Complaining about 1/3 of the game is just ridiculously ignorant of the facts. Would they prefer if the Terran campaign was 1/3 the length and sucked? I mean....they, Blizzard, decided to place more focus and story on each campaign to add more depth and appeal. That doesn't mean they're getting any less game time than they would have had if the story covered each faction. That doesn't mean there's any less value. It just means if you don't like Terrans and the price tag isn't worth the multi, then you should prob wait for the next iterations for the Protoss and Zerg. They've already said you won't need to buy the first to play the latter.
So, no one complains when the Dawn of War series only has a Terran campaign (never an Eldar or Ork campaign), but the moment Starcraft tries it....HERESY.
I tried DoW2 and didn't enjoy it at all. SC2 is a lot more fun for me. Great missions so far (up to mission 5 now) though they have been staples of SC1 just better executed.
I loved MP during the beta (when it was stable enough to run) and look forward to winning (and losing!) online.
I just got done with the campaign and I don't feel cheated at all, though I did going into it, because I thought they would cut it to 1/3 the missions. Im not sure exactly how many there were but it took me around 20 hours or so, which is about 5-10 hours longer than EVERY OTHER GAME I'VE PLAYED recently. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just throwing it out there.
Whatever team bioware used with mass effect 2 needs to take a look at the blizzard playbook. Just like the first one, except MORE. No rewrites to the basic gameplay, no reduction in things to make it "more accessible." just like the first game that I loved, except MORE. MORE MORE MORE. not LESS.
This has been my bitter mass effect 2 diatribe. You may now continue on with your bitching about what for me was a solid 9 out of 10. (-1 point for some glitches and crashes)
__________________
"...I had to be convinced that this EA... was an EA that we would be happy as a partner with going forward." - Mark Jacobs on EA purchasing Mythic, 7/28/06
So, no one complains when the Dawn of War series only has a Terran campaign (never an Eldar or Ork campaign), but the moment Starcraft tries it....HERESY.
Actually DOW2 was terrible, and I didn't buy it, and so I didn't feel the need to complain. Spoke with my wallet on that one.
__________________
"...I had to be convinced that this EA... was an EA that we would be happy as a partner with going forward." - Mark Jacobs on EA purchasing Mythic, 7/28/06
30 missions does seem like a good amount of content, but Blizzard announced a long time ago that they were splitting Starcraft II into 3 standalone campaigns. I don't know why they people feel this way. Everybody knew what they were getting when it released.
I was standing in the PC aisle in Fry's for like an hour looking like an idiot, drooling at Starcraft II. They had a boat load of collector editions so I decided to gamble and hold off until till they cut the price. And when I mean boat load, they had like two shelfs stocked full and a table piled with Starcraft II CE. I was surprised how much they had.
So, no one complains when the Dawn of War series only has a Terran campaign (never an Eldar or Ork campaign), but the moment Starcraft tries it....HERESY.
To wit...I am SLAIN!
__________________
"Because. I don't make monkeys, I just train 'em."
ignore it until it drops in price in a few weeks/months.
i don't have it and i survived. i am here today with more money in my pocket and ignoring this news from now on.
think about it people. blizzard are driving the Ferrari's, you are driving the Chevy's.....
Folks, We Have A Winner! Unlike the rest of these slavering fools, I am voting with my wallet on the following facts:
1/ Yay it's the same game with updated graphics! (yes I overstate, but seriously if you get your inner fanboy to shut up for 10 seconds you might see a grain of truth to this.).
2/ It's the start of PC games retailing for $60 at launch. If anyone bought this game and they dare to whine about the new wave of PC games hitting for $60 I have one thing to say to you "STFU dumb-ass you brought this upon yourself.".
3/ Any way you slice it, anyone wanting the full Starcraft 1 equivalent experience will be forking out possibly up to $180.
4/ You can either be a drooling mindless zombie and accept anything shoveled at you or you can try thinking about the future and realize buying this game is sending a nice message about how gullible gamers really are.
Don't pirate to "Show the man!" because all you "Show the Man" is that they need more Securom style BS. Simply smile, close your wallet, and say no thanks. Then walk away.
I personally smiled at the 100 plus copies collecting dust on the shelf at the store yesterday. Secretly I hope those 100 copies are still there 1 week from now, and 1 month from now, and 1 year from now (with the expansions added in all for $60. A great price for the full complete game experience).
__________________
Clarkes 1st law
1:When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
The game is amazing. Anyone who refuses to purchase it is simply missing out on one of the best games of the last few years. And those who complain that its incomplete obviously haven't played it, because theres so much to do. And thats without even looking at the multiplayer. I played it for about eight hours straight and have barely scraped the tip of the iceburg.
There is so much more to do then the original Starcraft; calling it incomplete is a joke. I can fully understand why Blizzard decided to split it up into three games now.
So, no one complains when the Dawn of War series only has a Terran campaign (never an Eldar or Ork campaign), but the moment Starcraft tries it....HERESY.
Actually. WA, DC and SS all had non-human campaigns. DOW 2 would have been nice to have a non-human one (at least Eldar or Ork), but eh.
But yeah, Starcraft's getting unfairly treated
__________________
Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
I stood in line to get Starcraft II at midnight the other night. It was worth it.
However, after a few hours of playing the last couple of nights, I'm finding that Starcraft II is like a very very good looking pie. The menu system, and all the bits between the mission speaks of a game design that is cutting edge. The production values on this game are insanely high. There's a LOT of content here. There should be NO critisism of the amount of "stuff" you're getting for your money.
The story is engaging, the cut scenes (both pre-rendered and in engine) are fabulous as usual. The missions seem well designed.
HOWEVER, after starting to play, you start to realize that the pie, while awesome looking with a super tasty crust and topping, has a plain tasting filling.
The gameplay is from 1999 with a 2010 sheen to it. Units feel like cannon fodder, and at a high level the game consists of nothing more than throwing more units at the other guy. It also focuses far too much on the resource management.
I guess I'm just so used to Relic's excellent cover mechanics and focus on combat over resourcing. Blizzard has not advanced gameplay wise.
I was a Blizzard fanboy (Starcraft) before I was a Relic fanboy (Homeworld... "Gah, who wants to play Starcraft in space???" was my first comment before I played Homeworld). Relic's consistently turned out quality RTS products and have really improved the genre. Meanwhile Blizzard's sat on their haunches in the middle of their big pile of money.
I'm going to enjoy Starcraft II, and its expansions, but Blizzard really needs to up their game(play).
The gameplay is from 1999 with a 2010 sheen to it. Units feel like cannon fodder, and at a high level the game consists of nothing more than throwing more units at the other guy. It also focuses far too much on the resource management.
... At a high level, units are a lot more precious than mere cannon fodder, and massing units might work in copper level, but anything above that and it's all checks and balances. There's a good reason it's predecessor lasted for so long (SC I finals were just a couple months ago in Korea).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSatan
If you can't make formations then the game isn't strategy.
I'm a big fan of the Myth series, which used formations heavily, but just because SC doesn't have them to that extent, doesn't mean they don't exist. See what happens when you send a line of mutalisks to kill a thor vs. sending a mutaball.
__________________
SteamGamerTag: T Rex Holding A Flamethrower
360: TRex Plus Fire
CA, Bay Area Dungeons and Dragons Community! Take a look!
Yeah but those are all expansions, which is what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft. Which really further validates the posters point.
Was just a correction, his point about complaining about the game is true, if the game before them seems like a complete chapter, then the fact that it's 1/3rd of a series isn't important. People have complained about the lack of a non-human campaign in the base games though (and the piecemeal way they added them up to DC).
__________________
Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Strategy IS important to SC2. The only problem is that it only becomes important after you've mastered a host of really complex skills like carefully tuned build orders, unit micro, and base macro. To get a handle on those requires a lot of practice. A lot. I'm not sure if the average player is going to be willing to spend 20-40 hours acquiring the skills to actually get to the S part of their RTS.
Strategy IS important to SC2. The only problem is that it only becomes important after you've mastered a host of really complex skills like carefully tuned build orders, unit micro, and base macro. To get a handle on those requires a lot of practice. A lot. I'm not sure if the average player is going to be willing to spend 20-40 hours acquiring the skills to actually get to the S part of their RTS.
I believe that's why they implemented the tiered system in Bnet. People who are going to play this more casually/less obsessively are gonna stick around in copper (myself included. I laud the strategy aspect of the game, but fail horribly at it - I still have a ton of fun though).
edit: As a casual player (I think that's my demographic, at least), I learn little strategies bit by bit, a little each game. It's a decent way to progress.
__________________
SteamGamerTag: T Rex Holding A Flamethrower
360: TRex Plus Fire
CA, Bay Area Dungeons and Dragons Community! Take a look!
So Grumsh one of the regular EvAv trolls I assume?
So if someone offers a counterpoint and then even defines their own personal logical conclusions, they are a troll?
I also added "don't pirate" sentiments, is that also trolling?
Someone else agreed with my sentiment that it is 1999's gameplay in 2010, are they trolling too?
Wait I get it, you just saw someone had a different opinion, stopped reading, and then obtained your conclusion? Ok, I get it now.
So DarkPhenomenon one of the regular EvAv conclusion jumpers I assume?
__________________
Clarkes 1st law
1:When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
