If only the Ultralisks (and the Battle Cruiser too, for that matter) were really this big in the game...

Creston

jdreyer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 01:34:
The thing that annoys me about this (and also the Pacific Rim trailer) is how the military units don't use even basic military tactics, and end up getting destroyed by units they shouldn't even be within a mile of.

These sequences are not made with realism in mind. They are made to show the viewer as many 'splosions as possible. And common military units have to be weak, so that the hero in his killer robot machine thingy can rule the day. Basic superhero & movie law, man!

The thing that annoys me about this (and also the Pacific Rim trailer) is how the military units don't use even basic military tactics, and end up getting destroyed by units they shouldn't even be within a mile of.

The Pyro wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 20:27:
Very impressive cinematic. I hope they've spent as much money on the game itself

Probably not. It's Blizzard. They don't have much money.

Very impressive cinematic. I hope they've spent as much money on the game itself

Seriously... Just drop the facade of game development and move to Hollywood, already. They'd probably be a lot more productive that way, and make more money.

Blizzard is now reduced to ripping off Michael Bay.

This still isn't out?!?!?

The cinematic was awesome though. I played the hell out of SC and Brood War, and played SC2 beta. I didn't see much of a need to "upgrade" since it's like a sidegrade of the classic, and I can still get my fix there.

panbient wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 17:21:

After the original SC2 and it's 'totally not linear' campaign packed with scripted mission after scripted mission to teach you how to use a bunch of new units that you only ever use in that specific mission and don't even show up in MP; I'll be waiting until it's out and properly reviewed before spending any cash.

I'll never understand why they did this. Its not 1998 anymore, there is no excuse to release a game with fewer units. I know its complicated to balance things but they had a goddamn decade. And on top of it they taunt you by showing you all the toys in the campaign, but no, don't touch in MP. No Zerg Leviathan, no firebats(???), no science vessels, no wraiths, no diamondbacks(really blizzard? These hunks of junk ruined your precious balance somehow?).

Honestly, their MP is still quite good but it's mystifying why they refused to evolve. You want to know why everyone complains about metagame stagnation, its because there's only 3 builds per race (and number three for my favorite zerg is the hacked together queen-spines builds).

EDIT: They left so much shit out of MP I couldn't even remember it all. Here's a few more: Goliaths (ground to air mechs), Predators (cyber cats), vultures, dropships, and Spectres (aoe ghost alternative)

This comment was edited on Jan 22, 2013, 19:22.

panbient wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 17:21:
I'll be waiting until it's out and properly reviewed before spending any cash.

There has been a lot of games released by blizzard. You know exactly what the reviews will say. You already know whether this game is for you or not and it has very little to do with reviews. They'll be the same as they always are.

Never cared about the CGI, always cared about the underlying game mechanics.

After the original SC2 and it's 'totally not linear' campaign packed with scripted mission after scripted mission to teach you how to use a bunch of new units that you only ever use in that specific mission and don't even show up in MP; I'll be waiting until it's out and properly reviewed before spending any cash.

Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:08:

Verno wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:05:
Diablo 3 was a big let down but that doesn't mean Blizzard still can't make some great games. Starcraft 2 wasn't my personal favorite thing because I don't get into the weird high level meta game stuff but Diablo 3 it was not.

I certainly have hope for future Blizzard titles.

To each their own, obviously. I thought SC2 was terrible.

That said, I'm more referring to Blizzard's attitude, both towards their customers and in general, rather than the quality, or lack thereof, of their games.

But this will still sell like hotcakes, and Blizzard knows it.

Creston

Blizzard having this attitude isn't like it's a new thing though. WoW and closing Blizzard North is what got them to this point. I feel it's pretty safe to say the talent left the building a long time ago.

Not even their cinematics are enough and really I've seen as good cinematics from other titles at this point.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 10:56:
Too bad the Terran player in her dream was horrible!
No bunkers, poor micro, etc. :o

Best comment on Youtube:
- Viking: Look, i am Optimus Prime!!
- Ultralisk: No!

InBlack wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 10:47:
Well I really liked Starcraft II, warts and all. It felt like Starcraft 1.5 and to me that is a good thing....

Cant say the same for the new Battle.net 2.0 or Diablo3 though. Fucking up a good thing is basically an understatement in those two cases....

They are changing quite a bit, will have to see how it turns out though. B.net 2.0 really didn't bother me that much overall (SC2 here, not D3).


I never had trouble playing games by myself or with others. The chat was fine for me (other than the obvious spam invite issues and things of that nature) and default channels are almost always spam, trolls, and idle people. What I felt was off was the custom game interface. Wow was it bad. No idea if they have made meaningful improvements there.

Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:09:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 11:47:
Every time I hear it now (that I know what it is) I am getting more and more pissed off about it.

I was very disappointed when Wilhelm, in Borderlands 2, doesn't die with a Wilhelm scream.

The ONE time when it would have been awesomely appropriate, and they fuck it up!

Creston

Worse is that that would have been the 1 proper use of the trope, and indeed, they fucked it up. That was where I wanted to hear it and I got nuthing, but it turns out I get to hear it everywhere anyway, everywhere where it doesn't fit, that is!

For me, Wilhelm scream (if used badly) is instant immersion break ;/ Of course if you got a guy named Wilhelm not screaming like Wilhelm.. I guess that is a trope subversion, and we noticed it. So it must have been intended. I guess there are Kudos for Borderlands 2 in order for not doing Wilhelm Scream for a character named Wilhelm. Maybe they wanted to allude to the fact that the FX is never appropriate?

Not good, not good, not good!!!! The best cinematics team in the business is not the best anymore! Ahhhhhhh activisionnnnnn

I'll be passing on HoTS too, but it's not because I'm not interested. SC2 has kind of grown on me the past couple of months and I've found myself chain-watching HoTS replays by Husky during the past few weeks (he's pretty entertaining). My main beef with SC2 in general is BNET. It's a ****ing mess. I don't care about ladder games and custom games are impossible to get going. I think HoTS gets a lot right through some of the tweaks they've done to the vanilla units, but the new units are HORRENDOUSLY designed both visually and gameplay-wise. They're trying so hard not to be like Brood War (widow mines vs spider mines; WTH kind of name is Hellbat!?).

Wallshadows wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 11:10:
I'll just watch the important storyline parts on youtube for this one and the next.

That's what I'm doing. Why would I buy HoTS when the multiplayer sucks?

Damn, that was cool. Poor Raynor, after thinking he saved his main squeeze, she'll turn on him again.

This will actually be the first Blizzard game I've bought since Cataclysm. My dad and I play against each other in SC2 quite a bit and he's really looking forward to the new expansion. I hope it's fun.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 11:47:
Every time I hear it now (that I know what it is) I am getting more and more pissed off about it.

I was very disappointed when Wilhelm, in Borderlands 2, doesn't die with a Wilhelm scream.

The ONE time when it would have been awesomely appropriate, and they fuck it up!

Creston

Verno wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:05:
Diablo 3 was a big let down but that doesn't mean Blizzard still can't make some great games. Starcraft 2 wasn't my personal favorite thing because I don't get into the weird high level meta game stuff but Diablo 3 it was not.

I certainly have hope for future Blizzard titles.

To each their own, obviously. I thought SC2 was terrible.

That said, I'm more referring to Blizzard's attitude, both towards their customers and in general, rather than the quality, or lack thereof, of their games.

But this will still sell like hotcakes, and Blizzard knows it.

Creston