Starcraft 2 : The Dune II Clone

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:04 am UTC

thc wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:...Blizzard is capable of conceptualizing, producing, playtesting, balancing, and releasing an expansion in less than 8 month...

I'm confused how that has to do with anything.

In your belief that Blizzard did not, upon completing Starcraft or Diablo II, already have in the pipe the expansion that eventually came out, you are instead suggesting that Blizzard considered those games complete, allowed for some time to pass, came up with the expansion, did everything required to create said expansion, and ship it out to be purchased. Starcraft was first released on March 31st, 1998. Brood War (it's first Blizzard expansion) was released on November 30th, 1998.

So, in less than 8 months, by your assertation, they created Brood War.

Diablo II was released on June 29, 2000 with it's expansion coming exactly one year later, on June 29, 2001. So, again, in a year's time they conceptualized, tested, beta'd, and released an expansion having no inkling they would do such a thing on June 29, 2000.

But I'm just repeating what Rando has already said - that the belief that Blizzard released those games without any plans for an expansion is laughable. It takes too damn long to make a game, even if you're a shovelware company like EA. Blizzard has proven time and time again that they are not such a company.

The only difference I see is that they are announcing ahead of time that there will be expansions, and rather than splitting the single player game (of which you have no interest) up into three pieces by having a third of each race's campaign on the disc, they are instead focusing on a single race per chapter.

While I admit that I've done next to no digging myself, I've yet to see something that definitively states that each chapter will cost the same amount of money.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
BumpInTheNight
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:52 am UTC
Location: Yer pants

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby BumpInTheNight » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:06 am UTC

thc wrote:And there's the problem. "The 'expansions' will just give bonus units"... that should have been in the game because it was originally designed to be one game.


Wait, hold on a second here. Name one thing in common with every blizzard RTS game:

A) Made by blizzard.
B) Connect to battle.net
C) All have had an expansion released during its life time.
D) Cause me to get in really bad terms with my employer due to 'being sick' during a launch week.
E) All of the above.

If the fact that they are using the same tactic surprises and/or annoys you...yup I see why mods feel they need to protect you. Yes they are often considered shameless cash grabs. So why don't you show them by buying only the first one and then when the expansions come out just keep playing battle.net with the first one with all the others who think the same way and you can all agree on it and live happily ever after.

/sorry, still bitter about Ubisoft's wide screen fubar with Far cry 2.

Xaddak
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:28 pm UTC

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Xaddak » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:09 am UTC

It isn't just that he keeps saying that expansions are made in eight to twelve months, it is that he keeps saying the three parts of SCII were originally supposed to be one game, and as for that:

Image
Are you on this forum? Do you play EVE? Then join the xkcd channel! In your chat window, click on the speech bubble in the upper right corner. In the window that opens, type in xkcd and hit join.

-X

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:13 am UTC

Given the development cycle, that's entirely possible. I assume it's been expanded upon since then.

I mean, I can't see the first big meeting on Starcraft II starting with "Okay boys.. we're here to talk about Starcraft II and our plans for it. And it's expansions. We need at least two of those, if not three"

That said, as the development cycle continued, I can easily see more and more material being created and pushed back to the expansions to give them more time to render acceptable looking models and so that the first game isn't completely overwhelming. Plot advancement ideas that were going to be compressed into a single mission get fleshed out more and decided that they need their own stand-alone mission, not as the first series of goals towards the end of the map. I also get the impression that the idea of splitting the campaign up the way they are is a relatively recent one.

Also, Xaddak.. Given the heated nature of the debate and my cease and desist request, keep in mind that there are less assholish ways of requesting something.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Xaddak
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:28 pm UTC

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Xaddak » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:29 am UTC

Sorry, I'm just kind of frustrated. I apologize to you, thc, and the xkcd community at large, and I'm just going to step out of this thread altogether to be on the safe side.
Are you on this forum? Do you play EVE? Then join the xkcd channel! In your chat window, click on the speech bubble in the upper right corner. In the window that opens, type in xkcd and hit join.

-X

User avatar
Coin
Posts: 884
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:21 pm UTC
Location: Uppsala
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Coin » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:13 am UTC

So what do you guys think about the units?

Spoilerd in case someone wants it to be a surprise when they play the game for the first time.
Spoiler:
I don't think they have published all the units yet, but must say that I like the expanded mobility focus for the Terrans. Likewise I'm pretty excited about the Protoss throwing all restraints to the wind and bringing out those massive floating islands to play.
Has anyone seen any reavers by the way? I was rather fond of those giant mechanical maggots.
3fj wrote: "You, sir, have been added to my list of deities under 'God of Swedish meat'."

nsmjohn
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:42 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby nsmjohn » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:47 pm UTC

Coin wrote:I was rather fond of those giant mechanical maggots.

You and my roommate both, reaver recalling asshole.... (him not you).
Gojoe wrote:Well, I would say something here, but it would only make it worse.


User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby thc » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

Xaddak wrote:It isn't just that he keeps saying that expansions are made in eight to twelve months, it is that he keeps saying the three parts of SCII were originally supposed to be one game, and as for that:

<citation needed>


Do you REALLY need a citation? I mean, that's pretty much the entire issue. Go read up on the countless articles where blizzard states they decide to split the game because of "storyline and cinematics." I believe it's in the FAQ too.

Okay, so people seem to be saying that there's no difference between SC II expansions and other blizzard expansions. Let's start with the fact that 2 expansions will split the community into 4 different groups? How about the fact that the fact that it will cost twice as much?

In my opinion, most importantly, is the fact they will be intentionally holding back units/abilities in multiplayer. This brings about balance issues as the multiplayer component will be incomplete and a constantly changing meta, which will undoubtedly cause incessant complaining and rage-quit among the upper echolons of competitive players ala Guild Wars, and thus, negatively affect the rest of the competitive environment. I'm sure the multiplayer team will do a good job of patching things up to not be so bumpy, but then, why not just do the right thing and release the entire multiplayer component at once and sell the SP campaigns to people who actually want them? Oh right, because it makes them more money this way.

How is this different than D2 and SCI?
D2 was never balanced for competitive play (PvP) anyway. LOD and subsequent patches added a LOT of new content that was not available at release time of D2. Part of LOD may have been completed at release time, but that content was never intended to be part of D2 sans expansion. So, it was "balanced" (read: balancable) in the sense that the game was complete.

For Brood Wars, actually IIRC, there was some complaint about balance from the get go. IIRC, SC sans BW, zergs were pretty overpowered because of air supremacy due to the fact that units were held back. This was fixed somewhat, but then when BW came out, some of the units became redundant (Valkyries? Corsairs?). The difference is that BW is only 1 expansion, didn't require a CD key and one CD could be used to LAN between several friends. Also, I think it was actually cheap to buy at release ($30), but I could be wrong.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:47 pm UTC

In the FAQs I've seen on Blizzard's website, they are referring to the game as a core game plus two expansions, which leads me to believe that the expansions will be at the expansion price point - that is, $30-$40 per.

I am also assuming that everything they want to do for the various single-player games could be done in the classic style - that is, a third of each race's missions per CD, but they are instead choosing to completely flesh out each race's campaign while at the same time maintaining an acceptable release date.

As far as the legitimate complaint of holding back units in Multiplayer for the expansion... you have a combination of "They may not be finished yet" and "Welcome to the business model."

Your experience is that most people play it for the Multiplayer. Our experience is a combination of Single Players and Omni Players (those that enjoy both single and multiplayer aspects and as near as I can tell make up the bulk of the fanbase). In order to appease all three groups as best as they can, they're chunking things so that no single group feels as though they're being screwed over while attempting to please their core group - those that enjoy both aspects.

If they really wanted to fuck you over, they could simply make it so that you cannot play as the Protoss unless you have the Core Game + Protoss Expansion like Dawn of War. (Each expansion was stand-alone, but if you wanted to play as a particular race, you needed that race's expansion or the base game.)

And.. yeah, discussing piracy like it's something to be proud of isn't really that great. Gone are the days of the Spawn Copy... which is a complete mistake if you ask me, but they didn't.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
ArchangelShrike
Rodan's Title
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
Location: Waikiki

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby ArchangelShrike » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:46 pm UTC

Speaking as a non-ladder player who finds excessive micro mind-boggling, enjoys competition, storyline and custom maps made by the community and is much more looking forward to the co-op RTS/RPG community made maps, skins, etc. that knows a good amount of people that specifically bought WC3 & TFT only to play DotA while skipping both single-player and ladder-multiplayer, I'd like to represent the fourth side of the community that knows nothing about Blizzard, only that they make it possible to play "DotA." The custom maps community will end up buying all of the expansions because it gives us more pieces to work with, more pieces that don't need to be skinned or given custom spells or code hacked up for it. Do we really care about how much it costs? No, we just want our fix that's been too long in the making.

Is it really so bad that at some point Blizzard said "Oh shit, if we keep on adding new ideas + polish + balance we'll publish SC2 after Duke Nukem Forever?" From your posts it seems you only care about the RTS excluding background, if so there's plenty of other RTSs out there to choose from. Constantly changing meta? I have played very little of the SC/WC3 ladder, as stated before, but I used to play a bit of PVP Guild Wars and I found the new expansions fun, the little tweaks and balances. It leaves new surprises, new ways of winning rather than simply predicting your opponents' moves and clicking faster. I personally find it quite boring to build up the same rush again and again for the sake of icons, or titles although if I was playing for cash maybe that would change. Besides, as has been brought up before - if things are broken, Blizzard will patch it. Us map makers will have quite a time getting our maps to work again after patches (WC3 1.06,1.09 off the top of my head, I believe) and yes, it'll be slightly expensive, but can we assume for just a second that Blizzard is working their ass off on this game with a set deadline as to not disappoint fans and it's not simply malice/greed, that they want to get out a great experience from the get go and they figured this is enough for now?

tl; dr:
Is it really so bad that at some point Blizzard said "Oh shit, if we keep on adding new ideas + polish + balance we'll publish SC2 after Duke Nukem Forever?"

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:30 pm UTC

BumpInTheNight wrote:Wait, hold on a second here. Name one thing in common with every blizzard RTS game:

A) Made by blizzard.
B) Connect to battle.net
C) All have had an expansion released during its life time.
D) Cause me to get in really bad terms with my employer due to 'being sick' during a launch week.
E) All of the above.

Only A and I guess D are common amongst all Blizzard RTS games. Warcraft never had an exansion and was never B.net capable that I'm aware of. WC2 wasn't B.net capable until a remake was released.

User avatar
Coin
Posts: 884
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:21 pm UTC
Location: Uppsala
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Coin » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:38 pm UTC

Just tack on a "since 1995" at the end then.
3fj wrote: "You, sir, have been added to my list of deities under 'God of Swedish meat'."

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Spuddly » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:28 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:For example, Blizzard released Lord of Destruction exactly one year after Diablo II. I highly doubt that they released Diablo II, sat back, considered it finished, and then eventually thought "you know, it could use a fifth act" then set to writing it and programming it, and happened to finish it exactly one year later. They obviously made Diablo II knowing full well that they would expand it and add a fifth act. The storyline is incomplete without it.


I hear that there's a considerable amount of LoD (expansion) content on the actual game disks. Someone did some hacking and found clues as to what was being implemented, based on what they had already coded.

Content gets cut form games very frequently, largely due to time constraints. The development team can't figure out how to make something work, so they leave it out and release the game. Then they can go back to the drawing board, while the profits from the game roll in, and spend more time better developing that content. If the game does poorly, then they simply don't do the expansion, and save money.

thc wrote:Okay, so people seem to be saying that there's no difference between SC II expansions and other blizzard expansions. Let's start with the fact that 2 expansions will split the community into 4 different groups? How about the fact that the fact that it will cost twice as much?


Splitting the community based on what expansions in play will lead to what, 9 different possible combinations? I'm no good at math. But yeah, I doubt they'll take that approach.

In my opinion, most importantly, is the fact they will be intentionally holding back units/abilities in multiplayer. This brings about balance issues as the multiplayer component will be incomplete and a constantly changing meta, which will undoubtedly cause incessant complaining and rage-quit among the upper echolons of competitive players ala Guild Wars, and thus, negatively affect the rest of the competitive environment. I'm sure the multiplayer team will do a good job of patching things up to not be so bumpy, but then, why not just do the right thing and release the entire multiplayer component at once and sell the SP campaigns to people who actually want them? Oh right, because it makes them more money this way.


My guess is they'll do it like the do it with WoW. Wrath of the Lich King isn't out yet, but EVERYONE's got a new profession, access to new areas, and vast restructuring of talents, as well as added/changed content (hunter pets have talents, now, for instance).

They'll just patch the new units in.

For Brood Wars, actually IIRC, there was some complaint about balance from the get go. IIRC, SC sans BW, zergs were pretty overpowered because of air supremacy due to the fact that units were held back. This was fixed somewhat, but then when BW came out, some of the units became redundant (Valkyries? Corsairs?).


Does anyone actually use valks?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby EvanED » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:25 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:Splitting the community based on what expansions in play will lead to what, 9 different possible combinations? I'm no good at math. But yeah, I doubt they'll take that approach.
8, and that's only if you count "has none of the versions". Otherwise there is T, P, Z, PT, TZ, PZ, TPZ.

It'll be interesting to see what they do. I'm not sure what to expect regarding having only "part" of the game.

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Mo0man » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:42 pm UTC

Isn't there some chronological order to the releases? I mean for original Starcraft they didn't have SC, BW, then SC+BW. In terms of SC2, that would mean
T, TZ, then TZP... right? Or at the very least, since T is the base, they'll have T, TZ, TP, TZP
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:48 pm UTC

..again.. it's SCII and Two Expansions.

Meaning.. as I understand the word Expansions... you have to have the base (Terran) game to play at all.

Leaving you with four possible combinations

T, TZP, TZ, TP
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby Gunfingers » Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:44 pm UTC

It seems more likely to me that they will be standalone expansions similar to Supreme Commander, but i can't find anything in 40 seconds of half-assed googling to confirm or deny that.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby EvanED » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:01 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:..again.. it's SCII and Two Expansions.

Meaning.. as I understand the word Expansions... you have to have the base (Terran) game to play at all.
You may be right; there seems to be conflicting information out there.

I originally saw it in a /. article that explicitly said they are all standalone. In an interview, someone from Blizzard said "But as for single-player, we expect a person that’s only interested in the Kerrigan focus could pick up and start plaing from her perspective."

But the same guy does call it an expansion, and even that last statement isn't crystal clear.

So I can't tell if there's just a misunderstanding that led to the original statement and further information has clarified, there's a misunderstanding that they will require the original game and "expansion" is just a useful term to use even if it's not exactly true, or Blizzard hasn't actually decided yet, or what.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: StarCraft II problems?

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:07 pm UTC

Which is actually why I mentioned Dawn of War earlier. It's three expansions are stand alone, yet having all of them let's you form Voltron allows you to play as all of the races in Multiplayer/Single Player. It's possible they're going with that design. Still, the last information I saw mentioned a game and two expansions, so I think they may have dropped the stand-alone part of it.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

TrentaTre
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:13 am UTC

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby TrentaTre » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:40 am UTC

A deployment in Afghanistan has removed this from my geekdom radar and so i must post that i am sad, nay, heart broken that we are STILL WAITING! are you kidding me.... GRRRRR Blizzard!
--
Tim

Jozrael
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:20 pm UTC

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Jozrael » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:07 am UTC

I'm not sure if this was resolved here, but the word on the SC2 fora is that the games are:

Standalone. You can buy only one and play it happily evermore.

They will have exclusive singleplayer content. Each game will feature one races campaign (there may be minicampaigns, and each one will have certain unique gameplay mechanics...Terran has nonlinear storyline, Zerg has 'rpg aspects', and Protoss has 'diplomatic options'.).

In terms of multiplayer, this is less clear. There will be three separate multiplayers. I will refer to them as T, Z, and P.

Each will contain the same base units. The Z and P expansions will each add units on, and possibly additional functionality with bnet 2.0.

The only real remaining unanswered question is: Will the Z upgrades be CUMULATIVE in the P.

By the way, the games will not be playable vs each other on bnet unfortunately. You can hang in channel and talk, but not play vs each other. I estimate that between 1-3 years after the protoss expansion release, 95%+ of players will use it. Approximately 95% of online SC players use BW currently, possibly higher.

User avatar
Rippy
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Can o' Duh

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Rippy » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:57 pm UTC

Three separate games? Sounds like Blizzard is playing the "how much money can we get out of these SC2 fans?" game. Kind of like the Half-Life 2 episodes, each is $20 so that in the end you're paying $60 instead of the $50 the game is actually worth.

I'm pretty disappointed, mostly because I just know they aren't going to be reasonably priced.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Gunfingers » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:02 pm UTC

What's reasonably priced? There's a good chance i'd pay twice that for StarCraft 2. I mean, it's StarCraft Fucking Two!

nsmjohn
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:42 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby nsmjohn » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:54 pm UTC

TrentaTre wrote:A deployment in Afghanistan has removed this from my geekdom radar and so i must post that i am sad, nay, heart broken that we are STILL WAITING! are you kidding me.... GRRRRR Blizzard!

Yeah, but Blizzard always does this and in my experience the games are always worth the wait.
Gojoe wrote:Well, I would say something here, but it would only make it worse.


User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Jozrael wrote:By the way, the games will not be playable vs each other on bnet unfortunately. You can hang in channel and talk, but not play vs each other. I estimate that between 1-3 years after the protoss expansion release, 95%+ of players will use it. Approximately 95% of online SC players use BW currently, possibly higher.

That.. is something I am saddened to hear. That if I buy the Terran game, I'll be locked out of playing online.

The hypothetical me. I personally hate online play.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Justice
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:54 pm UTC

Starcraft 2!

Postby Justice » Wed May 06, 2009 11:10 pm UTC

There was a beta opt in for SC2 today, and I was intrigued what xkcd thinks of the game (original and the upcoming).
Once again, I apologize if there is another thread with the same topic.

Personally I'm 50/50 on SC2. Watching the battle reports, There does not seem to be any additional innovation in new gameplay despite the new units, terrains, and neutrals. The fanbase on b.net made fantastic maps over the 11 years its been out. The reason for this is because of the ability to edit every single square on the game map. There has been creations that I'm sure that Blizzard didn't even expect when they launched the original. Now with the more 3D and HD graphics, will it be even better? Most skeptics say that the game will be like Warcraft 3, which was successful, but not as successful as the original Starcraft.

So, what are your thoughts? :D
...Just!ce

Spoiler:
uh oh, its a tarp!

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: Starcraft 2!

Postby Texas_Ben » Thu May 07, 2009 3:06 am UTC

I was excited... very excited... at first for StarCraft II. My enthusiasm has since waned, beginning with the extensive retconning (man I hate retcons) and then being extremely turned off by the fact that they expect me to shell out extra for zerg and protoss campaigns.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Starcraft 2!

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu May 07, 2009 6:29 am UTC

I'm excited to see that they've announced the beta. Hopefully between myself and the myriad of people I know who play, someone will get accepted.
Last edited by TheAmazingRando on Thu May 07, 2009 1:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Starcraft 2!

Postby SecondTalon » Thu May 07, 2009 12:37 pm UTC

Texas_Ben wrote:I was excited... very excited... at first for StarCraft II. My enthusiasm has since waned, beginning with the extensive retconning (man I hate retcons) and then being extremely turned off by the fact that they expect me to shell out extra for zerg and protoss campaigns.
On the other hand, you don't have to wait for an expansion or two to get the entire Terran campaign.

So.. it all depends on how you look at it.

..but yeah, it's kinda a strange way of doing things.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: Starcraft 2!

Postby Texas_Ben » Thu May 07, 2009 5:45 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:On the other hand, you don't have to wait for an expansion or two to get the entire Terran campaign.

So.. it all depends on how you look at it.

Personally I like the waiting. It's easier for me to justify spending $180 (I'm assuming each game will be $60, as with most new games now) over a period of a few months or years than all at once.
Of course if each game is released for a reasonable price on it's own I have no objection whatsoever.

This thread has piqued my interest in the game again, as I stopped following it after the announcement that it would actually be three games. Can anyone tell me, with my lack of information, if they have announced the pricing for each game?

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu May 07, 2009 6:30 pm UTC

They haven't announced the pricing, except that it will be "fair." It's been a long time since I bought Frozen Throne, but I'm pretty sure it was $10 cheaper than the original, so I assume they'll follow the same pattern.

User avatar
Will
There are about a million things I can do from behind
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Location: St. Heraldwulf's Stone
Contact:

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Will » Fri May 08, 2009 2:53 pm UTC

What they've said so far suggests that the Zerg and Protoss portions of the game are going to be more like expansions--which I expect would mean they'll be priced like expansions. I seriously doubt that the Terran portion will be the full game and that they won't add anything new for the Zerg and Protoss parts.

Think of it this way: they've just announced in advance that the game will have two expansions. Unusual, but not outrageous.
Meaux_Pas: Is it fucking Taint Sunday or something?
liza: Screw y'all, I'm going to the moon

Flayer
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Flayer » Mon May 11, 2009 10:16 am UTC

One possibly positive thing is that they will now have more time (and money too, I guess) to invest in balance. Two expansions basically gives them two opportunities to add in additional units or make some major changes to the game.

Personally though, I'll wait and see ... I will inevitably purchase the game and its expansions, but I'll give some time for a bunch of reviews to come in before I buy the first, and I might wait a while for some kind of special offer or whatever on the two expansions. I don't think I'll be able to justify spending 180 dollar on a game.

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Toeofdoom » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:06 am UTC

Guess what guys.

No lan support!

All I can say is... I'll enjoy my free pirated copy now thanks dickheads.
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
psion
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby psion » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:48 am UTC

Toeofdoom wrote:Guess what guys.

No lan support!

All I can say is... I'll enjoy my free pirated copy now thanks dickheads.

Isn't that exactly why they dropped it?

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Amnesiasoft » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:33 pm UTC

Clearly that didn't work. I'm of the same opinion on Diablo III.

User avatar
Shadic
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:54 pm UTC
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact:

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Shadic » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:54 pm UTC

They'll probably throw it in a later update, or one of the add-on packs or something equally ridiculous. It's annoying, and I can't see implementing LAN play to take very long, honestly.

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Texas_Ben » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:22 pm UTC

Toeofdoom wrote:Guess what guys.

No lan support!

All I can say is... I'll enjoy my free pirated copy now thanks dickheads.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

I don't think I'll be buying this game, since most RTSes I buy for the sole purpose of LAN Gaming (I don't like getting curb-stomped every time I play online and playing vs the AI gets boring, you know?)

So how much of these blatantly stupid moves (No LAN Support, pay extra for all the campaigns) were Blizzard's idea, and how many were Activision's idea? I mean they purposefully included the option to spawn copies of StarCraft so that you could play multiplayer with only one copy of the game, now they're dicking us over by having no LAN play whatsoever? That is rediculous, and, as I have already said, I suspect strongly that Activision had a lot to do with this.

User avatar
psion
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby psion » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:26 pm UTC

It works simply by the fact that you won't be able to play online using VLANs. I find it quite ridiculous that you opt to download the game and not play multiplayer at all because you couldn't play in a form they chose to remove because of 'piracy'. I understand the renting concept and DRM, but that is entirely different.

User avatar
Woofsie
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:11 pm UTC
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: *geek-gasm* IT'S OFFICIAL!! (Starcraft 2)

Postby Woofsie » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Wait.. aren't pro Starcraft games played on LAN's?

WTF Blizzard!


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests