for Diablo 3, ill play it from torrents and if is actually a good game and i will buy it, tho the art direction is already fucked up. From Gothic, dark art direction they moved to a cartoonish wow retarded just to please their retarded fun base. It will sell like pancakes since most of the current Blizzard fans are clueless. PUN INTENDED!
I also love the media whom are bunch of idiots most of them with their clueless reviews..9, 10. Gawd...Is like they never played a game in their live, they all look for the flash and chessy stuff. Of course most of them are payed with ADS campaigns.
If another company did this game they will get max 8.
Finished the game Score 7/10.
You can flame me, i am immune to idiots, but if is constructive thats cool.
There's still plenty of old games out there that you can try that are great fun and still have communities playing online, if the latest is too pricey and does not really change anything to warrant buying etc and then for packs 2&3 you will fork out more cash: eg Populous The Beginning, Civ games, Age of Empires etc etc.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
The only thing wrong with SC2 multi would be the lack of channels and the lame popularity feature. Which on the B.net forums they already stated they were going to add/fix.
and the E-sport online battles are a joke.. IMO.. 90% of the are 10 min. long clickfest zergs.. There is no real strategy, it's basically whoever miss clicks first.. loses.. From what I gather as well, is that someone already did a min/max formula, so it's just a matter of time before 90% of all zerg battles will be done with the same faction and formula.. yeah.. that sounds challenging and fun...... NOT
You should play the game rather than listen to the haters, took me over 25 hours to complete the single player on HARD difficulty... thats not 1/3 of a game, I will replay this close to the release of first expansion as I can choose different tech and missions.
Play it on easy and only do the key missions and yes you can complete it in a few hours... true for any RTS.
Play the game and make your own mind up rather than let others do it for you.
From what I've heard from a friend who has spent the last couple years in South Korea... they don't particularly care for SC2. In fact, they're still playing SC1 as much as ever, and pretty much ignoring SC2 for the most part. He didn't ask much about it, since he was there teaching English and doesn't actually know their language much, but the general reason they gave was that the game design wasn't true to the original.
Which is true, as a number of the core game mechanics don't work the way they did in SC1. On the surface these things may seem superficial, if not the same, between the two games. The truth however, is that SC2 was pretty much dumbed down tactics wise, and then made more 'difficult' by speeding things up.
Seems to be the trend in Blizzard's design philosophy lately...
The reason not for every one in SK dropping SC1 the day SC2 was released it due to sponsers, pro gamers have contracts with sponser to play SC1 in future events, it will take a year or so for the swing to happen but if you follow TeamLiquids site you'll see many pro gamers making the switch. But right now many gamers are locked on deals to play SC1 in already planned events.
There are also the professional bodies who organise the events, Blizzard now require that they are involved in these events and some fo these bodies jsut dont want blizzard there. and So will stick to SC1.
Why are you hating on a game you haven't played? The single player alone is worth 60$ if we compare it to the industry norm now.
The multiplayer is what I bought it for though, especially being one that never played starcraft 1, I fell in love with SC2.
The custom maps are also fun as hell.
There's nothing wrong with keeping the same formula which is what they did. However the same formula doesn't mean the same game. The improvements, campaign, map editor, and the fact they are releasing it for another generation to become in love with it is fantastic.
Let me guess though, you are SOO HYPPED FOR THE NEW CALL OF DUTY THOOOOO.
Was good enough for me to grab the CE.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I bought this game, started playing the campaign and loved. I absoloutely loved it. It was ALMOST better than sex.
Then .. I finished the campaign and started playing skirmishes against the AI and other players, and realized to my horror, that except for better, way better I must say, graphics and a few minor unit changes, the game was the same one I've been playing for about ten yeras. Now I don't feel there is anything wrong with that but I do not feel anywhere near the desire to log in and playnow that the campaign is over. And honestly RTS games such as Supreme Commander one and two and the Dawn of War games have spoiled me for the older slower micromanagement of Star Craft.
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, riddle 'em with bullets
Okay there is two sides to this coin. One there is the people who feel that the game was too similar IE: the people who didn't play the original starcraft much, or the people who did and wanted a change. Then the other side is the people who feel it wasn't similar enough, I have many friends who were competetive in the original starcraft and say that they changed it too much for them. I honestly can't say either, since I really only played starcraft for the custom maps and maybe a skirmish here and there, but I love starcraft 2. It was fun through the whole campaign, and it continued to be fun even on the very few custom maps that are out right now. It still feels fresh, even if to some it was only a coat of paint on an old game.