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:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

More StarCraft II Sales Figures

With StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty sitting atop the UK multi-format sales charts, the first PC-only title to top that list so far this year, MCV points out that Blizzard's real-time strategy sequel has sold more copies in the UK in five days that the original StarCraft has sold over its 12-year lifespan. This is all the more impressive when knowing this is purely based on physical copies, and does not account for digital distribution.

View
83 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >

83. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 19:29 Yifes
 
Verno wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 19:20:
That's not a complete list of units in the game, it doesn't even include two entire divisions of the factions. If we're comparing a modern game then we're including the expansions of a four year old title.

Maybe we should talk about the original COH, since we're talking only about Wings of Liberty here. Let's not compare apples to oranges here.

No, you are wrong again. There was no other at that time the capability to do battles on the scale of CoH with the same level graphical fidelity, physics and so on. It was a design decision and this is easily apparent when you install a few mods that up the unit count and see the engine limitations firsthand.

The ability of the engine to render units on screen does not affect how the units are grouped or controlled. Having the AI make decisions for individual soldiers require more processing power and taxes the engine more - refuting your argument that the lack of ability to control individual soldiers is due to the limitations of the engine.

I suspect if I posted one word ten times you would respond that many times just to have the last word so instead I will save us both the trouble.

I understand the desire to end this "discussion", and that's fine. Simply walking away and not responding is one way to do it. But using an offensive fallacy as your exit strategy, how very mature and classy of you Verno.

This comment was edited on Aug 5, 2010, 19:51.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 19:20 Verno
 
Yifes wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 19:07:

http://wiki.reliccommunity.com/index.php?title=Company_of_Heroes_Units

That's not a complete list of units in the game, it doesn't even include two entire divisions of the factions. If we're comparing a modern game then we're including the expansions of a four year old title.

You can argue it's a design choice, but saying controlling individual units are not feasible for game development is bullshit, considering it's done before for other WWII and militaristic RTSes.

No, you are wrong again. There was no other at that time the capability to do battles on the scale of CoH with the same level graphical fidelity, physics and so on. It was a design decision and this is easily apparent when you install a few mods that up the unit count and see the engine limitations firsthand. If you want to see a truly dumbed down game with streamlined gameplay then install Dawn of War II. CoH is the only worthy RTS title I've seen since Starcraft 1 and certainly the only one that holds a candle to the strategy in high level Starcraft play.

But rather than talk about them all night, I'm going to go play them. I suspect if I posted one word ten times you would respond that many times just to have the last word so instead I will save us both the trouble.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 19:07 Yifes
 
Verno wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 18:54:
I don't know how you came up with that figure, the base game alone has more without going into the expansion factions. Regardless, it was to illustrate the point that unit variety wasn't affected their design decisions.

Relic Wiki
Planet company of heroes

Hey, maybe the wiki is wrong and you actually know what you're talking about. And yeah, Axis and Allies has so much more variety than Zerg vs Protoss vs Terran. Because an allied sniper is so much different than an axis one Rolleyes

It's a real time strategy game based loosely on an actual conflict. Naturally you do not control individual soldiers in a unit as thats not feasible for game development.

You can argue it's a design choice, but saying controlling individual units are not feasible for game development is bullshit, considering it's done before for other WWII and militaristic RTSes. And if you're arguing that the choice was made because of the realistic setting, that's also bullshit since they debuted the system with DOW1.

The rest of your post is pointless nitpicking so I'm ignoring it.

Great reason.

This comment was edited on Aug 5, 2010, 19:19.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 18:54 Verno
 
Yifes wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 18:27:
Starcraft 2 features 46 units, while COH features 40.

I don't know how you came up with that figure, the base game alone has more without going into the expansion factions. Regardless, it was to illustrate the point that unit variety wasn't affected their design decisions.

No longer being able to control individual soldiers and relying on AI to position your individual troops is simplifying the game.

It's a real time strategy game based loosely on an actual conflict. Naturally you do not control individual soldiers in a unit as thats not feasible for game development. You instead control units which are an approximation of their troop complement for the purposes of the game. The rest of your post is pointless nitpicking so I'm ignoring it.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 18:27 Yifes
 
Verno wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 17:23:
Lowering the unit cap and clustering units into groups alone is an act designed to simply the gameplay.

CoH features a much larger cast of units in multiplayer than Starcraft 2 and that's without going into the engine limitations given the graphical fidelity of the game. Their approach was arguably necessary for their particular product. It in no way affects the actual strategy and flow of gameplay though. CoH has considerably deep high level play much like Starcraft and unlike pretty much every other RTS disappointment from the past ten years.

Starcraft 2 features 46 units, while COH features 40. That's counting mirror units like Axis Sniper and Allied Sniper. And engine limitations may affect the maximum unit cap, but that doesn't account for the group mechanism. No longer being able to control individual soldiers and relying on AI to position your individual troops is simplifying the game. And saying army size doesn't affect the strategy or flow of gameplay is wrong. Controlling a company of men or a platoon of men does not result in the exact same strategies or gameplay.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 17:23 Verno
 
Lowering the unit cap and clustering units into groups alone is an act designed to simply the gameplay.

CoH features a much larger cast of units in multiplayer than Starcraft 2 and that's without going into the engine limitations given the graphical fidelity of the game. Their approach was arguably necessary for their particular product. It in no way affects the actual strategy and flow of gameplay though. CoH has considerably deep high level play much like Starcraft and unlike pretty much every other RTS disappointment from the past ten years.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 15:53 Yifes
 
Verno wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 22:38:
This is offensively stupid and incorrect, CoH isn't dumbed down in the slightest. Territory control rewards strategic thought with tangible benefits while punishing the unthinking player. If anything CoH isn't as accessible as Starcraft in some respects. Both games are great examples of deceptively "simple" play with a sky limit on actual strategy on a per battle basis and that's the way it should be. If you want to talk about dumbed down RTS then there are a dozen better examples like Dawn of War II or even another Blizzard creation - Warcraft III.

If you want to defend your favorite RTS title then fine but don't attack the only decent RTS made in the better part of a decade to make your point. In the end both CoH and SC2 reward aggressive scouting and playstyle more than actual high level strategy in the first place.

Lowering the unit cap and clustering units into groups alone is an act designed to simply the gameplay. In no way am I insinuating that COH is easy to play, or a bad game, and I definitely agree with you there are better examples to use. So forgive me for not explaining myself. It was addressed to an idiot, using idiotic logic in reflection. Not much thought was put into it, and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

This comment was edited on Aug 5, 2010, 16:11.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
76. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 15:48 Yifes
 
Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 07:55:
Yifes, I called you a fanboy because you can't seem to take a step back from the game you're a fan of during this "discussion" ergo you deny the flaws and heat up while doing so. Also, nit-picking at every word from the other party during a discussion is weak and lame and it only slows a discussion down immensely. Sadly about 98% of the people do this. Offtopic: This is also the reason nothing ever changes in democracy.

I wasn't trying to make my opinion sound like fact, and your effort to put others against me by claiming it in the fashion that you did is so horrid and pathetic that I can only laugh at you. So sad.

I'm not backing up because you're not making an argument. You're just stating your opinion and not acknowledging my counter-examples. Unfortunately, it seems that you find using actual examples in a discussion extraneous. Hey, why bring reality into a conversation and slow it down when we can just talk about how we feel? And when you make broad sweeping statements like "there's nothing new here", and I disagree with you, that's not nitpicking over just words.

And yeah, I've recognized that you don't like RTS games, and that this is your opinion. I've stated this numerous times in my previous posts. If you got offended by me using the word "fact" that one time, then my bad. Let's not nit-pick at every word here, k? Imagining that I have some evil plot to turn public opinion against you when all we're doing is having a conversation, now that's sad.

This comment was edited on Aug 5, 2010, 16:29.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
75. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 07:55 Eldaron Imotholin
 
Yifes, I called you a fanboy because you can't seem to take a step back from the game you're a fan of during this "discussion" ergo you deny the flaws and heat up while doing so. Also, nit-picking at every word from the other party during a discussion is weak and lame and it only slows a discussion down immensely. Sadly about 98% of the people do this. Offtopic: This is also the reason nothing ever changes in democracy.

I wasn't trying to make my opinion sound like fact, and your effort to put others against me by claiming it in the fashion that you did is so horrid and pathetic that I can only laugh at you. So sad.
 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 5, 2010, 01:10 Sepharo
 
Eldaron Imotholin wrote:
I, personally, don't think so.
Yifes wrote:
But don't go all Kanye West up in here and expect people to welcome your opinion as fact without any discussion.
Sepharo wrote:
Hell even the fans are fightin' each other.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 4, 2010, 22:58 Yifes
 
Are you not capable of having a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without calling them a fanboy?

eah yeah yeah thing is, I did play some other RTS games in the last few years and although I never finished them I know all too well that the unit upgrades etc etc is nothing new. It doesn't take an RTS fan to be able to talk about the genre, dude.

If you want to talk about the genre, and say that there's nothing new here, then tell me, what other RTS that has a mission based around flowing lava, or a mission based around night and day, or another unit in a RTS that has an ability like the sentry's forcefield. What other game has the meta game where you upgrade, research and hire unique units?

And yes, there are two more difficulties.. but I chose "Normal" and it's extremely easy for this guy that prefers to just build as many units as he can to then swoop over the enemy in pure overkill. It's called imbalance.

Wait, so you're still complaining how the game is too easy on normal? I don't even see your point here. If I beat DOOM on "I'm too young to die" using only the pistol, that doesn't mean the pistol is overpowered and there's no point using the other guns. Just because you beat normal with stupid strategies doesn't mean it'll work on Hard or Brutal.

The game is good and it's polished and for an RTS game I love it. I said this. But should it be as ridiculously praised as it is? I, personally, don't think so.

And that's fine. Like I said, your opinion stems from the fact that you don't like RTS games in general. But don't go all Kanye West up in here and expect people to welcome your opinion as fact without any discussion.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 4, 2010, 22:39 Eldaron Imotholin
 
Yifes wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 21:13:
Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 19:58:
This or that, the extreme and over-the-top hype around this game made the whole reception of it a self-fulfilled prophecy... ergo it is indeed overrated.

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun even for me although I dislike the genre. The thing I find obvious though is how I realize how much this game lacks innovation except for the detailed breaks between missions. The mission graphics aren't stunning and even I find the game way too easy on normal, while I should've chosen Easy if I listened to the description.. since I never play RTS games.

The game is in fact so easy that I can use the same tactics over and over again, which are noob-tactics -- ...they have to be...?

I also think the maps are tiny. Shamefully tiny.

Anyway! Yeah. Overrated. Definitely. Almost an idiotic reception, if you ask me. A good and polished game? Yes. But just another good and polished RTS game.


Yes the game is quite easy on Normal, but that's why there's 2 more difficulty levels after that. Try them before you complain about using the same tactics over and over again.

On the innovation front, there's more than the cutscenes between missions. There's the campaign choices, the unique units, the upgrades, the map editor, the new mission mechanics, the multiplayer mechanics, etc. None of which are seen in other RTS games. Name another RTS that has a mission based around flowing lava, or a mission based around night and day, or another unit in a RTS that has an ability like the sentry's forcefield.

And complaining about how the maps are tiny in SC is like complaining about how tiny the maps are in TF2. Not every game has to have the scope of Crysis or Just Cause.

So yeah, like you said, you don't like RTS games. But realize that it's due to your personal bias that you don't give a shit about any of the changes Blizzard has made. The bottom line is that Blizzard's innovations are for fans of RTS games. Just because they didn't completely overhaul the game into something else - something that you care about - doesn't mean that it lacks innovation or is overrated.

And if by extreme over the top hype you mean extreme negative publicity, then you'd be actually right. RealID, No LAN, $60, Split into 3 games, etc - If you think Blizzard had it easy with public opinion up to now, then you're hilariously mistaken. Overhyped, idiotic reception? Bullshit.

Yeah yeah yeah thing is, I did play some other RTS games in the last few years and although I never finished them I know all too well that the unit upgrades etc etc is nothing new. It doesn't take an RTS fan to be able to talk about the genre, dude.

And yes, there are two more difficulties.. but I chose "Normal" and it's extremely easy for this guy that prefers to just build as many units as he can to then swoop over the enemy in pure overkill. It's called imbalance.

Still.. I don't care. I don't see why you should go all fanboy on me. The game is good and it's polished and for an RTS game I love it. I said this. But should it be as ridiculously praised as it is? I, personally, don't think so.

And you're right, there's also been extreme negative publicity.. which I think is bullshit just as well. As I voiced in another post, critics seem to utterly fail to review this game unbiased. They basically either think it's underwhelming crap or the best game in the world. It's all so very ridiculous.

This comment was edited on Aug 4, 2010, 22:46.
 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 4, 2010, 22:38 Verno
 
Yifes wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 17:17:
It's a different style of game than COH. Not everyone wants all their RTS games dumbed down to the level of COH.

This is offensively stupid and incorrect, CoH isn't dumbed down in the slightest. Territory control rewards strategic thought with tangible benefits while punishing the unthinking player. If anything CoH isn't as accessible as Starcraft in some respects. Both games are great examples of deceptively "simple" play with a sky limit on actual strategy on a per battle basis and that's the way it should be. If you want to talk about dumbed down RTS then there are a dozen better examples like Dawn of War II or even another Blizzard creation - Warcraft III.

If you want to defend your favorite RTS title then fine but don't attack the only decent RTS made in the better part of a decade to make your point. In the end both CoH and SC2 reward aggressive scouting and playstyle more than actual high level strategy in the first place.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 4, 2010, 21:13 Yifes
 
Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 19:58:
This or that, the extreme and over-the-top hype around this game made the whole reception of it a self-fulfilled prophecy... ergo it is indeed overrated.

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun even for me although I dislike the genre. The thing I find obvious though is how I realize how much this game lacks innovation except for the detailed breaks between missions. The mission graphics aren't stunning and even I find the game way too easy on normal, while I should've chosen Easy if I listened to the description.. since I never play RTS games.

The game is in fact so easy that I can use the same tactics over and over again, which are noob-tactics -- ...they have to be...?

I also think the maps are tiny. Shamefully tiny.

Anyway! Yeah. Overrated. Definitely. Almost an idiotic reception, if you ask me. A good and polished game? Yes. But just another good and polished RTS game.


Yes the game is quite easy on Normal, but that's why there's 2 more difficulty levels after that. Try them before you complain about using the same tactics over and over again.

On the innovation front, there's more than the cutscenes between missions. There's the campaign choices, the unique units, the upgrades, the map editor, the new mission mechanics, the multiplayer mechanics, etc. None of which are seen in other RTS games. Name another RTS that has a mission based around flowing lava, or a mission based around night and day, or another unit in a RTS that has an ability like the sentry's forcefield.

And complaining about how the maps are tiny in SC is like complaining about how tiny the maps are in TF2. Not every game has to have the scope of Crysis or Just Cause.

So yeah, like you said, you don't like RTS games. But realize that it's due to your personal bias that you don't give a shit about any of the changes Blizzard has made. The bottom line is that Blizzard's innovations are for fans of RTS games. Just because they didn't completely overhaul the game into something else - something that you care about - doesn't mean that it lacks innovation or is overrated.

And if by extreme over the top hype you mean extreme negative publicity, then you'd be actually right. RealID, No LAN, $60, Split into 3 games, etc - If you think Blizzard had it easy with public opinion up to now, then you're hilariously mistaken. Overhyped, idiotic reception? Bullshit.

This comment was edited on Aug 4, 2010, 21:35.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 4, 2010, 19:58 Eldaron Imotholin
 
This or that, the extreme and over-the-top hype around this game made the whole reception of it a self-fulfilled prophecy... ergo it is indeed overrated.

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun even for me although I dislike the genre. The thing I find obvious though is how I realize how much this game lacks innovation except for the detailed breaks between missions. The mission graphics aren't stunning and even I find the game way too easy on normal, while I should've chosen Easy if I listened to the description.. since I never play RTS games.

The game is in fact so easy that I can use the same tactics over and over again, which are noob-tactics -- ...they have to be...?

I also think the maps are tiny. Shamefully tiny.

Anyway! Yeah. Overrated. Definitely. Almost an idiotic reception, if you ask me. A good and polished game? Yes. But just another good and polished RTS game.

 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 4, 2010, 17:17 Yifes
 
Darks wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 10:33:
yea, joke about it nin, but your one of those brainwashed idiots too. you all fell into Blizzard mindtrap. They have created their own inception on you guys and you all fell for it hook line and sinker!

Starcraft 2, the most over rated and over hyped game of the year. this is the award this game should win.

RAARRR I CAN"T CONTROL MORE THAN 5 UNITS AT A TIME THEREFORE STARCRAFT OUTDATED AND ITS SHIT. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS BRAINWASHED RAAAARRRRRR.

It's a different style of game than COH. Not everyone wants all their RTS games dumbed down to the level of COH.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 3, 2010, 20:14 ASeven
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 12:32:
Well I hope Steam is not in control of the indie scene already... and I hope it never will be. It depresses me when I see people who "only buy games on Steam" and act like that is perfectly rational.

Me too, monopoly on the Indie scene would be some kind of paradox and would kill it. There are some indies who will use Steam, like Natural Selection 2, but many others won't.

Come to think of it, the greatest threat to the indie scene is Steam or a platform that monopolizes the market. Indiedb.com, a site devoted solely to indie projects will have a shop open soon though, and I'm willing to bet that most Indies will start using that as a way to sell their games so hopefully more stores like that open up in the future to allow the indie scene to grow in a healthy manner.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 3, 2010, 18:09 KilrathiAce
 
cliffski wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 03:57:
This is very true. Howvere, there jis one interesting development here. There is a big huge mega PC hit game, amd its not being sold through steam.
Steam must hate this. This is evidence that you can have a big hit without even being on steam. Its good news for their competitors, and means more competition for them.
I'm annoyed by this game for many reasons, but mainly because of the lack of demo. People tell me that people who buy the full game can gvie away keys to friends. Thats just dandy, but that is not a freely available, open 'our game rocks, take a look' demo, and I just don't buy games based on hype.

I am glad steam doesnt have this lame region blocked product. If I were to buy this game and play with a friend in europe one of us would have to buy 2nd copy for region that the other lives in.... screw that. gg.
 
Avatar 7413
 
"On 2646.215 I myself attacked & destroyed TCS Tiger's Claw in my Jalthi heavy fighter"
Bakhtosh Redclaw Nar Kiranka
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 3, 2010, 12:36 StingingVelvet
 
Darks wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 10:24:
SC 2 is not the best to come out in a long time, what you guys are all brainwashed over is the CGI. Thatís it, thatís what you all paid for. The game play has not changes one single bit. Company of Heroes is ten times better than this piece of shit game.

All you guys got was a shinny car with a new paint job but all the rust still remains under the paint. Blizzard didnít do a damn thing to reinvent this game. I guess they feared changing it too much would piss many people off. Well no thanks Iím not paying for this abomination of a game. And letís not get started on the MP part of the game and how much its blows.

Now you see why this game took over 6 years to make it. All that CGI, what what you guys are paying for.


and seriously guys? when did CGI become more important than game play?

The game doesn't even have that much CGI actually. I'm on mission 16 of 29 and have seen precisely two CGI videos the whole time.

And unless you played it, you might not realize how awesome the missions are. Race a merc for resources to pay off his friend, move your bases between laval flows, hunt down moving trains while marauders roam the tracks, use a massive laser to kill protoss, but every time you use it makes it take longer to cut through to the objective, etc. Lots of unique missions that feel more innovative and fun than any RTS I have played this decade probably, and on top of that an awesome progressive unlock system for singleplayer with Wing Commander style mission interludes.

I'm sorry you are so hung up on hating what's popular, but the game is frankly amazing.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: More StarCraft II Sales Figures Aug 3, 2010, 12:32 StingingVelvet
 
cliffski wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 04:00:
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 14:46:
Yup. The PC will lead the rise of the indies and small studious because there are no license fees and it's easy to digitally distribute on an open platform. Arguing otherwise is borderline retarded.

The PC is open, steam is not. I know many, many indies that make a living from gaming who games are not on steam, because steam decide not to accept them. The list of games on steam is at the whim of valve, it is not an open service for everyone.

Well I hope Steam is not in control of the indie scene already... and I hope it never will be. It depresses me when I see people who "only buy games on Steam" and act like that is perfectly rational.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo