Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility

It's possible StarCraft II will have a workaround to allow play on a Local Area Network following the uproar over previous indications that Blizzard's RTS sequel will not include LAN support. Kotaku brought this up with Rob Pardo, and he seemed amused at the idea that people will still consider this an issue when the game is released, indicating that in cases where no 'net connection is available, there may still be ways to play: "There's a few legitimate cases that we're going to try and address over time. Location-based tournaments, or let's say I'm in a dorm with a firewall or something like that, hopefully there's a way to determine that and maybe start a peer-to-peer game." Likewise, Shacknews raised the possibility in a conversation with Battle.net developer Greg Canessa work on a solution to support low latency/high bandwidth situations where they asked if such a solution could provide "pseudo-LAN" support with Battle.Net authentication for local games: "Something like that," he told them. "Maintaining a connection with Battle.net, I don't know if it's once or periodically, but then also having a peer-to-peer connection between players to facilitate a very low-ping, high-bandwidth connection.. those are the things that we're working on." They also confirm with Jay Wilson that Diablo III will deal with LANs the same way StarCraft II does, so it should support any such programming created for StarCraft II.

View
51. Re: SC2 LAN Still Possible Aug 25, 2009, 00:53 Dr. D. Schreber
 
Its not nostalgia, as so many ignorants try to call it. Its fact that many, many game that are 10 years old have far more content, more challenging gameplay and still the same (if not better) gameplay than modern games.

That is not, at all, a fact.

Mass Effect was an extremely dumbed down RPG and very justified called a typical console port.

So, wait. The game looks better running on a reasonable machine, load times are drastically reduced, the typical Unreal Engine 3 texture streaming effect shows much less, and they reworked the interface to take advantage of mouse/keyboard input.

So what does a game have to do to not be a "typical" console port? Because I was under the impression that most console ports don't have any effort put into them at all. Have I just been missing some magical pile of well-done ports lately?

If more people would criticize those points they would actually be fixed. But as along as there are people who swallow everything as shallow as a puddle, as long as it has a Blizzard, Bioware or Crytek tag, it will only get worse.

Criticisms for Crysis included low relevance on different nanosuit modes since armor gave you the biggest survivability, and Xen Syndrome after the spire opens because the alien exosuits are even dumber bricks than the Koreans, oftentimes just jumping at you and sitting on ledges for awhile. Added to the fact that that's basically all the game is anymore after that point.

Flash forward to Crysis Warhead; the point the spire opens is not the last time you face human enemies, and the aliens' AI is much better; they stick more to the ground where their speed gives them an actual advantage, and they work in teams, actually better than the Koreans do. The normal running speed is slower so now there's an actual reason to think about whether or not you want to be in armor or speed mode.

Nope, didn't listen and fix the problems anyone had at all.

Strip away the pretty graphics and take a real look at Crysis. What do you get? A pile of steaming shit. Nothing more nothing less.

And yet, plenty of us in this very thread are talking about how we enjoyed the gameplay. Seriously, how many of us could even play the game with the pretty graphics when it first came out? I'd say it's a safe bet that most of the people who like the game aren't in it just for the graphics.


It was aiming for "realism" with a nano-tech Ninja Warrior suit and aliens. Uhuh.

It's not aiming for realism, it's aiming for a realistic presentation. There is a difference, and a realistic presentation is what we really want. Realism means anything, in just about any genre, is boring work. Notice how real flight simulators are barely a niche anymore?

There's nothing wrong with throwing a little speculative sillyness into a realistic presentation, sci-fi or otherwise. Look at Guns of the Patriots; yes, it's batshit insane in that...shall we say "special" way Hideo Kojima likes, but the presentation is astounding in its detail; amidst the walking, mooing tanks and the bisexual flamenco-dancing vampire, you've got guns being handled like actual professionals would be handling them, soldiers moving about in appropriate-looking squad structures, squad leaders directing their men with hand signals, small-scale milita-men having a room in their HQ where their wounded are bleeding and looking damned wretched, some of which will die as you watch if you linger long enough. Hell, even the way Snake slits throats is a point for this; it's not perfect, but it's a slightly more practical motion than the silly "ear to ear" cut always done in movies.

The point being, while the gameplay may be the farthest thing from realistic, the presentation pays attention to many small details that help towards suspension of disbelief. If anything, Crysis actually doesn't do as good a job here. The foliage being brushed aside as you walk through it and the level of destructability in the environments are great, but the aforementioned sub-par AI breaks the illusion when the soldiers don't react to gunshots the way soldiers should. The biggest offender is actually the way gun cutomization works; why can't the soldiers see my laser sight? Why are the soldiers stupid enough to walk around with flashlights and laser sights in pitch-black night when these things will act like flares?

But like StingingVelvet said, flaws don't mean a game is bad, and none of those were deal-breakers for me.

 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Previous Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Aug 23, 14:58 How hard can it be? MrTA
  2. Aug 23, 15:23  Re: How hard can it be? Steeleye
  4. Aug 23, 15:32   Re: How hard can it be? Paketep
  3. Aug 23, 15:30  Re: How hard can it be? StingingVelvet
  5. Aug 23, 15:51   Re: How hard can it be? Prez
  7. Aug 23, 16:55    Re: How hard can it be? Dots
  8. Aug 23, 17:20     Re: How hard can it be? Rhett
  12. Aug 23, 18:10      Re: How hard can it be? Yifes
  9. Aug 23, 17:23     Re: How hard can it be? StingingVelvet
  10. Aug 23, 18:05      Re: How hard can it be? Kajetan
  14. Aug 23, 18:32       Re: How hard can it be? StingingVelvet
  15. Aug 23, 18:38        Re: How hard can it be? PHJF
  17. Aug 23, 19:27        Re: How hard can it be? Dots
  11. Aug 23, 18:06      Re: How hard can it be? Triblade
  13. Aug 23, 18:17      Re: How hard can it be? tony
  6. Aug 23, 15:52 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Donkey_Punch
  16. Aug 23, 19:17 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Dr. D. Schreber
  18. Aug 23, 19:28  Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  19. Aug 23, 19:53   Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Dots
  20. Aug 23, 21:50    Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility StingingVelvet
  21. Aug 23, 22:11 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Dev
  22. Aug 23, 22:19  Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility PHJF
  23. Aug 23, 23:17 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility theyarecomingforyou
  27. Aug 24, 05:16  Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility StingingVelvet
  33. Aug 24, 08:24  Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility noman
  34. Aug 24, 08:43   Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  36. Aug 24, 08:55    Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility kanniballl
  38. Aug 24, 09:13     Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility InBlack
  48. Aug 24, 18:18      Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility JohnnyRotten
  39. Aug 24, 09:13     Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  40. Aug 24, 09:42      Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Paketep
  42. Aug 24, 10:16       Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  41. Aug 24, 09:42   Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility |RaptoR|
  24. Aug 24, 00:33 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Dev
  25. Aug 24, 01:12 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility NewMaxx
  26. Aug 24, 04:07  Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Jerykk
  28. Aug 24, 05:20   Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility StingingVelvet
  29. Aug 24, 06:00    Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Muscular Beaver
  30. Aug 24, 07:52     Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility InBlack
  32. Aug 24, 08:07      Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  50. Aug 24, 22:57     Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility StingingVelvet
  31. Aug 24, 08:00 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  35. Aug 24, 08:44 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Verno
  37. Aug 24, 09:11 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Zadig
  43. Aug 24, 10:25 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Verno
  44. Aug 24, 10:34  Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  46. Aug 24, 16:08   Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Yifes
  47. Aug 24, 18:14    Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Reitsuki
  49. Aug 24, 20:57     Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Yifes
  52. Aug 25, 03:21    Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Jerykk
  53. Aug 25, 19:05     Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Yifes
  54. Aug 27, 16:57      Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Masa
  55. Aug 27, 18:01       Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Yifes
  56. Sep 5, 23:28      Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Jerykk
  45. Aug 24, 10:39 Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Verno
>> 51. Aug 25, 00:53 Re: SC2 LAN Still Possible Dr. D. Schreber


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo