But I also got a question for all the people who have replied that said "No, Its an RTS, You played one, you played them all." or to the people who said "No, it will be 3 different games, why pay for one, if you can wait and pay for them all at once." Or even to the people who said "I played sc1, and this is just sc1 with better graphics."
To those people, Have any of your heard of the genra MMORPG, yeah you should since it is what this site is all about. And well if you have played one MMORPG, you have played them ALL. There all pretty much the same with a few different things here and there. Same with every other game. Take FPS for example, you have your ww2/ww1 FPS, your modern, your Sci-fy, all thats different is the guns you use, and the time period its played in. You played one FPS you played them all.
You can say that for ANY type of game. So to me thats a stupid argument.
For the poeple who said "No, it will be 3 different games, why pay for one, if you can wait and pay for them all at once." I agree with you why pay for 1 now when you can wait 2 or 3 or whatever many years and get all 3 at once. But I also have to ask. For the games that are MMORPG that have more then one expantion and are p2p games. Would you really have gone and got that first game if they first came out and said "ay $50 for this game, and $15 a month, but also then were going to come out with 2 more "Games a.k.a expantions", that you will have to pay $X amount for when they come out." Would you really have gotten that first game? Or have waitted until all 3 were out and you could get all 3 for the price of one?
I mean I agree that $60 is expensive, but if your getting ~30 missions a campaign for a total of ~90 mission once the other 2 games are released to me is just as good as getting ~10 missions per game for each class and then ~another 10 for each xpac. As long as each xpac as I will call them isn't just a campaign but adds in some new units to the other races, and other diddly stuff then its all good imo.
For MMORPG's each xpac really only gives you a new region most of the time, more quests, lvl cap raise, and a new class. Which to me is the equivalent as in RTS as new official maps to play, more single player campaign missions, and new units to play. To me SC is good enough with there 3 classes that they dont need to add in a 4th just so people think its "Worthwhile" to buy the game.
And finally for the people who say "I played sc1, and this is just sc1 with better graphics." now this is just my opinion, but I think just because there isn't any MIND BLOWING innovative stuff, or that there isn't a new class to play, or the game play hasn't drastically changed, that you can still say this game hasn't changed. Theres new units, whole new map editor (I am almost positive we will see some really fun, creative, innovative custom maps coming from the community), there's the graphics upgrade, engine upgrade (theres little things going on that if you took the time to look you would notice is new in sc2 that wasn't in sc1). And I am sure theres a list of things different in sc2 then from sc1 that I dont feel like looking for right now, or listing myself.
My point being, That a lot of your arguements you use for not buying a game this game (OK, for the people who say "Im not into RTS" or its to expensive I will wait" or whatever) I say congrats you have a valid arguement, you dont like the genera good for you. But for most of your theres things I bet I could mention about whatever games your playing now that just turns your argument for not buying this game into just pure stupidity.
/Rant
Oh and for a side note, I am going on about 2 hours sleep (no not because I bought sc2 and been playing it), so if anything I said seems off or doesn't make sence or whatever, im sorry. And its purely because im so damn tired.
Originally posted by pmaura
I bought it and am enthralled, the gameplay is simple fast and fun and the graphics are fantastic, the campaign mode is nothing short of miraculaous, I love it and completly understand why they need three games to tell the story.
If anything I would love more branching story lines. But all I can say is WoW blizzard did it again.
Originally posted by Rockgod99
Originally posted by Kyleran
Not right now, going to wait for the Battlechest version with all 3 releases in one bundle.
Honestly I don't think you will see one of those for a very, very long time.
The seperate race versions of SC2 are each the size of a normal Rts.
The terran campaign is damn near 30 missions with tons of replay value.
Its not like the zerg and protoss games will simply be addons or expansion packs that will retail for a 29.99 (average xpac price).
There is no reason to wait, if there is a battlechest you could damn well believe its going to be well over a hundred bones.
Don't believe the haters, the terran game is a FULL rts experience. You would be mistaken if you think blizzard only gave you one third of SC2. That would be similar to thinking Mass Effect 1 is 1/3 of the real game because theres a part 2 and soon a 3.
Awesome game, I can´t find anything bad about it it has been tested and tweaked into insanity.
I enjoy playing my 2 campain a day missions, makes the game last longer and after that I will be playing the same thing over again with a different strategy, and again, and again and did I mention again?
ill just borrow it from friend to play campaign. not a big fan of competitive rts gaming - too much stress in rts.
im more of a dota aka simple team-based strategy game fan when it comes to strategy games. rpgs and action games were always more enjoyable.
as for campaign... ofcourse its sad that terran is the only race we will be able to play. im always into aliens and stuff and in starcraft 1 protoss and zerg were the way for me.
however i wouldnt go as far as those 'oh they give us 1/3 of the game! thieves!'.
i mean you could be an ass to anything that blizzard makes. need examples?:
1. orc campaign wasnt connected to the main story of the frozen throne at all. wtf?
2. no playable naga race in multiplayer games! WTF NOOB BLIZZARD!
3. a fine wacraft 3 + tft story completed in a random lousy way in a mmo.
4. absolutely no balance in diablo 2. some things were totally useless and some - overused.
5. 12 years of wait for starcraft 2.
6. x years of wait for diablo 3.
7. no sequel of lost vikings!!! would be so much more popular than l4d.
8. blood elves joining horde in burning crusade.
9. the undamaged draenei suddenly appearing in azeroth with space ships.
10. arthas stoped being badass asshole after warcraft 3 frozen throne ending. really sad... he was so evil and succesful at taking everything.... world of warcraft made him soft.
Awesome game, I can´t find anything bad about it it has been tested and tweaked into insanity.
I enjoy playing my 2 campain a day missions, makes the game last longer and after that I will be playing the same thing over again with a different strategy, and again, and again and did I mention again?
I'm playing through it slowly as well.
I'm about half way through my first campaign play trhough on normal difficulty setting. To cull my need for more starcraft now!
I started messing with some custom online maps and the AI skirmish.
I know I'll play through the campaign atleast three times but i don't want to rush it.
Sooner or later we will start seeing all sort of player made campaigns and Blizzard touched on possible new challenge missions as DLC so thats cool.
ill just borrow it from friend to play campaign. not a big fan of competitive rts gaming - too much stress in rts.
im more of a dota aka simple team-based strategy game fan when it comes to strategy games. rpgs and action games were always more enjoyable.
as for campaign... ofcourse its sad that terran is the only race we will be able to play. im always into aliens and stuff and in starcraft 1 protoss and zerg were the way for me.
however i wouldnt go as far as those 'oh they give us 1/3 of the game! thieves!'.
i mean you could be an ass to anything that blizzard makes. need examples?:
1. orc campaign wasnt connected to the main story of the frozen throne at all. wtf?
2. no playable naga race in multiplayer games! WTF NOOB BLIZZARD!
3. a fine wacraft 3 + tft story completed in a random lousy way in a mmo.
4. absolutely no balance in diablo 2. some things were totally useless and some - overused.
5. 12 years of wait for starcraft 2.
6. x years of wait for diablo 3.
7. no sequel of lost vikings!!! would be so much more popular than l4d.
8. blood elves joining horde in burning crusade.
9. the undamaged draenei suddenly appearing in azeroth with space ships.
10. arthas stoped being badass asshole after warcraft 3 frozen throne ending. really sad... he was so evil and succesful at taking everything.... world of warcraft made him soft.
list can go on and on if you want to be an ass..
Dude I want a sequel to LV now! also im kinda interested in a possible WC4 since its supposed to lay down the new lore for the next WoW mmo.
I've used a couple of those to bash blizzard. I will give credit where credit is due Blizzard has created a fantastic game in SC2 and its falls in line with the amazingly epic games they already created (WC rts series, SC1, Diablo series).
Nope, not me. I played a lot of RTS games over the years, starting in the early 90's, and I really enjoyed them. I must have played so many that they just don't interest me any more. Good genre though.
I feel the same way. I really enjoyed RTS in the early-mid 90's. But anymore they just don't keep my interest and the multiplayer was ruined with the No matter how you slice it the zerg is still alive in all multiplayer RTS. However, I mainly play for the single player content in this genre. I didn't like the beta much of starcraft 2, but that was only beta so I don't take it too seriously. Overall, I think it is safe to say I won't be picking up this one.
I did buy it, but really only because of the custom maps and the single player. Granted, Kmart was selling it for $40 if you had a friend buy a 2nd copy at the same time which was honestly too good of a deal to pass up <.<;
I'd also like to mention, though, if you get a trial key for SC2 you can download the game and once the trial expires -still- use the map editor freely and play the single player campaign. Sadly, though, there's no LAN play without an internet connection and in order to play the campaign after the trial expires one has to start from scratch.
As for the game itself, the single player campaign is.. (This is comming from someone who has a vendetta against Activision - I've been heavily against the game especially after the low-quality beta) Well, absolutely amazing. It's taken SC1 and perfected what the game was - including adding Mass Effect-style cinematics and a pre/post mission environment where the player can research major upgrades/new units, chat with NPCs, buy mercenaries and upgrade existing units and so forth. They nailed the immersion aspect of the game, and gameplay is extremely well-balanced to top it off. Missions range from surviving an zombie assault to mining ore on a planet where lava will rise every few minutes and kill anything it touches.
I can't say much for the Multiplayer except for in the beta I hated it.. Most games ended up being nothing but spamming the daylights out of one or two units and, while it is something I could probably take the time to learn again, I just can't find the motivation to do it. The map editor though does allow for an immense amount of customization, so in a year or so there's going to be some damn amazing maps out there.
As a single player game, SC2 is entirely worthwhile and if you're looking for a good RTS with very solid RPG elements, I'd say either buy the game or just get a trial key and play for free.
If you're looking for the multiplayer experience.. I'd wait a year for the good custom maps to come out and the balancing patches to be made.
I'll buy it when they offer the WHOLE game in a single box like the original and not just one faction out of three. Until that time I'll pass. Charging 10 bucks more than a normal game would cost for only 1/3rd of a game is totally outrageous and unacceptable.
I'll buy it when they offer the WHOLE game in a single box like the original and not just one faction out of three. Until that time I'll pass. Charging 10 bucks more than a normal game would cost for only 1/3rd of a game is totally outrageous and unacceptable. I guess EA is tainting Blizzard's judgment more and more these days.
Bren
If you look at the single player game, it has 29 missions in the campaign. The original had 30. So how is this not a complete game? I could understand the sentiment if there was only 10 missions for the human campain, but what you're basically asking for is 3x the single player content of the original. You can still play all the factions in multiplayer, you're not limited to one faction.
Also, what does EA have to do with Blizzard. Your post is one of the most uninformed I have ever seen.
I'll buy it when they offer the WHOLE game in a single box like the original and not just one faction out of three. Until that time I'll pass. Charging 10 bucks more than a normal game would cost for only 1/3rd of a game is totally outrageous and unacceptable. I guess EA is tainting Blizzard's judgment more and more these days.
Bren
If you look at the single player game, it has 29 missions in the campaign. The original had 30. So how is this not a complete game? I could understand the sentiment if there was only 10 missions for the human campain, but what you're basically asking for is 3x the single player content of the original. You can still play all the factions in multiplayer, you're not limited to one faction.
Also, what does EA have to do with Blizzard. Your post is one of the most uninformed I have ever seen.
I would argue that I would rather have all three factions and less missions per faction than have to pay for the same game 3 times. Also if you noticed I had already noticed my mistake about EA and edited that part out. Sorry, was confusing Blizzard and Bioware.
Eventually they will release all three factions in a Battle Chest and I'll buy it then. I don't care if it has a thousand missions... for a RTS it's still only 1/3rd of a game with only one faction out of three. Totally unacceptable.
I played the Beta, thought it was crap compared to the first one. It was kind of like warcraft 3 meets Starcraft without the heroes. Personally I thought warcraft 3 was trash.
The first Starcraft was epic, but I don't know about this one, maybe too early to tell?
What do you guys think?
already played way to much command&conquer type games.
gather resources/buybuildings/make base/make units/order them to attack.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
im still playing the original SC, tbh, although the new one does sound interesting.. i'm not sure its better than the original.. maybe some time in the future i'll give it a go.. but.. probably not. sequels always seem to be disappointing for some reason...
Now that I would play. Why they decided to make Starcraft 1.5 'lite' instead I have no idea. Blizzard is seeming more and more clueless these days. Lets hope they don't screw the pooch too bad with Diablo III. I still have hope for that game.
I do miss the world game before Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, etc.... I do miss X-Com UFO, Civilization, Master of Magic, Populous, Transport Tycoon, Syndicate, and all those non-simplistic games that were out after Blizzard found the key to sell gazzilions (unfortunatelly the same key locked the door to games like those that I appointed). Not blaming Blizzard of dumbing down the game scene, after all its the consumer fault, the Blizzard was exceptionaly good in doing what they do, polished, cute and simple games.... It should be a niche... Not the rule...
Aren't X-com and Civilzations still around?
Honestly I never saw Diablo and old WC Rts as dumbed down. The very first diablo was a wonderful experience (with great multiplayer and a memorable experience) and I played WCII damn near forver in highschool.
Can you explain how SC is simple? it has one of the most hardcore multiplayer communities around (imo just as hardcore as the old CS community). A new player needs to play for a damn year to even compete with those players.
I can understand the dumbed down argument with a game like WoW and I can even understand the copcat, unoriginal argument when it comes to WC,SC and diablo but in no way were these games dumbed down.
The games you listed as missing before Blizzard released highly popular and polished materpieces are totally different types of games. world building, economy and space sims. Because blizzard didnt release a version of X-com or populous doesn't mean their games are dumbed down.
A friend showed me Diablo I when it was launched, it was so silly on my eyes that I tried to play it with my eyes closed... And I must say that I suceed at some degree, it was really easy, you just had to smash buttom... From that day on I promise to myself to never play a game where I could play blind fold... Yes, that´s, for me, a dumb game (my personal opinion)... SC and all RTS are really a dumb down version, IMHO, of real strategic games, like Civ, Master of Magic, Sim City, Transport Tycoon... Gosh, even ´Sim Tower´ was more intelligent than these RTS!!!
Civ is still around, but you will notice that it has lost a lot of ground in face of the more simplistic games like SC, Age of Empires, Warcraft, etc... And for losing space to these kind of games I think that they just didnt bother to improve the game mechanics anymore... Civs are all the same, with minor changes only, no ground breaking things ...
StarCraft 2 really sucks IMO. Over a decade of wait for this? *psssh* What a piece of trash. Wait till it goes on cleareance for as a $5.99 title. This game is aimed towards the kiddies with ADD hopped up on caffeine... wouldn't even consider this a RTS, cause it is missing the S. It comes down to who can build most of the biggest units first, because everything lower in the tech-tree gets squashed. Really so not worth it.
Quoted for non truth.
Not likeing the game is totally understandable. However.. the rest of your post is LOL inspireing.
Wait a minute.... this game is NOT an MMO! WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT HERE!!!!!!!!! RAWWRRRRR!
I won't be buying it. There are strategy games I liked, all the way back to Nintendo's Genghis Khan, then later the Civ games and Master of Orion, but I never could get into the ones that seemed to boil down to, "Stripmine everything, build bases, build armies, go kill your fellow players fast before they come to kill you." Just not enough there to capture my imagination.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
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 that are bunched together 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 bought it and was happy that they stole some things from DOW2. Makes for a nice hybrid, if it was the same as prior the campaign would be old but doing it the way Relic did DOW was a nice change to the IP. In game cinematics add some story when needed and you can pass throug hthem if you want.
StarCraft 2 really sucks IMO. Over a decade of wait for this? *psssh* What a piece of trash. Wait till it goes on cleareance for as a $5.99 title. This game is aimed towards the kiddies with ADD hopped up on caffeine... wouldn't even consider this a RTS, cause it is missing the S. It comes down to who can build most of the biggest units first, because everything lower in the tech-tree gets squashed. Really so not worth it.
well lets see. $100Million in development.
box at $60. let's conservatively assume $50.
Day 1 over 5 mil sold. let's assume only 4 mil. You really need to get your FACTS correct.. Even Bliz is only bragging 1.4 million worldwide.. Where did you come up with the 4 million box sales in the first 24 hours? he he he
income in 24 hours? 200million. Sooo...yeah. What games do you play that make $200mil in 24 hours?
TY for the morning entertainment over coffee.. Have a great day
Comments
Originally posted by pmaura
I bought it and am enthralled, the gameplay is simple fast and fun and the graphics are fantastic, the campaign mode is nothing short of miraculaous, I love it and completly understand why they need three games to tell the story.
If anything I would love more branching story lines. But all I can say is WoW blizzard did it again.
This about sums my opinions up
Awesome game, I can´t find anything bad about it it has been tested and tweaked into insanity.
I enjoy playing my 2 campain a day missions, makes the game last longer and after that I will be playing the same thing over again with a different strategy, and again, and again and did I mention again?
ill just borrow it from friend to play campaign. not a big fan of competitive rts gaming - too much stress in rts.
im more of a dota aka simple team-based strategy game fan when it comes to strategy games. rpgs and action games were always more enjoyable.
as for campaign... ofcourse its sad that terran is the only race we will be able to play. im always into aliens and stuff and in starcraft 1 protoss and zerg were the way for me.
however i wouldnt go as far as those 'oh they give us 1/3 of the game! thieves!'.
i mean you could be an ass to anything that blizzard makes. need examples?:
1. orc campaign wasnt connected to the main story of the frozen throne at all. wtf?
2. no playable naga race in multiplayer games! WTF NOOB BLIZZARD!
3. a fine wacraft 3 + tft story completed in a random lousy way in a mmo.
4. absolutely no balance in diablo 2. some things were totally useless and some - overused.
5. 12 years of wait for starcraft 2.
6. x years of wait for diablo 3.
7. no sequel of lost vikings!!! would be so much more popular than l4d.
8. blood elves joining horde in burning crusade.
9. the undamaged draenei suddenly appearing in azeroth with space ships.
10. arthas stoped being badass asshole after warcraft 3 frozen throne ending. really sad... he was so evil and succesful at taking everything.... world of warcraft made him soft.
list can go on and on if you want to be an ass..
I'm playing through it slowly as well.
I'm about half way through my first campaign play trhough on normal difficulty setting. To cull my need for more starcraft now!
I started messing with some custom online maps and the AI skirmish.
I know I'll play through the campaign atleast three times but i don't want to rush it.
Sooner or later we will start seeing all sort of player made campaigns and Blizzard touched on possible new challenge missions as DLC so thats cool.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Dude I want a sequel to LV now! also im kinda interested in a possible WC4 since its supposed to lay down the new lore for the next WoW mmo.
I've used a couple of those to bash blizzard. I will give credit where credit is due Blizzard has created a fantastic game in SC2 and its falls in line with the amazingly epic games they already created (WC rts series, SC1, Diablo series).
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Did not bother to buy it since i hate si-fi story based games tbh, but gratz to everyone who bought it!
A True Master who Knows his own limit...
well i would have been more happy if they finished the story of warcraft 3 in rts way not in a mmo.
world of warcraft could have just been after the events of the story.
wow wasnt a realy bad game though, really had good atmosphere and stuff... just connecting it directly with wc3 story was insane mistake.
this case is a bit simmilar to sw:tor. most of kotor fans want another kotor game not a mmo.
actually i wasnt even waiting for starcraft 2 so much. i mean we had enough good rts for now.
starcraft 2 is like... 'get out of my realm, im the best here'.
diablo 3 would have been so much better... it would have no alternatives apart from diablo 2.
I feel the same way. I really enjoyed RTS in the early-mid 90's. But anymore they just don't keep my interest and the multiplayer was ruined with the No matter how you slice it the zerg is still alive in all multiplayer RTS. However, I mainly play for the single player content in this genre. I didn't like the beta much of starcraft 2, but that was only beta so I don't take it too seriously. Overall, I think it is safe to say I won't be picking up this one.
I won't be buying it. Or any of Activision's other games in the future. I'm sure it's a wonderful game, but I don't like Activision.
I did buy it, but really only because of the custom maps and the single player. Granted, Kmart was selling it for $40 if you had a friend buy a 2nd copy at the same time which was honestly too good of a deal to pass up <.<;
I'd also like to mention, though, if you get a trial key for SC2 you can download the game and once the trial expires -still- use the map editor freely and play the single player campaign. Sadly, though, there's no LAN play without an internet connection and in order to play the campaign after the trial expires one has to start from scratch.
As for the game itself, the single player campaign is.. (This is comming from someone who has a vendetta against Activision - I've been heavily against the game especially after the low-quality beta) Well, absolutely amazing. It's taken SC1 and perfected what the game was - including adding Mass Effect-style cinematics and a pre/post mission environment where the player can research major upgrades/new units, chat with NPCs, buy mercenaries and upgrade existing units and so forth. They nailed the immersion aspect of the game, and gameplay is extremely well-balanced to top it off. Missions range from surviving an zombie assault to mining ore on a planet where lava will rise every few minutes and kill anything it touches.
I can't say much for the Multiplayer except for in the beta I hated it.. Most games ended up being nothing but spamming the daylights out of one or two units and, while it is something I could probably take the time to learn again, I just can't find the motivation to do it. The map editor though does allow for an immense amount of customization, so in a year or so there's going to be some damn amazing maps out there.
As a single player game, SC2 is entirely worthwhile and if you're looking for a good RTS with very solid RPG elements, I'd say either buy the game or just get a trial key and play for free.
If you're looking for the multiplayer experience.. I'd wait a year for the good custom maps to come out and the balancing patches to be made.
I'll buy it when they offer the WHOLE game in a single box like the original and not just one faction out of three. Until that time I'll pass. Charging 10 bucks more than a normal game would cost for only 1/3rd of a game is totally outrageous and unacceptable.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
If you look at the single player game, it has 29 missions in the campaign. The original had 30. So how is this not a complete game? I could understand the sentiment if there was only 10 missions for the human campain, but what you're basically asking for is 3x the single player content of the original. You can still play all the factions in multiplayer, you're not limited to one faction.
Also, what does EA have to do with Blizzard. Your post is one of the most uninformed I have ever seen.
I would argue that I would rather have all three factions and less missions per faction than have to pay for the same game 3 times. Also if you noticed I had already noticed my mistake about EA and edited that part out. Sorry, was confusing Blizzard and Bioware.
Eventually they will release all three factions in a Battle Chest and I'll buy it then. I don't care if it has a thousand missions... for a RTS it's still only 1/3rd of a game with only one faction out of three. Totally unacceptable.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Bought it, waiting for it to become a MMO
already played way to much command&conquer type games.
gather resources/buybuildings/make base/make units/order them to attack.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
im still playing the original SC, tbh, although the new one does sound interesting.. i'm not sure its better than the original.. maybe some time in the future i'll give it a go.. but.. probably not. sequels always seem to be disappointing for some reason...
Now that I would play. Why they decided to make Starcraft 1.5 'lite' instead I have no idea. Blizzard is seeming more and more clueless these days. Lets hope they don't screw the pooch too bad with Diablo III. I still have hope for that game.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
A friend showed me Diablo I when it was launched, it was so silly on my eyes that I tried to play it with my eyes closed... And I must say that I suceed at some degree, it was really easy, you just had to smash buttom... From that day on I promise to myself to never play a game where I could play blind fold... Yes, that´s, for me, a dumb game (my personal opinion)... SC and all RTS are really a dumb down version, IMHO, of real strategic games, like Civ, Master of Magic, Sim City, Transport Tycoon... Gosh, even ´Sim Tower´ was more intelligent than these RTS!!!
Civ is still around, but you will notice that it has lost a lot of ground in face of the more simplistic games like SC, Age of Empires, Warcraft, etc... And for losing space to these kind of games I think that they just didnt bother to improve the game mechanics anymore... Civs are all the same, with minor changes only, no ground breaking things ...
Quoted for non truth.
Not likeing the game is totally understandable. However.. the rest of your post is LOL inspireing.
Wait a minute.... this game is NOT an MMO! WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT HERE!!!!!!!!! RAWWRRRRR!
I won't be buying it. There are strategy games I liked, all the way back to Nintendo's Genghis Khan, then later the Civ games and Master of Orion, but I never could get into the ones that seemed to boil down to, "Stripmine everything, build bases, build armies, go kill your fellow players fast before they come to kill you." Just not enough there to capture my imagination.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
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 that are bunched together 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 bought it and was happy that they stole some things from DOW2. Makes for a nice hybrid, if it was the same as prior the campaign would be old but doing it the way Relic did DOW was a nice change to the IP. In game cinematics add some story when needed and you can pass throug hthem if you want.
TY for the morning entertainment over coffee.. Have a great day
i will wait until they sell 100% of the game not just 33%
BestSigEver :P
