I was so happy to get into beta but after playing for awhile I realized that it's basically made for competitive play only now. If you aren't willing to make it a huge time commitment then you probably won't have much fun.

Wasn't it the exact same thing with SC1 and WC3, with both geared for competitive play? Wasn't that why BNET was infested with all the $$$$$BGH$$$$$ and Dota games? At least this time around they're adding MP training tutorials, beginner friendly maps, and a better matchmaking service. In any case, like you said, with all the custom maps that are coming out, there's bound to be something for everyone.

Anyways, if you hate the beta so much, let me have it

Zzet wrote on Apr 9, 2010, 11:59:
Happily I don't care about the pricing of Starcraft 2 as I'm not in the least bit interested in actually playing it. I gave it a shot after a friend let me borrow his account briefly and I have to say, it's the most boring, unoriginal, micro-infested RTS I've ever played.

It is however, a fascinating game to watch. I can't explain this but I find HDStarcraft and HuskyStarcraft on Youtube a great pair of sites. It's more a spectator game for me I think, and thankfully I don't need to buy it to watch replays of good players (yay 1080p Youtube).

Oh and for $60 you can forget any game. That's what...£40? Get out.

Yeah this is pretty much how I feel about it. I was so happy to get into beta but after playing for awhile I realized that it's basically made for competitive play only now. If you aren't willing to make it a huge time commitment then you probably won't have much fun. It is fun as hell to watch though and there will be a ton of custom map content plus Blizzard does great singleplayer stuff. I will still pick it up but I won't be doing any CE silliness or preordering.

As elefunk pointed out in an earlier comment, Blue's News posted this July 17, 2000 press release from Blizzard: "Diablo II is available immediately at most computer and software retail chains for approximately $60." Also Warcraft III came out at $60: http://i46.tinypic.com/raxog7.jpg. I honestly don't remember playing that much but then again both games came out nearly a decade ago. If I had no qualms about spending $60 plus tax back then with minimum wage income then I shouldn't take issue with it now with a better paying job; and I won't.

Happily I don't care about the pricing of Starcraft 2 as I'm not in the least bit interested in actually playing it. I gave it a shot after a friend let me borrow his account briefly and I have to say, it's the most boring, unoriginal, micro-infested RTS I've ever played.

It is however, a fascinating game to watch. I can't explain this but I find HDStarcraft and HuskyStarcraft on Youtube a great pair of sites. It's more a spectator game for me I think, and thankfully I don't need to buy it to watch replays of good players (yay 1080p Youtube).

Oh and for $60 you can forget any game. That's what...£40? Get out.

And no, Starcraft II doesn't require an always-on internet connection. In fact, they reconfirmed that just today, after first claiming that months ago.

Well, that's a relief, anyway.

Araes wrote on Apr 9, 2010, 00:25:
Can't you play all three races in skirmish and multiplayer?

Of course you can, considering you can already do that in the beta that's out right now.

And no, Starcraft II doesn't require an always-on internet connection. In fact, they reconfirmed that just today, after first claiming that months ago.

You can play all the races in multiplayer and skirmish. Only the single-player campaign will spread across three games, with each part supposedly bigger than the entirety of Starcraft's single player portion. They may offer new multiplayer maps though.

Can't you play all three races in skirmish and multiplayer?

The biggest issue for me right now (before I find out my hunch is true and that SC2 will indeed require an always-on internet connection for SP) remains my concern at how the game has been broken up into 3 separate "boxes" so to speak. Not because I think it's necessarily a case of Blizzard being greedy or "milking", but because for me the biggest charm of the original by a country mile was how the 3 campaigns were brilliantly intertwined in both the first game and the Brood War expansion. You got to play as all 3 completely different races in one campaign, and somehow it all made sense and felt completely right. You never got a chance to be bored, and you learned the nuances and became proficient playing as each race without it ever feeling forced.

The decision to break SC2 into 3 separate campaigns is a terrible one in my opinion. I for one don't care nearly as much about having one huge Terran campaign as I do seeing the brilliance of the original's campaign duplicated by meshing all 3 stories into one big epic one.

Beamer wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 17:02:
For the past year and a half, at least, this board has been spiraling further and further into "everyone and everything is trying to fuck us" territory. There's no thought process into why things are going on, just blame and assumptions of conspiracy against them as individuals.

QFT
People just love beating a dead horse.

I just amazes me how so many people here love claiming to be victims to corporations. None stop and think why corporations do certain things. None give the benefit of the doubt to see if a change is in their favor. They just scream "greed" and "evil" and "stupid."

Like I said in the other thread, it's like people here watch too many scifi movies and think corporations exist just to rape them. I won't lie, many corporations would if they could, but they're smart enough to know they can't. They can't take without giving. Why? If they do someone else will give and they'll be screwed.

$60, for a PC game, is absurd to me. I made the mistake with Doom 3 and it was a godawful waste of money. But Blizzard has ALWAYS done this. Blizzard feels that they give so much value (as many here agree) and so much polish (as many here agree) that they deserve a bit more upfront. Fine. I won't knock them for it, their games are much more polished and contain much more value. Neither of those are cheap. I just rather not pay it. I rarely pay $50 for my games, either, although I've been doing it more and more as $50 becomes closer to my standard impulse-by price for nearly anything.

Someone mentioned WoW bashing, and I've been doing that for 4 years here, haha. Don't get the appeal, it's not a game to me, it's a chore. A task about as much fun as homework. But whatever, people love it, I just don't get it. I also don't get Animal Crossing, which people love. And, for that matter, I don't really get RTS games, a genre I adored until Total Annihilation. People just have different interests (another thing often missed on every message board.)

Yeah, I kind of did.

From the previews I've seen it just looks like regular Star Craft, only now it's 3D. The game-play appears to be about the same. It has some new units and I assume some new story I guess. I never did get into SC that much so $60 is kinda high. If you want to pay that much, good for you. I'll wait until somebody has a good sale.

Fuck that, it's sweet tea or good old fashioned colas!

SUGAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

or at the very least

HFCSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Shreek wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 19:22:
How many of you guys complaining about the extra $10 for SC2 spend the $2.50 for a shitty tasting can of Red Bull how many times a week?

Probably close to none. The majority here probably drink coffee with their gaming, or water. Something about the plumbing starting to have issues when you get older.

Just a tip, the median age of people here are 30-49.

Beamer wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 17:02:
For the past year and a half, at least, this board has been spiraling further and further into "everyone and everything is trying to fuck us" territory. There's no thought process into why things are going on, just blame and assumptions of conspiracy against them as individuals.

Yep. Well said. Don't forget the WoW bashing -- tons of that too.

Used to really enjoy reading posts on Blues News, not so much lately...

Shreek wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 19:22:
How many of you guys complaining about the extra $10 for SC2 spend the $2.50 for a shitty tasting can of Red Bull how many times a week?

I've never drank one drop of Red Bull in my life. I prefer to spend $3.85 on an Arrogant Bastard 24oz.

Ha.. They could give this game away for free and the same people would still find ways to complain about it.

So, a few people thought it was interesting that Blizzard's games were $60 ten years ago. What about inflation? Plug that into an inflation calculator and you get a 2009 equivalent price of $74. Games are getting CHEAPER, even as their development costs skyrocket. If StarCraft 2 really offered way less gameplay than the original StarCraft did, then maybe it'd be a different story, but it sounds like that argument has already been debunked if you do an apples to apples comparison.

Beamer is right, this community has devolved into a sorry state. At least there are a few voices of reason, though.

Beamer wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 17:02:
For the past year and a half, at least, this board has been spiraling further and further into "everyone and everything is trying to fuck us" territory.

That's so completely wrong, that's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure it's been longer than a year and a half.

How many of you guys complaining about the extra $10 for SC2 spend the $2.50 for a shitty tasting can of Red Bull how many times a week?

$100 for the CE. Nope, sorry! The extras aren't worth it.