Starcraft 2 high scores is killing PC gaming (by haters)

Well, what do you guys think about that statement.

(not my statement by the way)

I think Starcraft 2 high scores show that a PC game can appeal to a lot of people.

My feeling is that the game stands on its own merits, and doesn't need bought and paid for reviews. The major review sites like IGN and Gamespot don't even have reviews up yet because it wasn't given to them early. FleeceJohnson

i was getting ready to own you, but i see what you did theres. Anyway Starcraft is a perfect example of a game that relies on its gameplay and presentation merits, and overall polish not michael bay explosions and Eminem music to promote itself as a great game. However i do like me some Eminem.Sniping_Crowbar

Beautiful. Starcraft and Eminem = Heaven millerlight89

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

I really don't understand the hype. The game doesn't do anything incredible or that we've never seen before.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Beautiful. Starcraft and Eminem = Heaven -wildflower-

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

[QUOTE="FleeceJohnson"]My feeling is that the game stands on its own merits, and doesn't need bought and paid for reviews. The major review sites like IGN and Gamespot don't even have reviews up yet because it wasn't given to them early. KHAndAnime

It was smart becuase then they coudl play the game with the community and get a good taste of that.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Beautiful. Starcraft and Eminem = Heaven -wildflower-

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

Seconded. Well, except for the Starcraft part.

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Beautiful. Starcraft and Eminem = Heaven Emraldo

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

Seconded. Well, except for the Starcraft part.

Nah, it just goes to show that some developers choose to take the time to make a quality game that everyone enjoys. While other developers choose to pump out quick cash grab games that always recieve medicore scores.

Actually I have a problem with $60 for a singleplayer experience when most people will play their 5 match, getting rolled... hard... every time and then never play again. There are plenty of flaws in this game that are being completely glossed over because Blizz "didn't need to change anything". Again, it's good, possibly the best terrain based RTS to date, but it's no Homeworld. I'm becoming more and more irritated the longer it sits in the number 1 spot for PC games, which is frankly re-god-damn-diculous.

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

Seconded. Well, except for the Starcraft part.

For me it should. It should be right up there if even ME 2 is 94% lol.

Sc2 is superior overall.

Actually I have a problem with $60 for a singleplayer experience when most people will play their 5 match, getting rolled... hard... every time and then never play again. There are plenty of flaws in this game that are being completely glossed over because Blizz "didn't need to change anything". Again, it's good, possibly the best terrain based RTS to date, but it's no Homeworld. I'm becoming more and more irritated the longer it sits in the number 1 spot for PC games, which is frankly re-god-damn-diculous.

SerOlmy

I thought it was SC2's lack of innovation that was killing PC gaming :o !

Either way, only a person neck-deep in delusions can say that. Innovation can suck my PC's hard drive if lack of it offers such an overwhelming game. Haters gonna hate, it's no use caring about them.

My feeling is that the game stands on its own merits, and doesn't need bought and paid for reviews. The major review sites like IGN and Gamespot don't even have reviews up yet because it wasn't given to them early. FleeceJohnson

Gamespot reviewers do a full playthrough before they post a review.

Since this game has both SP and multi, no doubt they'll do some online play before they start writing.

[QUOTE="FleeceJohnson"]My feeling is that the game stands on its own merits, and doesn't need bought and paid for reviews. The major review sites like IGN and Gamespot don't even have reviews up yet because it wasn't given to them early. topsemag55

Gamespot reviewers do a full playthrough before they post a review.

Since this game has both SP and multi, no doubt they'll do some online play before they start writing.

Kevin (the GS reviewer) is already going crazy with the MP. He said on his twitter that he realized he's addicted because he wrote notes about the races' building orders :lol: He's probably already writing the SP part.

For me it should. It should be right up there if even ME 2 is 94% lol.

Sc2 is superior overall.

Ravenchrome

[QUOTE="Sniping_Crowbar"]i was getting ready to own you, but i see what you did theres. Anyway Starcraft is a perfect example of a game that relies on its gameplay and presentation merits, and overall polish not michael bay explosions and Eminem music to promote itself as a great game. However i do like me some Eminem.millerlight89

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Beautiful. Starcraft and Eminem = Heaven -wildflower-

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Beautiful. Starcraft and Eminem = Heaven Born_Lucky

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

Right, Starcraft is widely known to be a game where no two matches are the same, so either those millions that played it for thousands of hours have been fooled or your eyes are the ones at fault...

[QUOTE="Sniping_Crowbar"]i was getting ready to own you, but i see what you did theres. Anyway Starcraft is a perfect example of a game that relies on its gameplay and presentation merits, and overall polish not michael bay explosions and Eminem music to promote itself as a great game. However i do like me some Eminem.millerlight89

I can count the games which have deserved their 9.0+ scores this gen on one hand.

ME/ME2 is definitely not on that list,

red dead redemption is not

Ass creed 1/2 are not, MW, Gears, FO3... the list goes on and on.

Truthfully the only games which I rate this gen are probably Metal Gear Solid, GTA4 and Dragon Age origins. All good games but even these were overrated.

SC2 atm is highly over-rated.

Actually I have a problem with $60 for a singleplayer experience when most people will play their 5 match, getting rolled... hard... every time and then never play again. There are plenty of flaws in this game that are being completely glossed over because Blizz "didn't need to change anything". Again, it's good, possibly the best terrain based RTS to date, but it's no Homeworld. I'm becoming more and more irritated the longer it sits in the number 1 spot for PC games, which is frankly re-god-damn-diculous.

SerOlmy

And Im one of those people who say homeworld sucks I'd rather play Sins of A Solar empire xD

Well it's sad when Amazon has it rated at only 3 stars because of the requirement of being online. So far, the reviews I've seen on gaming sites don't even mention this!Lord_DoDo56

Honestly the game is non impressive or innovative, i would say dow2 has a better singleplayer...i mean come on rts with bosses!

Also sc2 is too close to sc1 multiplayer, its not innovative in the least and i feel like im playing sc1 with better graphics.

Honestly the game is non impressive or innovative, i would say dow2 has a better singleplayer...i mean come on rts with bosses!

Also sc2 is too close to sc1 multiplayer, its not innovative in the least and i feel like im playing sc1 with better graphics.

edinsftw

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Emraldo"]

Seconded. Well, except for the Starcraft part.

millerlight89

[QUOTE="Born_Lucky"][QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

No offense but your heaven sounds a lot like my hell. ;)

Mograine

Right, Starcraft is widely known to be a game where no two matches are the same, so either those millions that played it for thousands of hours have been fooled or your eyes are the ones at fault...

What about zerg rushes? seen plenty of those.

I based my opinion on fact. It is a fact that Starcraft 2 is no the most innovative title in the genre yet it is the most well executed.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="Born_Lucky"] You're not alone. That sounds about as appealing as an oatmeal and mustard sandwich. Also - After watching gameplay footage on Youtube, I can't imagine anyone would want to play this for more than a couple of days. This takes repetitious to a whole new level.KeithFerns

Right, Starcraft is widely known to be a game where no two matches are the same, so either those millions that played it for thousands of hours have been fooled or your eyes are the ones at fault...

What about zerg rushes? seen plenty of those.

[QUOTE="edinsftw"]

Honestly the game is non impressive or innovative, i would say dow2 has a better singleplayer...i mean come on rts with bosses!

Also sc2 is too close to sc1 multiplayer, its not innovative in the least and i feel like im playing sc1 with better graphics.

Ravenchrome

Design i dont think so, polish and presentation yes. I would really hope after 7 years it had more polish and better cg.

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

[QUOTE="edinsftw"]

Honestly the game is non impressive or innovative, i would say dow2 has a better singleplayer...i mean come on rts with bosses!

Also sc2 is too close to sc1 multiplayer, its not innovative in the least and i feel like im playing sc1 with better graphics.

edinsftw

Design i dont think so, polish and presentation yes. I would really hope after 7 years it had more polish and better cg.

Design: Mission variety, U.I, matchmaking, campaign structure. All of these are way above Dawn of War 2.

Just having bosses is not good enough. It is repetitive as hell.

[QUOTE="edinsftw"]

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"] Dow 2 single player is awful and repetitive. Sc2 is superior in terms of design, polish and presentation.

Ravenchrome

Design i dont think so, polish and presentation yes. I would really hope after 7 years it had more polish and better cg.

Design: Mission variety, U.I, matchmaking, campaign structure. All of these are way above Dawn of War 2.

Just having bosses is not good enough. It is repetitive as hell.

I didnt say it had enough polish smart one, learn to read. UI is player opinion in this case...matchmaking its games for windows live, so yea it wins that. Campaign structure wasnt that great. Dawn of war 2 went outside the rts box and made it more rpg, so did starcraft 2 but not the extent that dow 2 did. Also it has coop.

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

[QUOTE="edinsftw"]

Design i dont think so, polish and presentation yes. I would really hope after 7 years it had more polish and better cg.

edinsftw

Design: Mission variety, U.I, matchmaking, campaign structure. All of these are way above Dawn of War 2.

Just having bosses is not good enough. It is repetitive as hell.

I didnt say it had enough polish smart one, learn to read. UI is player opinion in this case...matchmaking its games for windows live, so yea it wins that. Campaign structure wasnt that great. Dawn of war 2 went outside the rts box and made it more rpg, so did starcraft 2 but not the extent that dow 2 did. Also it has coop.

I thought it was SC2's lack of innovation that was killing PC gaming :o !

Either way, only a person neck-deep in delusions can say that. Innovation can suck my PC's hard drive if lack of it offers such an overwhelming game. Haters gonna hate, it's no use caring about them.

Mograine