Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What's everyones problem with Starcraft2?
SonofSeth
Member UncommonPosts: 1,884
They didn't change stuff that's great, like badass multiplayer and fast action, with armies, not peasants with loot, that stuff belongs in wow and it should stay there.
Can you imagine all the CGI bliss we'll get with this epic campaign idea, and every expansion you get to experience whole new settings with different kinds of mission structures, even just to see little zerglings squeel when your tanks are turning them to mush.
It's unfornate about this whole LAN no LAN yellow ink, but hey, all that means is that anyone who want's to play LAN will have a pirated version and anyone who would go to all the trouble of setting one up in the first place will have he's own MyBnet page on this shiny new BattleNet 2.0 thingy.
This is my opinion and I'm here to spread it!
Comments
...it's possible to dislike Starcraft 2?
Originally posted by --Name edited out--
EX-PRO PLAYER IN WOW HERE.THIS GAME IS GOOD! TRUST ME IM USED TO BE THE BEST IN WOW BUT JUST A N00B IN AION. ITS CHALLENGEING , TRY IT!
[Sigh, watch out guys, this dude's pro.]
lol that's impossible, played it at blizzcon (and waiting for my beta key!!!!111!!!111!1!!!) SC fans will not be disapointed.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Not interested in Starcraft, I never liked it. I never really liked Warcraft either. Though I enjoyed Diablo 1 but never got into the sequel or expansions.
Blizzard is overrated imo.
What their problem with Starcraft?
Lots of butthurt individuals from Warhammer, AoC, Tabula Rasa, Shadowbane, Darkfall and just about every other failed or dying MMO that's been made in the last 5 years. They just hate Blizzard period because of WoW, lol.
Fortunately, Blizzard doesn't need their money. Starcraft is practically a national game in Asia (Korea mainly) and these jealous whiners over here can simply pass on it, and no one will have noticed.
They can play the Sims or Nancy Drew.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The removal of LAN is of major concern for me, it is a pretty much standard feature of multiplayer video games. It bothers me even more when they try and sell it as some feature and people buy it and defend it, that's crap and those people are tools. Yes, bnet 2.0 is going to have great features, but guess what? Those features aren't because of the removal of LAN.
Fight piracy? Sure, but not at that cost. Removing features of a game is not acceptable even under the guise of piracy.
It is even more bothersome that it is Blizzard doing it, such a major name in the business doing something as shit as this will give a lot of precedence for other smaller studios to remove it as well.
Maybe they're doing it because of all the other ladders that popped up, but those came not from piracy but the inadequecy of bnet compared to those ladders and was unable to compete with them.
It even bothers me more because of Diablo 3 and the fact that now that isn't going to have LAN, that bothers even me more about the LAN annoucement for SC2.
I'm also concerned about the pro leagues in Korea, SC is a huge sport there and none of their games are played over the internet, I don't even think they connect their computers to the internet in the pro matches. So a lack of LAN is going to severly impact the potential appeal of SC2 as a sport.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
It's not really a "feature" until they put it into this version. This isn't AoC where they said they support DX10 on the box and then you load it up.. no DX10, hehe.
It's not removal of a feature until they advertise it, put in in the game and then... remove it. They simply aren't putting it in, regardless if it was in before or not.
Other games have lots of piracy and hacking as a standard feature of multiplayer video games along with suckiness gameplay, but that doesn't mean I want that in my Starfcraft 2 either.
Blizzard knows Korea is their target audience for Starcraft 2. You really think they wouldn't gear this game towards them first? NA/EU is an afterthought. Hell, they are STILL playing SC 1 over there now when everyone here just about threw it away.
"TO MICHAEL!"
That isn't what I mean by feature, perhaps a better word would be item? Or part of? LAN is an expected part of multiplayer on PC games and has been for a significant amount of time. It is kind of like when you get a book you expect there to words, but you find nothing but blank pages (rather extreme, but I think that conveys what I'm thinking). Another example is that of console multiplayer, when your friends come over to play you only need four controllers, not four copies of the game and access to the internet to verify each person's copy.
This is going to prevent hacking or piracy? REALLY? REALLY? Why hack on a LAN, your friends are right next to you? Not considering if it is an event, it will be even easier to just throw you out. Hacking is a part of ONLINE multiplayer is that an argument to removing multiplayer -- hacking?
What happens when SC2 hits piracy's shelves? It will have LAN support then, it'll be free and offer everything but the "new features of bnet 2.0" and of those new features how many will be reproducable on a private ladder? What will be offering the better product then?
But Blizzard also wants to bring the competitive nature of SC to the US and Europe and it is trying to do it through SC2 and bnet 2.0. However one of the lasting things about SC in Korea is the fact that when their pros do play each other they do it through LAN, they don't connect themselves to the internet, they limit what can disrupt a game to the bare essentials; removing LAN and forcing internet is only going to make Korea adopting SC2 on the professional level even more difficult and perhaps not worth it if SC1 can still be just as competitive.
Also considering the fact that the new features of bnet 2.0 which will probably be nothing but stat tracking aren't that important for LANing. They are awesome when you are competing online multiplayer, but they really don't offer much on the level of LAN play.
So once again, how can the removal of LAN be justified ?
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
The LAN issue is overblown. Smelly nerds can still sit in the same room and play together, there just has to be an internet connection in the room.
Also I thought during multiplayer games, clients connect directly to other clients. So, there should be no lag. When the game is actually being played, it is not running information through Blizzard servers. Blizzard servers are only used to authenticate the client and to create the initial match up. I thought that's how most companies could afford to offer multiplayer for free, it doesn't take that many computers to match players up. There is little persistant data and the servers are not tracking every action in every match.
Only thing good about SC 1 was the Story.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Last rumor I heard was that each race (terran, protos and zerg) will be sold separatly at 50$ each.
I played the first one a few times but never really got into the whole Starcraft thing. Probably will wait to get this one in the bargain bin. Blizzard are really good at making shiny flashy things IMO.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Exactly. This is why I can't even begin to argue with their business model. Look how long they have been making successful games as a company while others have died or flopped around like fish after water has dried up from a lake.
Based on how competant a company Blizzard always has been, I know a few things will happen when I buy SC2, Diablo III:
1) It will work out of the box and probably be darn near perfect with few to little bugs.
2) It will have a low learning curve (already played the originals so that doesn't matter)
3) It will be fun and popular
I have no worries about anything Blizzard puts out. They are one of the most successful gaming companies of our time.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm a fan of Starcraft and will always be a fan of Starcraft
I don't wanna sound like an apologist but I guess I do anyway. As far as we know, some kind of LAN feature may eventualy end up in the retail copy, but we shouldn't hold our breath.
You try to make your opinions sound like they are relevant, but they can't really be taken seriously when you are posting on an MMORPG forum and talking about LAN as if it's anything more than a crutch multiplayer feature of the times gone by.
After all said I still think they should include multiplayer just to shut all the whiners up so they don't have to manufacture reason why they won't buy the game but rather download the torrent.
There are plenty of rts's that have "fast action" "badass multiplayer" "armies" and "no peasants with loot" and still suck. Saying an rts has all of those feature means nothing.
Personally, the story of Starcraft didn't appeal to me at all, if I wanted a good story I'd read a book. Books have nothing except story, so they do that pretty well... usually.
Creating a pirated LAN version of SC2 is much more difficult than making a no-cd crack. Since SC2 will not have any LAN at all, pirates will have to write new code to implement it. While this is far from impossible, it is still extremely difficult and depending on how much code is needed... possibly too much work anybody wants to do.
Also, LAN is not made obsolete my high speed internet. Log on to Starcraft, go online and issues order to your units, you will see a .5 second to 1 second delay from the time you click to the time your unit follows the order, this is called lag and does not exist on LAN. In WoW when a melee guy hits you from 20 feet away, thats called lag, it still exists, to say that it does not effect gameplay is ignorance.
As for your animosity towards LAN, it seems to me like you got rejected from one too many LAN parties as a child.
You also ignore the numerous complaints that "hardcore" SC fans have about SC2. I'm not going to list them all, if you really want to see them, then go to www.teamliquid.net, where all the basement dwellers congregate in a collective to share dick jokes and how they pawn noobs. There is however one complaint that I do share with the molepeople: clutter.
Look at the large battles in SC and then at the large battles in SC2. SC2 has a lot more clutter, as in, the units pack much closer together and blend in with the scenery, also the camera seems to be farther away from the ground. The positive is that it creates an entertaining light show, the negative is that is much harder to command your units, or "micro." Picking out individual units in SC2 is at best annoying and at worst impossible, and that contrasts drastically with the surgicaly precision you can select units in SC1.
As to SC2 becoming main stream or even shadowing the popularity in Korea, I find extremely unlikely. In order to accomplish that the entire culture of the West must change, it already has Soccer, Basketball, Football, you know "real sports", that people are addicted to and will not give up.
There are plenty of rts's that have "fast action" "badass multiplayer" "armies" and "no peasants with loot" and still suck. Saying an rts has all of those feature means nothing.
But I'm no talking about other RTS games that suck, I'm talking about parts of Starcraft that stood the test of time and are still beeing played. *hint* multiplayer *hint*
Personally, the story of Starcraft didn't appeal to me at all, if I wanted a good story I'd read a book. Books have nothing except story, so they do that pretty well... usually.
Well, you can personally keep your opinion to yourself if you're gona present it as halfassed and poor thought out as that. What books do you like, do you like SF or fantasy, do you like realistic characters or architypes larger than life, do you read books all the time or only on vacation, do you even understand how lame that coment you made really is?
Creating a pirated LAN version of SC2 is much more difficult than making a no-cd crack. Since SC2 will not have any LAN at all, pirates will have to write new code to implement it. While this is far from impossible, it is still extremely difficult and depending on how much code is needed... possibly too much work anybody wants to do.
Can you explain that part a bit more? Are you a pirate, should I feel sorry for pirates? WTH are you smoking?
Also, LAN is not made obsolete my high speed internet. Log on to Starcraft, go online and issues order to your units, you will see a .5 second to 1 second delay from the time you click to the time your unit follows the order, this is called lag and does not exist on LAN. In WoW when a melee guy hits you from 20 feet away, thats called lag, it still exists, to say that it does not effect gameplay is ignorance.
If both of us are laging then lag is irrelevant. Well not really, but none uf us has unfair advantage. WoW 20 feet melee is just an exaggeration to make you feel like you are making a point. WoW open world encounters use rather diferent mechanics than Starcraft maps, don't you think? You did think about that, please say you did! If you don't have a real example from Starcraft 1 and your expirience on bnet please refrain yourself from stupid compariosons and stick to the point.
As for your animosity towards LAN, it seems to me like you got rejected from one too many LAN parties as a child.
What animosity, my only animosity is towards theese feeble atempts to justify this outcry over no LAN. I'm looking for real reasons, not some romantic notions of LAN parties when you were a child.
You also ignore the numerous complaints that "hardcore" SC fans have about SC2. I'm not going to list them all, if you really want to see them, then go to www.teamliquid.net, where all the basement dwellers congregate in a collective to share dick jokes and how they pawn noobs. There is however one complaint that I do share with the molepeople: clutter.
Look at the large battles in SC and then at the large battles in SC2. SC2 has a lot more clutter, as in, the units pack much closer together and blend in with the scenery, also the camera seems to be farther away from the ground. The positive is that it creates an entertaining light show, the negative is that is much harder to command your units, or "micro." Picking out individual units in SC2 is at best annoying and at worst impossible, and that contrasts drastically with the surgicaly precision you can select units in SC1.
Yes, clutter needs to be managed more efficiently.
As to SC2 becoming main stream or even shadowing the popularity in Korea, I find extremely unlikely. In order to accomplish that the entire culture of the West must change, it already has Soccer, Basketball, Football, you know "real sports", that people are addicted to and will not give up.
This doesen't make any sense, for SC2 to be more popular than SC1 in Korea, whole westerm culture must change... WTH?! English is probably not your native language, but please reread this and write something that makes sense.
So, you didn't like the story in SC1, you don't understand the diference between RTS PVP and MMORPG PVP, you believe LAN childhood memories are an important part of this attempt of discussion, you read teamliquid forums but everyone else there are molepeople, your theory about SC popularity in Korea is linked directly to soccer, bysketball, football... and have one good point.
What exactly is your point? All I get is clutter.
Don't you see a single positive thing about SC2, how can that be, you single individual going against a whole nation (remember, I started this by pointing out what stayed the same), against almost the whole blogosphere excited about the story and singleplayer (actually, those people at least did look up some info about singleplayer, did you??), so, how can that be?
There are plenty of rts's that have "fast action" "badass multiplayer" "armies" and "no peasants with loot" and still suck. Saying an rts has all of those feature means nothing.
But I'm no talking about other RTS games that suck, I'm talking about parts of Starcraft that stood the test of time and are still beeing played. *hint* multiplayer *hint*
Personally, the story of Starcraft didn't appeal to me at all, if I wanted a good story I'd read a book. Books have nothing except story, so they do that pretty well... usually.
Well, you can personally keep your opinion to yourself if you're gona present it as halfassed and poor thought out as that. What books do you like, do you like SF or fantasy, do you like realistic characters or architypes larger than life, do you read books all the time or only on vacation, do you even understand how lame that coment you made really is?
Creating a pirated LAN version of SC2 is much more difficult than making a no-cd crack. Since SC2 will not have any LAN at all, pirates will have to write new code to implement it. While this is far from impossible, it is still extremely difficult and depending on how much code is needed... possibly too much work anybody wants to do.
Can you explain that part a bit more? Are you a pirate, should I feel sorry for pirates? WTH are you smoking?
Also, LAN is not made obsolete my high speed internet. Log on to Starcraft, go online and issues order to your units, you will see a .5 second to 1 second delay from the time you click to the time your unit follows the order, this is called lag and does not exist on LAN. In WoW when a melee guy hits you from 20 feet away, thats called lag, it still exists, to say that it does not effect gameplay is ignorance.
If both of us are laging then lag is irrelevant. Well not really, but none uf us has unfair advantage. WoW 20 feet melee is just an exaggeration to make you feel like you are making a point. WoW open world encounters use rather diferent mechanics than Starcraft maps, don't you think? You did think about that, please say you did! If you don't have a real example from Starcraft 1 and your expirience on bnet please refrain yourself from stupid compariosons and stick to the point.
As for your animosity towards LAN, it seems to me like you got rejected from one too many LAN parties as a child.
What animosity, my only animosity is towards theese feeble atempts to justify this outcry over no LAN. I'm looking for real reasons, not some romantic notions of LAN parties when you were a child.
You also ignore the numerous complaints that "hardcore" SC fans have about SC2. I'm not going to list them all, if you really want to see them, then go to www.teamliquid.net, where all the basement dwellers congregate in a collective to share dick jokes and how they pawn noobs. There is however one complaint that I do share with the molepeople: clutter.
Look at the large battles in SC and then at the large battles in SC2. SC2 has a lot more clutter, as in, the units pack much closer together and blend in with the scenery, also the camera seems to be farther away from the ground. The positive is that it creates an entertaining light show, the negative is that is much harder to command your units, or "micro." Picking out individual units in SC2 is at best annoying and at worst impossible, and that contrasts drastically with the surgicaly precision you can select units in SC1.
Yes, clutter needs to be managed more efficiently.
As to SC2 becoming main stream or even shadowing the popularity in Korea, I find extremely unlikely. In order to accomplish that the entire culture of the West must change, it already has Soccer, Basketball, Football, you know "real sports", that people are addicted to and will not give up.
This doesen't make any sense, for SC2 to be more popular than SC1 in Korea, whole westerm culture must change... WTH?! English is probably not your native language, but please reread this and write something that makes sense.
So, you didn't like the story in SC1, you don't understand the diference between RTS PVP and MMORPG PVP, you believe LAN childhood memories are an important part of this attempt of discussion, you read teamliquid forums but everyone else there are molepeople, your theory about SC popularity in Korea is linked directly to soccer, bysketball, football... and have one good point.
What exactly is your point? All I get is clutter.
Don't you see a single positive thing about SC2, how can that be, you single individual going against a whole nation (remember, I started this by pointing out what stayed the same), against almost the whole blogosphere excited about the story and singleplayer (actually, those people at least did look up some info about singleplayer, did you??), so, how can that be?
It really frightens me how badly your reading comprehension is. You put words in my mouth and then berate me, are you familiar with straw-man arguments?
My first point was so simple I really don't know how you misunderstood it: Just because a game "badass multiplayer and fast action, with armies, not peasants with loot, " doesn't mean that the game is going to be good. There are plenty of games like that but they get boring within an hour of gameplay.
My second point, about the story, you just fling insults and make baseless assumptions about my reading choices, I think your ignorance is fairly obvious there.
For my third point about piracy, I responded directly to you when you said that "there will still be the pirated LAN enabled version." My point was simple: enabling LAN play through piracy would be extremely difficult, so trying to make an excuse for excluding LAN by pointing to pirated LAN is pointless. I did not defend piracy.
On my fourth point about lag, you said that since both players experience the same lag, no one has an advantage. True, but that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve it, and even if everyone does experience the same amount of lag, it still can ruin a gaming experience. Also, about the melee in WoW example, I was not exaggerating. The problem was there during launch, during launch of BC and shorlty before WOTLK (that's when I played the game)
Yes, clutter is bad.
For my last point, about SC popularity in in the West, I can see where you misunderstood my post, it was poorly written. Regardless, that specific part of my post was not in response to you, so I don't know why you got so upset over it. There was mention of e-Sports in the West so I decided to state my skepticism. Anyway, I don't see how you can think that a person you've never met before learned English as their second language all because of a single paragraph in a single post on an internet forum.
YES, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RTS AND MMO PVP, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
I outlined and clarified my points above. I hope you can understand them now.
I never said that there was nothing good about SC2, stop putting words in my mouth. Just because the public is raving about something doesn't mean that it's good, also, just because a lot of people buy something doesn't mean it's good. Look at Transformers 1 and 2, or McDonalds for that matter.
Personally I didn't like Starcraft at any point. I have never really been a hardcore Blizzard fan. I did enjoy the Warcraft series a little. The first Diablo was a lot of fun. I played WoW for awhile and it was ok. Now someone said something about people being butthurt because Blizzard is popular or whatever. I personally don't care how popular a company is. I don't dislike it Blizz games because they are popular. I dislike some of the games because they feel like watered rip offs of far better games. My favorite Blizzard game was the Lost Vikings, lol. They aren't a bad company. They just don't appeal to my tastes.
What are those far better games Blizzard is riping off? Or are we talking about WoW now?
Exactly what are you talking about, story, gameplay, art style? What constitutes a rip off?
Blizzard marketing tool, nothing to see here except blind hype.
I don't think there is a big demographic for it anymore. I don't expect this game to have a LAN join hacked in, none of the other games that don't support LAN. At least not one that is user friendly enough to get used.
This won't be the first game to skip LAN. Clearly they calculate that the sales lost to Hamachi using pirates outweigh the sales gained by having a feature rich software.
LAN gaming is my primary reason for me buying computer games. I cannot think of many household these days that do not own multiple computers. While I originally got into LAN gaming before the internet existed and have since enjoyed many internet games, I don't consider internet games to be multiplayer experiences. I am still essentially playing on my computer in a room alone.
And indeed it is a Catch 22 situation as if I am able to download a LAN game for free, there is no guarentee I will buy it. However, if it has no LAN game I can guarentee 100% I won't buy it. Piracy exists. Just make a good product at the right price and it will sell. Plenty of companies are making hit titles that are pirated 20 times a often as they are sold. They still make their money.
Clearly this game won't be replacing Warhammer 40K or Company of Heroes as my LAN rts of choice. It's not a big issue for me I'm not a die hard fan of the original. I would however of given it a chance.
Perhaps they should offer multiple Battlenet keys in each box? But then, providing value for money is no longer really such a great concern for them is it?
Nice, I love your response. I can understand where you are coming from and your reasoning behind it.
I want to know one thing though, how do MMORPGs factor in this "major reason to buy computer games is local multiplayer and only real multiplayer is LAN with other people in the same room while playing over internet is just playing alone" opinion?
I ask because, after all, this is MMORPG.com so one has to asume you play MMORPGs.
Mostly I play MMO's on my own.
Some MMO's I play around the LAN. It depends how accessable they are. Mostly MMO's don't make for good LAN games because of the difference in player goals at different levels. Your mate can't just come over and play, he has to be max level and have the sword that fell from the stars also.
City of Heroes had a nice system were lowbs and high levels could team up and still both progress. I've had friends over who had their own WoW characters, or started free trials of various MMO's together.
Typically to play an MMO, everyone in the room would be typing furiously to talk to people on the otherside of the world and ignoring eachother. It's pretty anti-social stuff.
When a fellow MMO player comes to visit, we might log in and show off our characters to each other, but not actually play that game and instead launch a LAN game. For the most part MMO's are things I play on my own. Imagine going on a raid, let alone leading one and having 3 mates in the room with you. It would be plum rude, either you would fail the raid or ignore all your mates. It's not a social thing to do.
MMO's aren't my favourite style of game. I play and enjoy them, but they are not the top of my list. Despite having a zillion groovey people on the server and being chattastic, they aren't very social games. It's doesn't make for much of a home entertainment system.
I buy computers to play LAN games every year, I've never bought one to play an MMO.
Playing over bnet in the same room can be as social as playing over LAN. You are still in the same room, there are no raids or groups, there is 1v1 2v2 3vzerg or what other combination you find fun. You already said you aren't a pro gamer so even if there was some amount of lag it shouldn't be a big problem for you.
Basicly, you could play Starcraft 2 exactly the way you prefer playing your games, how is no LAN afecting you exactly? You have internet, you have the ability to play MMORPGS together in the same room (at least that's how I understood what you said) the same would apply to playing Starcraft 2 over bnet. Where exactly is the problem?