🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 30, 3:02 pm, EMan <supreme.evolution...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So everyone is praising SC2 as the greatest RTS ever.  That's not
> really saying much since SC was already the greatest RTS ever, so SC +
> updated graphics automatically makes it superior.
>
> As a skeptic on the outside looking in, it looks like SC with a frest
> new coat of paint.  Not much of a sequel, but more of a remake.  I'm I
> wrong?  SC was a great game and there's nothing wrong with remaking it
> and fleshing out the story, but I'm not up to paying $60 for the 1/3
> of the story.

They are all too busy playing it?

"Insane Ranter" <logwyn@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are all too busy playing it?

I'm not.  And I won't be anytime soon, if ever.

Between the RealID fiasco, no lan support and the pay per race business 
scheme I've decided not to support Blizzard/Activision/Vivendi anymore. 
They're rich enough, I'm sure they'll survive without my $60.  And so will 
I, there's plenty of other games out there to be played by companies that 
actually care about their customers. 

Acti didn't send out early review copies.  There's plenty of word of mouth 
reviews from beta players from the core game so the only thing that really 
needs a proper review is the campaign which I should take a while to 
complete. 

> Between the RealID fiasco, no lan support and the pay per race business 
> scheme

I agree with the first two, but the third is debatable. SC2 - WoL offers 
*more* content than the original Starcraft - 26 missions vs. 30, but more 
involved, varied and better crafted. And the story is much better too. MP 
allows all three races so there you go: equal or more content than the 
average C&C4. The most one can lament about is that if he liked more the 
Protoss as a race he will have to wait for the (full) game centered on their 
story.

Bioware declares that Mass Effect will be a trilogy of three full-length 
games and everybody agrees - even if both the first and the second one 
offer, technically, uncomplete experience, since they end with cliffhangers. 
Blizzard declares that SC2 will be a trilogy of three full-length games with 
complete story archs and MP, and the whining about "pay per race" reaches 
vuvuzela-levels. Perception should bent to reality, not the other way 
around. 

EMan wrote:
> So everyone is praising SC2 as the greatest RTS ever.  That's not
> really saying much since SC was already the greatest RTS ever, so SC +
> updated graphics automatically makes it superior.
>
> As a skeptic on the outside looking in, it looks like SC with a frest
> new coat of paint.  Not much of a sequel, but more of a remake.  I'm I
> wrong?  SC was a great game and there's nothing wrong with remaking it
> and fleshing out the story, but I'm not up to paying $60 for the 1/3
> of the story.

I have only started playing it but my initial response was much like 
what you wrote. It feels like the same game with spiffier graphics and 
awesome cut scene moves.

Someone I know who has almost finished the campaign says the new 
upgrades and units later all mix things up a bit. He's done some online 
co-op and says the AI is nasty.

He also commented that the original StarCraft has such a following that 
they couldn't really change the gameplay too much or millions of Koreans 
would declare war on Blizzard. :p

I'll have to play more of SC2 before I comment further.


   - Sheldon

On 03/08/2010 22:51, Sheldon England wrote:
> EMan wrote:
>> So everyone is praising SC2 as the greatest RTS ever. That's not
>> really saying much since SC was already the greatest RTS ever, so SC +
>> updated graphics automatically makes it superior.
>>
>> As a skeptic on the outside looking in, it looks like SC with a frest
>> new coat of paint. Not much of a sequel, but more of a remake. I'm I
>> wrong? SC was a great game and there's nothing wrong with remaking it
>> and fleshing out the story, but I'm not up to paying $60 for the 1/3
>> of the story.
>
> I have only started playing it but my initial response was much like
> what you wrote. It feels like the same game with spiffier graphics and
> awesome cut scene moves.
>
> Someone I know who has almost finished the campaign says the new
> upgrades and units later all mix things up a bit. He's done some online
> co-op and says the AI is nasty.
>
> He also commented that the original StarCraft has such a following that
> they couldn't really change the gameplay too much or millions of Koreans
> would declare war on Blizzard. :p
>
> I'll have to play more of SC2 before I comment further.

I'm really surprised that so many people were wanting/expecting a 
substantial change in game play. The gameplay is what made SC1 a 
success, surly it'd be silly to chance this or the sequel.

Vincenzo Beretta <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Between the RealID fiasco, no lan support and the pay per race business 
>> scheme
> 
> I agree with the first two, but the third is debatable. SC2 - WoL offers 
> *more* content than the original Starcraft - 26 missions vs. 30, but more 
> involved, varied and better crafted. And the story is much better too. MP 
> allows all three races so there you go: equal or more content than the 
> average C&C4. The most one can lament about is that if he liked more the 
> Protoss as a race he will have to wait for the (full) game centered on their 
> story.
> 
> Bioware declares that Mass Effect will be a trilogy of three full-length 
> games and everybody agrees - even if both the first and the second one 
> offer, technically, uncomplete experience, since they end with cliffhangers. 
> Blizzard declares that SC2 will be a trilogy of three full-length games with 
> complete story archs and MP, and the whining about "pay per race" reaches 
> vuvuzela-levels. Perception should bent to reality, not the other way 
> around. 

I can see your point, but at the same time, Starcraft was sold as having 3 
separate campaigns.  This time with SC2, you're only getting 1 campaign.  
Granted, it's much longer than any single campaign from the original, but 
it's only 1 of the 3 that you KNOW will be released.  You can't even play 
as the other 2 races unless you play MP - which isn't going to appeal to 
everyone.

I personally don't like buying add-ons.  Especially  since the company in 
question has a history of doing $30-40 "Battle Chest" boxsets.  Assuming the 
Zerg and Protoss campaigns will sell as $20 add-ons, that brings SC2's total 
cost to a whopping $100.  For a PC game.  I'm sorry, but that's just too 
expensive when you know the Battle Chest collection will arrive for $40 or 
so.  MP doesn't interest me at all, and it's not as though I'm starving 
for stuff to play.  I can wait the year or 2 for the all-inclusive Battle 
Chest.

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

On 10/08/2010 22:57, Doug Jacobs wrote:
> Vincenzo Beretta<reckall@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Between the RealID fiasco, no lan support and the pay per race business
>>> scheme
>>
>> I agree with the first two, but the third is debatable. SC2 - WoL offers
>> *more* content than the original Starcraft - 26 missions vs. 30, but more
>> involved, varied and better crafted. And the story is much better too. MP
>> allows all three races so there you go: equal or more content than the
>> average C&C4. The most one can lament about is that if he liked more the
>> Protoss as a race he will have to wait for the (full) game centered on their
>> story.
>>
>> Bioware declares that Mass Effect will be a trilogy of three full-length
>> games and everybody agrees - even if both the first and the second one
>> offer, technically, uncomplete experience, since they end with cliffhangers.
>> Blizzard declares that SC2 will be a trilogy of three full-length games with
>> complete story archs and MP, and the whining about "pay per race" reaches
>> vuvuzela-levels. Perception should bent to reality, not the other way
>> around.
>
> I can see your point, but at the same time, Starcraft was sold as having 3
> separate campaigns.  This time with SC2, you're only getting 1 campaign.
> Granted, it's much longer than any single campaign from the original, but
> it's only 1 of the 3 that you KNOW will be released.  You can't even play
> as the other 2 races unless you play MP

Not true, there are several missions where you play as Protos.

 >
>- which isn't going to appeal to
> everyone.


I did quite like the three campaign formula from SC1, however I always 
enjoyed the human one the most.  I also liked the Zerg one but Protos 
bored me.

Part of SC2 is the implementation of the story line, I'd guess that the 
loss of the three campaign concept was a casualty of this idea. 
Personally I think it worked well and the story was one of the strengths 
of SC2


> I personally don't like buying add-ons.  Especially  since the company in
> question has a history of doing $30-40 "Battle Chest" boxsets.  Assuming the
> Zerg and Protoss campaigns will sell as $20 add-ons, that brings SC2's total
> cost to a whopping $100.  For a PC game.  I'm sorry, but that's just too
> expensive when you know the Battle Chest collection will arrive for $40 or
> so.  MP doesn't interest me at all, and it's not as though I'm starving
> for stuff to play.  I can wait the year or 2 for the all-inclusive Battle
> Chest.

MP also doesn't interest me as far as RTSs go.  However I don't mind 
add-ons as long as the cost represents value for money.  If the add-ons 
are of equal length and quality as the original product then I don't 
mind paying a decent price. However I'd say that that's a big if. I 
can't see Blizzard being able to implement such an involving story for 
the other two races.

On Aug 10, 5:57 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> Vincenzo Beretta <reck...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Between the RealID fiasco, no lan support and the pay per race business
> >> scheme
>
> > I agree with the first two, but the third is debatable. SC2 - WoL offers
> > *more* content than the original Starcraft - 26 missions vs. 30, but more
> > involved, varied and better crafted. And the story is much better too. MP
> > allows all three races so there you go: equal or more content than the
> > average C&C4. The most one can lament about is that if he liked more the
> > Protoss as a race he will have to wait for the (full) game centered on their
> > story.
>
> > Bioware declares that Mass Effect will be a trilogy of three full-length
> > games and everybody agrees - even if both the first and the second one
> > offer, technically, uncomplete experience, since they end with cliffhangers.
> > Blizzard declares that SC2 will be a trilogy of three full-length games with
> > complete story archs and MP, and the whining about "pay per race" reaches
> > vuvuzela-levels. Perception should bent to reality, not the other way
> > around.
>
> I can see your point, but at the same time, Starcraft was sold as having 3
> separate campaigns.  This time with SC2, you're only getting 1 campaign.  
> Granted, it's much longer than any single campaign from the original, but
> it's only 1 of the 3 that you KNOW will be released.  You can't even play
> as the other 2 races unless you play MP - which isn't going to appeal to
> everyone.
>
> I personally don't like buying add-ons.  Especially  since the company in
> question has a history of doing $30-40 "Battle Chest" boxsets.  Assuming the
> Zerg and Protoss campaigns will sell as $20 add-ons, that brings SC2's total
> cost to a whopping $100.  For a PC game.  I'm sorry, but that's just too
> expensive when you know the Battle Chest collection will arrive for $40 or
> so.  MP doesn't interest me at all, and it's not as though I'm starving
> for stuff to play.  I can wait the year or 2 for the all-inclusive Battle
> Chest.
>
> --
> It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

If I ever get SC2 it will be down the line in a battlechest format and
after a year or two when the price is lower.

Morgan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> it's only 1 of the 3 that you KNOW will be released.  You can't even play
>> as the other 2 races unless you play MP
> 
> Not true, there are several missions where you play as Protos.

I stand corrected.

> I did quite like the three campaign formula from SC1, however I always 
> enjoyed the human one the most.  I also liked the Zerg one but Protos 
> bored me.

I never liked playing as the Protoss either.  They seemed too "slow" and 
relied on special skills too much, requiring too much micro-management on 
my part.

> Part of SC2 is the implementation of the story line, I'd guess that the 
> loss of the three campaign concept was a casualty of this idea. 
> Personally I think it worked well and the story was one of the strengths 
> of SC2

Well, Blizzard could still have released SC2 with all 3 campaigns.  It may 
have delayed the release.

>>From Blizzard's standpoint, I can can see the wisdom in what's essentially 
an episodic release.  This way, they get constant revenue over a longer 
period of time - something that makes financial planning easier, and 
allows Blizzard to make more accurate predictions about their 
performance.  This makes investors happy.

However, as a consumer, knowing that there will be 2 other campaigns 
released makes me feel that Starcraft2, in its current form, is 
incomplete.  The COMPLETE game - Starcraft2 + the other 2 campaigns - is 
going to cost significantly more than the piece that is released right 
now.  Personally, I think spending $100-120 (my estimate) on what I 
consider a "single game" is too expensive - especially when you know 
there's going to be a Battle Chest boxset at some point.

Compare this with TV series (especially anime TV series) on DVD.  If you 
know you want to buy a certain TV series, would you buy it 1 disc at a time, 
or would you wait and buy the season/series boxset (often at a big 
discount over the price of the individual discs)?
 
> MP also doesn't interest me as far as RTSs go.  However I don't mind 
> add-ons as long as the cost represents value for money.  If the add-ons 
> are of equal length and quality as the original product then I don't 
> mind paying a decent price. However I'd say that that's a big if. I 
> can't see Blizzard being able to implement such an involving story for 
> the other two races.

I will admit that Blizzard has a very good reputation for releasing excellent 
content-heavy add-ons that are an excellent value for the money.  However, 
now that I know there will be such add-ons, and that there will 
undoubtedly be a battlechest box at some point in the future, I'm content 
to just wait.

Having a large backlog of games also helps with such a decision.  The only 
problem is by the time I do get around to playing a game, no one's talking 
about it anymore ;)

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

On 12/08/2010 19:47, Doug Jacobs wrote:
> Morgan<nospam@nospam.com>  wrote:

> However, as a consumer, knowing that there will be 2 other campaigns
> released makes me feel that Starcraft2, in its current form, is
> incomplete.  The COMPLETE game - Starcraft2 + the other 2 campaigns - is
> going to cost significantly more than the piece that is released right
> now.  Personally, I think spending $100-120 (my estimate) on what I
> consider a "single game" is too expensive - especially when you know
> there's going to be a Battle Chest boxset at some point.
>
> Compare this with TV series (especially anime TV series) on DVD.  If you
> know you want to buy a certain TV series, would you buy it 1 disc at a time,
> or would you wait and buy the season/series boxset (often at a big
> discount over the price of the individual discs)?


I think the major difference is the length (and quality) of the game. 
SC2 as it stands is about the length I'd expect from a game.  I see 
you're point about the box set analogy but I'd say that it's more like a 
film trilogy.


> I will admit that Blizzard has a very good reputation for releasing excellent
> content-heavy add-ons that are an excellent value for the money.  However,
> now that I know there will be such add-ons, and that there will
> undoubtedly be a battlechest box at some point in the future, I'm content
> to just wait.

Well if you aren't in any rush to play it then it makes sense to hold 
off like you say.  I was like that with Modern Warfare 2. I was curious 
to see what all the hype was about but not about to pay the extortionate 
release price.

Morgan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> I think the major difference is the length (and quality) of the game. 
> SC2 as it stands is about the length I'd expect from a game.  I see 
> you're point about the box set analogy but I'd say that it's more like a 
> film trilogy.

Film trilogies still get repackaged into boxsets though.

Which makes me wonder.  Who keeps buying these stupid Harry Potter movie 
boxsets the studio keeps producing?  The latest is "The Ultimate Harry 
Potter" containing all 6 current movies on blu-ray.  How can they call it 
"The Ultimate..." when it doesn't contain the last 2 movies - and you KNOW 
they're going to do a boxset with all 8 movies, plus all the bonus discs, so 
why waste your money on this now?  It'd be one thing if the box at least 
had space for the last two movies (which is what some anime series on DVD 
do) but no, it's quite obvious that you'll have to repurchase this 
"Ultimate Harry Potter" box when the final two movies finally come out on 
home video - probably in time for Christmas 2011.
 

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.