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 : : :
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
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
2.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
4.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
3.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
5.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
7.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
8.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
12.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
9.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
10.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
14.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
15.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
17.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
11.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
13.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
18.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
19.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
20.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
21.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
22.
Aug 23, 2009Aug 23 2009
33.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
34.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
36.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
38.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
48.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
39.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
40.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
42.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
41.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
24.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
26.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
29.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
30.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
32.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
 50.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
    Re: StarCraft II LAN Still a Possibility
35.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
37.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
43.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
44.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
46.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
47.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
49.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
52.
Aug 25, 2009Aug 25 2009
53.
Aug 25, 2009Aug 25 2009
54.
Aug 27, 2009Aug 27 2009
55.
Aug 27, 2009Aug 27 2009
56.
Sep 5, 2009Sep 5 2009
45.
Aug 24, 2009Aug 24 2009
51.
Aug 25, 2009Aug 25 2009