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 : : :
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
56.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Sep 5, 2009, 23:28
56.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Sep 5, 2009, 23:28
Sep 5, 2009, 23:28
 
Whoops, totally forgot about this thread. I'm sure nobody is going to respond to this but whatever. Here goes.

Yes, it was cool when you could use the vending machines in Duke3d also, but that doesn't make a game great.

It's one of many things that makes a game great. You cite Bioshock and SS2 as being awesome for atmosphere alone but that is only one aspect of those games.

And that bothered me. Finding out those choices were a gimmick made the game feel hollow to me. Anti-climactic and disappointing.

I'm guessing you find most RPGs anticlimactic and disappointing then. The majority of choices you make in any RPG don't really have meaningful long-term consequences. However, if it feels like they might when you make them, that's all that really matters to me.

To take a lot of damage and quickly skip past a lot of enemies isn't exactly unique. You can do it in any game that offers a roof or ledge where enemies can't follow you. It's like the gameplay equivalent of running past a bunch of enemies, something any speedrun will take advantage of. This isn't really a good example since you can just call rocket jumping in quake 1 "emergent gameplay"

Rocket jumping and speed runs ARE emergent gameplay. Emergent gameplay is gameplay that the designers didn't plan for or expect. id never expected anyone to use rockets to jump higher or further and they never expected anyone to be able to run through Quake in less than 20 minutes. In Deus Ex, jumping off a building as a viable tactic was emergent gameplay and it really impressed me because I hadn't played any single-player games before that gave me that choice.

In conclusion, your argument is pretty obviously biased. You loved SS2 and Bioshock because of their atmosphere. You didn't like DX because you didn't like its atmosphere. From a gameplay standpoint, however, most would agree that DX is superior to any of the Shock games.
Avatar 20715
55.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 27, 2009, 18:01
55.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 27, 2009, 18:01
Aug 27, 2009, 18:01
 
Taken as a whole game, the game was executed very well.
Yes, I do feel it was a well done game. But like I said, I feel that people are exaggerating when they consider it to be one of the best PC games ever made.
Nothing Deus Ex did was remarkable by itself, as they were done, in some form, in games before it.
So you agree with me. The point I made in a previous post was that Deus Ex should not be used as an example of how Crysis is not original.
Well...what did you expect? You're playing an UN special forces operative from the outset.
A special operative that can be good at stealth and brutal combat? Seems too much like RPG powergaming for my tastes. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if Deus Ex wasn't trying to be a FPS-RPG.
It was easier to attribute the lack of towers to a "terrorist" attack. And this was over a full year before 9/11.
I don't see how the developers coincidentally predicting 9/11 has anything to do with this discussion.
Deus Ex wasn't a pure stealth game.
Right, which is why the stealth portions were kinda meh. Which was my point.
Beyond Good and Evil came out in 2003; and gaming in general changed quite a bit in the time between the release of Deus Ex and BGE.
I'd say that BGE succeeded at innovating great gameplay, whereas Deus Ex wasn't as successful.
Both games (HL and Thief) were in respective genres that rarely went outside of those genres.
Both games raised the bar, providing unprecedented quality of gameplay. Deus Ex didn't improve quality, but was an aggregate of mediocre gameplay.
The consequences of your actions throughout the game? You just got done saying having multiple choices detracts from a game!
I was talking about gameplay choices (ie. Stealth vs guns blazing), not roleplaying choices and consequences. Sorry if what I wrote confused you.
Yes, the choices you make in Deus Ex really don't amount to a hill of beans in the end, especially right at the end when you're given a direct choice of a set number of endings. But comparing that shortcoming to what you can do in the first two Fallout games is simply ignoring the technical limitations of PC hardware of the time.
So you agree with me. It's sad that technical limitations prevented Deus Ex from being a great game. But I don't think the same thing can be said about Deus Ex 2's failure (maybe?).
Um, which "Shock" game? System Shock 1 or 2, Bioshock? The same oblique arguments you're making against Deus Ex could be made against either of the SS games.
Exactly. So you understand what I am saying. However, System Shock 2 and Bioshock stand out as great games because they have one thing that they absolutely excelled at: the atmosphere. I would have said Bioshock was just as mediocre as Deus Ex, except Ken Levine was able to produce one of the most unique, fascinating and immersive setting in gaming history. Yes, the philosphy and existentialism was flawed, but that was coming from the ramblings of a mad-man. The world was consistent with his madness. Rapture was exactly the kind of nightmare some deluded egomaniac with a credit in Philosophy 101 would produce. It was fucking fantastic.

System Shock 2 on the other hand, is a masterpiece of survival horror, regardless of its FPS-RPG gameplay. You can clearly see its influences in the presentation of modern survival horror games like Dead Space.
Taking the game as a whole, the story's structure and telling were very remarkable for an FPS-RPG coming out for the time.
Over and over again, whenever someone says something great about Deus Ex, they have to add the addendum: it was good for an FPS-RPG. It's like they think it should get extra points because it is a handicap or something.
There's very little to compare between the two. (Crysis and Deus Ex)
Exactly. You understand me very well. I was trying to say to other posters (Reitsuki) that it's retarded to compare the two, hence my half hearted "sure, why not".
But if you look at the list of games he's (Ken Levine) had a hand in, several have either influenced, or been influenced by, Deus Ex.
Exactly. Ken Levine took the formula that inspired Deus Ex and went beyond that and created games that were truly great and memorable.
but your reasons for bashing the game could be summarized to simply saying "I didn't like it. 'Nuff said."
No, I said in my post that I enjoyed the game. (Edit: I reread what I wrote, and it seems like I did not mention it =P My bad) I just think it's nothing special, and overrated if you consider it amongst the PC greats. It's even more ridiculous when people say it's the greatest PC game of all time.
This comment was edited on Aug 27, 2009, 19:00.
54.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 27, 2009, 16:57
54.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 27, 2009, 16:57
Aug 27, 2009, 16:57
 
Yifes, I understand where you're coming from on Deus Ex. But I think you're forgetting the forest for the trees. Nothing Deus Ex did was remarkable by itself, as they were done, in some form, in games before it. And really, the individual features of the game were especially defining by themselves, especially compared to games that specialized in them (IE, Thief and stealth play, various RPGs, etc); but again, that's missing the point of looking at the complete game. Taken as a whole game, the game was executed very well. What was remarkable was the way Deus Ex allowed the player to interpret and play the game as he/she wanted.

...since you know that you can either blast your way through a mission or stealth your way through, the availablity of choice detracts from the game experience.

Well...what did you expect? You're playing an UN special forces operative from the outset. I don't know how old you are, but in 2000 when Deux Ex came out, the kind of open-ended play structure expected from games like Hitman, RPGs, and especially the GTA series was just on the teetering edge of becoming a realization. There were some games that accomplished it before 2000, but they were all isometric RPGs or, again, GTA. It just wasn't technically feasible yet for a FPS game.

Go and google some interviews with Harvey Smith or Warren Spectre after the release of Deus Ex. Just do a google search because frankly I'm too lazy to find them for you. One of the two stated the New York skyline in the opening level lacked the Twin Towers because they had to conserve system resource usage somewhere. It was easier to attribute the lack of towers to a "terrorist" attack. And this was over a full year before 9/11.

Where is the tension and suspense of a proper stealth game when you know that if you fuck up, you can switch some augs and just fight your way through?

Deus Ex wasn't a pure stealth game.

A game like Beyond good and Evil does a much better job of making stealth co-exist with action.

Beyond Good and Evil came out in 2003; and gaming in general changed quite a bit in the time between the release of Deus Ex and BGE.

...the gunfights weren't as thrilling as Half Life, the sneaking wasn't as well done as thief...

Both games were in respective genres that rarely went outside of those genres.

...the choices/RPG elements weren't as meaningful as Fallout

"Meaningful" as in, well, meaning what? The consequences of your actions throughout the game? You just got done saying having multiple choices detracts from a game! And the Fallout RPGs were rife with them. Yes, the choices you make in Deus Ex really don't amount to a hill of beans in the end, especially right at the end when you're given a direct choice of a set number of endings. But comparing that shortcoming to what you can do in the first two Fallout games is simply ignoring the technical limitations of PC hardware of the time.

the world wasn't as immersive or intense as the Shock games

Um, which "Shock" game? System Shock 1 or 2, Bioshock? The same oblique arguments you're making against Deus Ex could be made against either of the SS games.

Bioshock could also be said to be too forceful of its immersion on the player; both figuratively and literally. The player does run around in a city under the ocean, for crying out loud. Personally, I really didn't appreciate the boring gun combat. The forced philosophy and Ken Levine's thoughts on existentialism were grafted from a 100-level Intro to Philosophy course. The supposed freedom to complete tasks as the player saw fit had existed in a number of other quality games for years. And Bioshock came out in 2007.

Arguably, Bioshock (despite the obvious reference in name to the System Shock games from which Bioshock was inspired) is the Deus Ex of the past few years. It's gotten about as much praise and devotion and Deus Ex received when it came out. Deus Ex's sophomoric presentation of politics, conspiracy, and terrorism are equivalent to Bioshock's loose interpretation of Randian philosophy and faux-pas morality schemes.

It wasn't a bad game by any means, just one I thought was overrated.

...the story sucked.

LOL! As compared to what? Taking the game as a whole, the story's structure and telling were very remarkable for an FPS-RPG coming out for the time.

Is Deus Ex better than Crysis? Sure, why not, but neither of them are anything special.

There's very little to compare between the two. To argue which is the "better" game you'd first have to establish some sort of weird-ass standard for which to define "better". After that, and if anyone could be bothered to understand that definition, you'd be left with an inane list of differing qualities that come down to mere opinion or cynicism.

It's a very long way of saying the games are about as comparable as apples and oranges. One game in came out in 2000, the other in 2007.

You'd have better luck comparing Bioshock and Crysis. At least those two came out in the same year.

Ken Levine, now there's a man who knows how to make a fantastic game.

He is one of the rare developer leads whose teams have an unusual amount of freedom to create quality games. But if you look at the list of games he's had a hand in, several have either influenced, or been influenced by, Deus Ex.

Nobody is arguing with you about how certain games do certain things better than Deus Ex (except maybe Jerykk), but your reasons for bashing the game could be summarized to simply saying "I didn't like it. 'Nuff said."

This comment was edited on Aug 27, 2009, 17:00.
53.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 25, 2009, 19:05
53.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 25, 2009, 19:05
Aug 25, 2009, 19:05
 
For one, the game acknowledged the little things you did. Hanging out in the women's bathroom, leaving Gunther in his cell at liberty island, killing the first terrorist guy, etc.

Yes, it was cool when you could use the vending machines in Duke3d also, but that doesn't make a game great.

As for the superficial choices, yeah, they're pretty superficial... but you don't realize that until after you've beaten the game. When I had to make the choice between killing the french guy or killing that russian chick (too tired to recall her name), that felt meaningful. It also felt meaningful when I had to stay and fight with Paul or abandon him. Neither of these choices drastically changed the game but they sure felt important when I had to make them.

And that bothered me. Finding out those choices were a gimmick made the game feel hollow to me. Anti-climactic and disappointing.

Deus Ex also allowed for a lot of emergent gameplay.

To take a lot of damage and quickly skip past a lot of enemies isn't exactly unique. You can do it in any game that offers a roof or ledge where enemies can't follow you. It's like the gameplay equivalent of running past a bunch of enemies, something any speedrun will take advantage of. This isn't really a good example since you can just call rocket jumping in quake 1 "emergent gameplay"

But I understand what you're saying. Deus Ex offered you gameplay choices, at a time when that wasn't very common in gaming. But for me, the mere presence of choices means little, if you're choosing between mediocre gunplay, mediocre stealthplay, mediocre hacking minigames, etc. What that amounts to for me is a mediocre experience, albeit one of my choosing. I'd venture further to say that, since you know that you can either blast your way through a mission or stealth your way through, the availablity of choice detracts from the game experience. Where is the tension and suspense of a proper stealth game when you know that if you fuck up, you can switch some augs and just fight your way through? A game like Beyond good and Evil does a much better job of making stealth co-exist with action.

In the end, the gunfights weren't as thrilling as Half Life, the sneaking wasn't as well done as thief, the world wasn't as immersive or intense as the Shock games, the choices/RPG elements weren't as meaningful as Fallout, and story, well the story sucked. Is Deus Ex better than Crysis? Sure, why not, but neither of them are anything special.

Ken Levine, now there's a man who knows how to make a fantastic game.

This comment was edited on Aug 25, 2009, 19:33.
52.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 25, 2009, 03:21
52.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 25, 2009, 03:21
Aug 25, 2009, 03:21
 
Nothing about Deus Ex stands out:
The shitty AI, the decent gunplay, the stealth, the RPG elements, and the linear storyline with some superficial choices (until the very end). None of its parts hold up to the standards of their respective genres. It's like a big frankenstein collection of mediocrity.

Wow wow wow. Where to start. Deus Ex was awesome for a number of reasons. For one, the game acknowledged the little things you did. Hanging out in the women's bathroom, leaving Gunther in his cell at liberty island, killing the first terrorist guy, etc. Most games only acknowledge the big choices you make. As for the superficial choices, yeah, they're pretty superficial... but you don't realize that until after you've beaten the game. When I had to make the choice between killing the french guy or killing that russian chick (too tired to recall her name), that felt meaningful. It also felt meaningful when I had to stay and fight with Paul or abandon him. Neither of these choices drastically changed the game but they sure felt important when I had to make them. Deus Ex also allowed for a lot of emergent gameplay. There were very few invisible walls so with the proper augs and the right amount of ingenuity, you could create solutions that the developers never thought of. There's that one level where you have to infiltrate a building, reach the roof and upload something. However, doing so turns all your former allies (occupying the building you're standing on) into enemies. Most games would offer one or two choices: Shoot your way though or sneak your way through. I just jumped off the roof. I broke both my legs but thanks to my augs, I survived. Jumping off a roof is very rarely a viable option in most games.

To compare Crysis to Deus Ex is just... wow.
Avatar 20715
51.
 
Re: SC2 LAN Still Possible
Aug 25, 2009, 00:53
51.
Re: SC2 LAN Still Possible Aug 25, 2009, 00:53
Aug 25, 2009, 00:53
 
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.

NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Avatar 51686
50.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 22:57
50.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 22:57
Aug 24, 2009, 22:57
 
Oh, I DO know that there are lots of such people. But thats the problem, my friend. Thats the problem.
People like those drag down the quality of PC games. Crysis was far too short, didnt nearly use its potential and Mass Effect was an extremely dumbed down RPG and very justified called a typical console port. Even the levels and enemies all looked the same and it barely had 1/3 of the duration of KotoR (if you could actually keep playing all the side missions and didnt die of boredom while doing so).

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.
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.
Thats the sad part. If you look at games like Baldur's Gate and then think about games that were there 10 years before it, you wont come to the conclusion that there were better games.

Here is the two problems with your arguement:

1) Flaws don't mean the game is bad. Every game ever released was flawed, even high and mighty classics like Deus Ex and Baldur's Gate. Everyone wants something different from a game, and you can't please everyone... some people will say Mass Effect is bad because it has too much talking, and then someone else will say it is bad because it has too much shooting.

I agree the side missions were kind of repetitive in ME, and the dungeons all looked the same. Personally I was kind of annoyed the game had only one real city and shipped with no AA support. None of this means the game is BAD though, it just means it wasn't perfect. In the end I and millions of others still loved the game and very much enjoyed playing it, and that doesn't make us stupid or mean we have lower standards.

2) Nostalgia effects all things. PC gamers are mostly old-school gamers who have seen the same genres over the course of 20+ years. They have played a hundred FPSs and RPGs and they have their favorites in their minds everytime they start a new game. Most of the time these memories of a favorite game, like Deus Ex for me for example, are tainted by our rose-colored nostalgia goggles.

Is Mass Effect really more flawed than something like Deus Ex? Is Crysis really a lot worse than something like Shogo or even Farcry? It's debateable of course, but in the end the debate is almost impossible to have because someone will pull Black Isle or Bioware circa Baldur's Gate out of their ass and expect the debate to be considered over because of COURSE those games are better.

It's just a flawed way of thinking about modern games.
Avatar 54622
49.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 20:57
49.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 20:57
Aug 24, 2009, 20:57
 
I'm not even going to bother to defend Deus Ex. It stands on it's own, and if it didn't, the accolades it has gathered speak in it's defense better than I care to.

Sure, avoid defending it (even though you did just that by defending spydrones). It doesn't really matter since this isn't a discussion about Deus Ex anyways. But it is one the most overrated game ever. Everything it has done other games have done before. You're delusional if you think it stands on its own. It's useless to use it as a example of how Crysis is not original. Personally I think Crysis' most unique feature it its vast and lush jungle terrain. No other game does jungle warfare quite as well as Farcry/Crysis.

This comment was edited on Aug 24, 2009, 22:31.
48.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 18:18
48.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 18:18
Aug 24, 2009, 18:18
 
Just a quick update, the LAN petition number is now currently at 123,596 people signed. And growing at about a person per second.

Have there been any internet petition type events that have had any real impact? I'm asking a serious question here, not trying to be troll bait.

47.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 18:14
47.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 18:14
Aug 24, 2009, 18:14
 
Spydrones, useless gimmick? Not to me. Best way of dealing with robots, bar none.

I'm not even going to bother to defend Deus Ex. It stands on it's own, and if it didn't, the accolades it has gathered speak in it's defense better than I care to.
46.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 16:08
46.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 16:08
Aug 24, 2009, 16:08
 
Ironically the one unique thing about Crysis, the Nanosuit... It was basically a gimped version of Nano Augs from Deus Ex, without the ability to tailor your abilities to your playstyle.

And what's unique about Deus Ex? The Nano Augs were basically OS upgrades from System Shock. That and you get some useless gimmicky crap like spy drones or enemy targeting info. OOoooo enemy body part health percentages! Freakin useless.

Nothing about Deus Ex stands out:
The shitty AI, the decent gunplay, the stealth, the RPG elements, and the linear storyline with some superficial choices (until the very end). None of its parts hold up to the standards of their respective genres. It's like a big frankenstein collection of mediocrity.

It's merely the only decent cyberpunk FPS/RPG game that does not have survival horror elements like System Shock.

Not saying that Deus Ex is a bad game, but I had the same forgettable experience with it as Crysis.

This comment was edited on Aug 24, 2009, 16:18.
45.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 10:39
Verno
 
45.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 10:39
Aug 24, 2009, 10:39
 Verno
 
Agreed, I like the functionality of the suit in theory but in execution it felt shoddy. The extremely limited time and recharge felt like a console function, something that many PC users make accusations about regarding health in other games which I thought was amusing.
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
44.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 10:34
44.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 10:34
Aug 24, 2009, 10:34
 
Ironically the one unique thing about Crysis, the Nanosuit... It was basically a gimped version of Nano Augs from Deus Ex, without the ability to tailor your abilities to your playstyle.

Invisibility? Check.
Armor? Check.
Super strength? Check.
X-ray vision? Waaait, uh...
Aggressive Defense System? No, nothing like that here...
Remote cameras? Nuh-uh.
43.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 10:25
Verno
 
43.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 10:25
Aug 24, 2009, 10:25
 Verno
 
I think it also has something to do with Crysis being utterly generic and devoid of the charm that Far Cry had. But gosh that foliage sure was purty.
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
42.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 10:16
42.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 10:16
Aug 24, 2009, 10:16
 
@Paketep:

Yeah. That guy's ranting, more than anything else, I think, has caused a lot of the Crysis hate.
41.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 09:42
41.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 09:42
Aug 24, 2009, 09:42
 
Damn! I want some of what Noman is smoking!
Playing: Overwatch, FFXIV, Ion Fury
Xbox Live: Heinekev
PSN: Heinekev
40.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 09:42
40.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 09:42
Aug 24, 2009, 09:42
 
Crysis was a shiny POS. They sold WAY too much more than they deserved (more than a million), and Cevat Yerli's was still hysteric saying that they would have sold 20 times more if it wasn't for piracy. Whatever.
39.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 09:13
39.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 09:13
Aug 24, 2009, 09:13
 
Unfortunately if they handle it like it's sounding like they might, "Authorize once on b.net and then go local for that game", it still does nothing to help in situations where you aren't able to connect everyone to the internet. Which are, granted, getting less and less common. But it would at least allow for local lan play over a connection that otherwise couldn't support, say, four people or more at once.

Either way the publicity is hurting them. Particularly in Korea, I hear. Not that it will truly "Hurt" Blizzard, at least not in the immediate, "this release" time frame. They could release an empty box with a picture of a Zerg on it, call it "Star Craft 2", and it would still sell to SOMEONE. Even a half-assed, incompetent, bug-filled mess would sell stupid amounts. What will be interested is to see the *long term* effects, if they disperse a lot of the good will gamers are inclined to have for them.
38.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 09:13
38.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 09:13
Aug 24, 2009, 09:13
 
Just a quick update, the LAN petition number is now currently at 123,596 people signed. And growing at about a person per second.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
37.
 
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
Aug 24, 2009, 09:11
37.
Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility Aug 24, 2009, 09:11
Aug 24, 2009, 09:11
 
LAN play is about convenience, no latency, and voluntary segregation. While I enjoyed Diablo very much, I did not enjoy the battlenet experience. My best times with those games were on a LAN with people I actually like rather than on B-net surrounded by neglected children with learning disabilities.
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older