Any one excited for Starcraft 2!

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"] Well,personally I would say Starcraft(obviously! :P),although if RTS isn´t really your thing,Diablo 2 is a great choice. It´s hard to dislike that game. You should remeber though, that both these games are old now,and in some ways not as good as some recent ones(mainly in the graphical department),although to me they are,but I can see that someone who hasn´t played them at the time of their release would think otherwise.

Warcraft 3 is a great choice as well,although I can´t really recommend it myself since I´m not a big fan of it.

Arach666

No. I've played RTS games before which means i have played Starcraft 2. It looks totally average from the gameplay videos. Also, i'm not paying $60 for 1/3 of a game just so Activision can take more of my money. They have had years upon years to make the full game and they can easily put it all into one package, but they chose not to so they can take more of your money. People hate on $15 map packs for COD because Activision is "greedy", yet splitting one game into three so they can take your money is okay according to those who support the 1/3 of a game idea. Having long campaigns doesn't justify making you buy three separate items. They try to justify the $60 price tag AND 1/3 of a game by trying to tell us that they are long and have lots of content, and i just don't think that is a good enough reason.

hoola

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="mitu123"] I don't mind the graphics, I still play games older than that game, and I'm known to accept a game for what it was during it's time so I shouldn't have problems adjusting to it. I usually have a nostalgia feeling after all.:P

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"] That´s a good thing to have;) Honestly,Starcraft+Brood War,Diablo 2+ Lord of Destruction and Warcraft 3+ Frozen Throne are all pretty cheap these days,you can pretty much get them all for the price of a full game,or even less. And that´s a great thing in my book :DArach666

I can't wait for the game. Why haven't there been any threads for it. It is an obvious GOTY contender.

gammon56

MEMEMEMEME

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Damn, I have a lot of gaming to do. If I'm lucky I can do them all before this game comes out.

mitu123

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Damn, I have a lot of gaming to do. If I'm lucky I can do them all before this game comes out.

mitu123

[QUOTE="hoola"]

No. I've played RTS games before which means i have played Starcraft 2. It looks totally average from the gameplay videos. Also, i'm not paying $60 for 1/3 of a game just so Activision can take more of my money. They have had years upon years to make the full game and they can easily put it all into one package, but they chose not to so they can take more of your money. People hate on $15 map packs for COD because Activision is "greedy", yet splitting one game into three so they can take your money is okay according to those who support the 1/3 of a game idea. Having long campaigns doesn't justify making you buy three separate items. They try to justify the $60 price tag AND 1/3 of a game by trying to tell us that they are long and have lots of content, and i just don't think that is a good enough reason.

Vaasman

There is little difference between the two companies if both use the same horrible pricing structure (from the standpoint of a customer). Both release partial games with the intention of releasing pricey added content after the first game is released. Both believe that they can justify getting you to spend more money on things that they should have put into the original game by talking up the games selling point and saying "it is worth it." I take back what i said before. You aren't supporting Activision by buying this extremely expensive Starcraft 2, you are supporting the idea that Activision runs by. Rather than releasing only one supposedly long campaign in one game, they should release all three in one product and make it extra long. Trust me, the only reason they are doing this is to get as much of your money as possible. But i don't care, it isn't my money that they will be getting and it is your choice to give them your money in exchange for that game.

AAAAE Confirmed, even if it's the original just with improved graphics and a new story. My most anticipated game along with Crysis 2, Episode 3, Portal 2, The Witcher 2, and Red Dead Redemption. :D

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

No. I've played RTS games before which means i have played Starcraft 2. It looks totally average from the gameplay videos. Also, i'm not paying $60 for 1/3 of a game just so Activision can take more of my money. They have had years upon years to make the full game and they can easily put it all into one package, but they chose not to so they can take more of your money. People hate on $15 map packs for COD because Activision is "greedy", yet splitting one game into three so they can take your money is okay according to those who support the 1/3 of a game idea. Having long campaigns doesn't justify making you buy three separate items. They try to justify the $60 price tag AND 1/3 of a game by trying to tell us that they are long and have lots of content, and i just don't think that is a good enough reason.

hoola

There is little difference between the two companies if both use the same horrible pricing structure (from the standpoint of a customer). Both release partial games with the intention of releasing pricey added content after the first game is released. Both believe that they can justify getting you to spend more money on things that they should have put into the original game by talking up the games selling point and saying "it is worth it." I take back what i said before. You aren't supporting Activision by buying this extremely expensive Starcraft 2, you are supporting the idea that Activision runs by. Rather than releasing only one supposedly long campaign in one game, they should release all three in one product and make it extra long. Trust me, the only reason they are doing this is to get as much of your money as possible. But i don't care, it isn't my money that they will be getting and it is your choice to give them your money in exchange for that game.

I herd the game didn't have multiplayer is this true? if it is..no buy.

Santesyu

I think someone might have said no LAN multiplayer.

I am!

But someone answer me something, why Jim Raynor have hair now (and 2 eyebrows) ?

Played the beta at my friend's house for the first time over the weekend. I'm extremely pleased. :)

The game has changed so much just to increase the efficiency of those that are not familiar to RTS's, but everything else is really solid, so new and old players will all love this game.

I am but I can't win a match for my life. D:

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

No. I've played RTS games before which means i have played Starcraft 2. It looks totally average from the gameplay videos. Also, i'm not paying $60 for 1/3 of a game just so Activision can take more of my money. They have had years upon years to make the full game and they can easily put it all into one package, but they chose not to so they can take more of your money. People hate on $15 map packs for COD because Activision is "greedy", yet splitting one game into three so they can take your money is okay according to those who support the 1/3 of a game idea. Having long campaigns doesn't justify making you buy three separate items. They try to justify the $60 price tag AND 1/3 of a game by trying to tell us that they are long and have lots of content, and i just don't think that is a good enough reason.

hoola

There is little difference between the two companies if both use the same horrible pricing structure (from the standpoint of a customer). Both release partial games with the intention of releasing pricey added content after the first game is released. Both believe that they can justify getting you to spend more money on things that they should have put into the original game by talking up the games selling point and saying "it is worth it." I take back what i said before. You aren't supporting Activision by buying this extremely expensive Starcraft 2, you are supporting the idea that Activision runs by. Rather than releasing only one supposedly long campaign in one game, they should release all three in one product and make it extra long. Trust me, the only reason they are doing this is to get as much of your money as possible. But i don't care, it isn't my money that they will be getting and it is your choice to give them your money in exchange for that game.

I'm neither excited for the game, nor the prospect of paying over $150 to play the entire story... or even $180 given Activision's advent of $60 PC games.

foxhound_fox

Last i checked starcraft 2 was 60 bucks, yeah its 10 bucks more but i dont think its close to 160 dollars or whatever you said. if you mean withheld content on your game disc AKA DLC then i guess i can understand your point.

I can't wait for the game. Why haven't there been any threads for it. It is an obvious GOTY contender.

gammon56

This game seems 99% like Starcraft 1, only i dont like the art, i liked 2D better (same with Diablo 2, which i like visually far more than 3)

So, there is only 1% inyerest for me, given i have played SC1 for so many hours and i simply dont want to go back to the same stuff

I will pass on the game, i am even thinking of passing on Diablo 3, imagine that, 3D and casualization with crappy non atmospheric viusuals has absolutyl destroyed those titles for me

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

I'm neither excited for the game, nor the prospect of paying over $150 to play the entire story... or even $180 given Activision's advent of $60 PC games.

AlphaJC

Last i checked starcraft 2 was 60 bucks, yeah its 10 bucks more but i dont think its close to 160 dollars or whatever you said. if you mean withheld content on your game disc AKA DLC then i guess i can understand your point.

I am but I can't win a match for my life. D:

ChaltierX

Even when i play eye of the tiger via steam over lay to raise moral i still end up seeing my HQ burning to the ground.. :(
But as like everyone else i get better overtime.

hope you guys enjoy giving activision 180 bucks for starcraft 2

im not really excited for it, good for those that are getting it thoughthe-obiwan

hope you guys enjoy giving activision 180 bucks for starcraft 2

Ultizer

[QUOTE="the-obiwan"]im not really excited for it, good for those that are getting it thoughGeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="Ultizer"]

hope you guys enjoy giving activision 180 bucks for starcraft 2

thespywholied

[QUOTE="Santesyu"]

I herd the game didn't have multiplayer is this true? if it is..no buy.

menes777

I think someone might have said no LAN multiplayer.

It have LAN but you need be connected to battlenet all time.

I'm neither excited for the game, nor the prospect of paying over $150 to play the entire story... or even $180 given Activision's advent of $60 PC games.

foxhound_fox

I am. I'm in the beta and I am very impressed with what I am playing.

I'm in the Beta as well. It's pretty "meh" so far.

For starters forget about good graphics. It's the usual cartoony handpainted textures with no bump mapping. The change to 3D has also thrown the relative scales of the units off quite a bit. For example the protos Nexus, instead of looking like a giant city sized Pyramid like in the artworks and hinted at in the sprite model of SC1, basically looks like an upside down yougurt carton, next to giant cartoony probes. Im playing it in 1920 by 1200 maxed out.

The Terran units don't fair much better, the buildings in particular just look like boxes, and the marines just look like blobs frankly. The best way to imagine the way it looks is like the old models you could make from the back for Corn Flakes packets; you could cut out say a Starship Enterprise and fold it up to make a model. It all looks so flat, again the lack of bump mapping in a 2010 title really hurts it.

Apart from that, nothing wrong with the gameplay, it plays quite similar to SC1. If you don't want to get owned be perpared to spend a lot of time on your build orders, watching replays etc; same as SC1. No innovations from the last 10 years of RTS seem to have made it into SC2. No covering fire, leveling up units, squads, salvage, nodes etc. When you fire it up, the first feeling you get is "on this again".

Analysts predict it will sell about 6 million units (maybe half of that in Korea lol). A decent sales amount, but far short of Halo or COD; I think it will prolly reach this given the hype Activision is sure to put behind it. I don't expect it to score less than 9 on any major review site, unless that site wants to be on Activisions black list.

Seriously though I'd not get too hyped up about this game, I'd say it's an 8.5 in reality. A polished well balanced RTS; its just so totally old. I was a Starcraft nut back in the day, but thats what 11 years ago? Things have moved on, including a lot of the original playerbase. There's more innovative and fun games to be had out there now.

If you want to get an idea of what it looks like you can **play the replays in engine even if you are not in Beta**. The buys over at gamereplays explain how to do it. "Will my comp run this?" threads need not apply, it will run on almost any crappy rig, and as I said maxed out it just looks meh, try it and see.

Enough new stuff without completely changing the gameplay makes me a happy person. SC2 game of the year for me (CivV close 2nd).