Diablo II and WC3 both came out in 2000 and 2003 and are still 40... SC came out in 1996 and is 20.. so.. are you going to wait until at least 2020 to play this?
$40 is for the battlechest versions. You can pick up D2 for $11 and WC3 for $10. You can pick up the SC battlechest for $10.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I doubt the WoW kids would care for anything that has "stratergy" in the description.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
Maybe the WoW kids will be flooding it, but doubtful there will be an exodus from the rest.
I doubt the "WOW kids" even know what starcraft is
Good point; was just a prime opportunity to get my bashing post in.
Seriously, the first one was fun but not for what Blizzard produced. The community made maps and UMS (Use Map Settings) custom modes were the best part.
Blizzard is not the same company as when the SC1 was made, not that it was original in any way but it's just not the same anymore. I can't be the only one who won't touch a Blizzard product with a 10 foot pole.
The fact that there are people who do not know makes me very sad. It means they are either kids who never touched SC1 (which then they shouldn't be on the internet <_<) or they were deprived as children.
Or of course they are people like me who though SC was crap and expect sc2 to be more crap lol. The best days of RTS are long gone and just because Korea and China can't get enough of it really doesn't mean jack squat seeing as how they wouldn't know a good game if it clobbered them upside the head with a 2x4.
Hoped anyone would convince me why SC2 is that great, but apart from "ITS STARCRAFT!!!!!!111" and "ITS BLIZZARD!!!!111" I didn't see a lot of arguments.
A standard RTS without any innovations or new stuff. Sure it got fine graphics and sounds, not jaw-dropping either though. It will probably be quite balanced too, but I kinda expect that from a game.
Hoped anyone would convince me why SC2 is that great, but apart from "ITS STARCRAFT!!!!!!111" and "ITS BLIZZARD!!!!111" I didn't see a lot of arguments.
A standard RTS without any innovations or new stuff. Sure it got fine graphics and sounds, not jaw-dropping either though. It will probably be quite balanced too, but I kinda expect that from a game.
And that's it? Pffff.... I won't touch it.
Yea I agree, I already have SC, why would I be excited for this. 10 years ago Blizzard was a great company now they are j ust living on their past making re-makes of their games. They have not done ONE good thing since they merged with Activision.
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Never really understood the hype about Star Craft, though I can enjoy arcade RTS games, as at the time I did enjoy C&C untill they removed the things I liked about it and made it more fluffy looking atleast towards what I liked about it. I am more of a Sin of Solar type of RTS player.
From what I have seen about the gameplay in SC2 it doesn't really seems appealing to me which does NOT make it a bad game, just a game I don't really have intrest in, but like always hope that those looking forward to SC2 will have a blast playing it.
And like almost any commercially popular game people will play it and might take a break with the MMORPG they might be playing, this goes for most new released popular title's, even within the MMORPG genre people will try them, some will stick to the new and some will return to what they where playing, even some might play both if not more of them off and on.
Aslong people find their game to enjoy and have fun with it.
The fact that there are people who do not know makes me very sad. It means they are either kids who never touched SC1 (which then they shouldn't be on the internet <_<) or they were deprived as children.
Or.... Some of us know and we just don't really care that much.
^^ This. I played SC1 and didn't care for it at all. I thought AoE2 was as good as it gets, and love RTS games but SC1 wasn't my thing. I think it's going to be a far stretch to say every MMO's population will fall from it. Diablo 3 is no different. One is an RTS and another is an ARPG. They're not other big MMOs like SW:TOR.
Now if Blizzard's next MMO was coming out, then I might agree. The player base from WoW is so spread out nowadays that it's guaranteed there are WoW players in every other MMO now because of how many new MMO players it generated. That's the irony with all this retarded "WoW kids do this or that" statements. I swear it sounds more ignorant and naive every time I see them. Absolutely amazes me people still say it after all this time.
MMORPG has been disappointed so far recently and with Starcraft 2 coming (also now I am almost like full-time playing League of Legends !! GREAT GAME!!)... I can see myself playing Strategy game all over again.
Maybe until Sept when FF MMO coming out and Starwars KOTOR !
Starcraft 1 was fun for it's time. This new game looks to be the exact same thing with slightly updated graphics. I might buy it later on when it's worth buying ($10-$20).
Blizzard has done nothing really that has impressed me design/creative-wise. They stole every idea from the Warhammer universes (Warhammer Fantasy is the orginal Warcraft and Warhammer 40k is the original Starcraft) and if Games Workshop comes out with a new Warhammer universe, they'll copy that too. Also, Starcraft 2 probably couldn't hold a candle to Dawn of War 2, just sayin'.
Another thing, like someone else stated in this thread, why buy into the whole "We're selling 3 seperate games at full price because there's just SOOOO much we can't fit into a single production right now. We love our fans and want to give them the best, most fleshed out release of Starcraft" bullshit. I won't.
Starcraft 1 was good for its time, and SC2 is essentially a graphically updated game. From everything that I've gathered, it seems to play like it's 1998 still.
RTS games have moved quite a bit past old school format, and it's too bad Blizzard didn't get the memo.
Company of Heroes, WH40k Dawn of War are good examples that have gone past the old RTS format. I'd dare to even put the Total War games in with using Turn Based Strategy Map + RTS Tactical Battles to be far superior, especially Napoleon Total War and the improved AI it has.
The other thing that disturbs me about SC2 is that they've got 3 campaigns but they will not be included in initial release. They're going to chop it up and you'll have to buy the game like x3 to get the full experience. And $60 for a standard edition? Blizzard's gone out of their freakin' minds. Oh wait, they're lapdogs for Activision now. Forgot all about that!
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The fact that there are people who do not know makes me very sad. It means they are either kids who never touched SC1 (which then they shouldn't be on the internet <_<) or they were deprived as children.
That's plain silly. I cba about SC simply because i was a C&C fan back at the SC1 days and now enjoy CoH which i'm pretty sure still beats the SC franchise Tactic and strategy wise . (the lore is something else)
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Hoped anyone would convince me why SC2 is that great, but apart from "ITS STARCRAFT!!!!!!111" and "ITS BLIZZARD!!!!111" I didn't see a lot of arguments.
A standard RTS without any innovations or new stuff. Sure it got fine graphics and sounds, not jaw-dropping either though. It will probably be quite balanced too, but I kinda expect that from a game.
And that's it? Pffff.... I won't touch it.
Yea I agree, I already have SC, why would I be excited for this. 10 years ago Blizzard was a great company now they are j ust living on their past making re-makes of their games. They have not done ONE good thing since they merged with Activision.
What is everyone complaining about? I myself am excited to see the storyline of SC1 continue. The singleplayer campaign looks very well done (Especially with Blizzard's cutscenes), the multiplayer has everything casuals and non-casuals are looking for.
But I guess everyone is so used to bashing Blizzard over WoW, might as well bash them over SC2 as well. You lot are never gonna be happy, no matter what they do.
That said, who cares really. Tomorrow, around this time, I'lle be playing a game I have been anticipating for a very long time, and I'm gonna love every minute of it, while leaving you to your silly rantings.
SC1 was only good after brood wars and good only if u were not lazy enough to move your bulky PC around for LAN parties.
I always have been the lazy kind, so i didn't play it much
Now with SC2 u can play online from home without the risk of damaging ur PC (or ur 19' IIyama CRT for that matter, back then). So yeah, why the hell not.
Wasn't too keen on it tho, cuz i hate blizzard's principle of gathering stuff but the game between liquid nazgul and littleone changed my mind
You're a Hardcore Survivor!
You not only survived the zombie apocalypse, but did it with style! Your mastery of zombie knowledge, survival tactics, and weaponry is nearly unmatched. Congratulations, for you are hardcore!
Nah forget that. Splitting the campaigns into 3 different games all for 60 bucks a pop? For a game thats extremely similar to the one they released a decade ago? Ill pass.
Same. I will play it eventually, when it goes platinium collection, all three in one box for $20.
Tired beta, and wasnt really excited.
Now Diablo3 - that would be different story... But if they force us to buy different boxes to play different classes with, then i'm not going for it.
This will be me. I enjoyed the orginial, played it several times through, but I've sort of moved past single player games so I'll hold off until all 3 come in a single set and end up playing it more for the curiosity value.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hoped anyone would convince me why SC2 is that great, but apart from "ITS STARCRAFT!!!!!!111" and "ITS BLIZZARD!!!!111" I didn't see a lot of arguments.
A standard RTS without any innovations or new stuff. Sure it got fine graphics and sounds, not jaw-dropping either though. It will probably be quite balanced too, but I kinda expect that from a game.
And that's it? Pffff.... I won't touch it.
Yea I agree, I already have SC, why would I be excited for this. 10 years ago Blizzard was a great company now they are j ust living on their past making re-makes of their games. They have not done ONE good thing since they merged with Activision.
What is everyone complaining about? I myself am excited to see the storyline of SC1 continue. The singleplayer campaign looks very well done (Especially with Blizzard's cutscenes), the multiplayer has everything casuals and non-casuals are looking for.
But I guess everyone is so used to bashing Blizzard over WoW, might as well bash them over SC2 as well. You lot are never gonna be happy, no matter what they do.
That said, who cares really. Tomorrow, around this time, I'lle be playing a game I have been anticipating for a very long time, and I'm gonna love every minute of it, while leaving you to your silly rantings.
Hmm, no, I have to agree, Blizzard isn't the same company anymore that it was 5-10 years ago, they've changed, too many signs prove that they have and sadly not for the better.
That being said, I still intend to buy and play SC2, but I don't have the same admiration for Activision Blizzard that I once had. So I won't buy their games blindly as I used to do, but wait for the reviews and then decide to buy, or if the reviews show disappointment, then not.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Hmm, no, I have to agree, Blizzard isn't the same company anymore that it was 5-10 years ago, they've changed, too many signs prove that they have and sadly not for the better.
That being said, I still intend to buy and play SC2, but I don't have the same admiration for Activision Blizzard that I once had. So I won't buy their games blindly as I used to do, but wait for the reviews and then decide to buy, or if the reviews show disappointment, then not.
I've got a feeling reviews are going to be giving SC2 positive scores, regardless of whether it's good or not :P
Nah forget that. Splitting the campaigns into 3 different games all for 60 bucks a pop? For a game thats extremely similar to the one they released a decade ago? Ill pass.
Same. I will play it eventually, when it goes platinium collection, all three in one box for $20.
Tired beta, and wasnt really excited.
Now Diablo3 - that would be different story... But if they force us to buy different boxes to play different classes with, then i'm not going for it.
This will be me. I enjoyed the orginial, played it several times through, but I've sort of moved past single player games so I'll hold off until all 3 come in a single set and end up playing it more for the curiosity value.
It's just a game folks.....
I have to admit that for me if SC2 had been released a few years ago then I might have been interested enough to buy a single title on launch day. However, a decade since SC and resource-based RTS looks a bit tired, so best to wait till box sense for teeny bucks. Diablo 3 again has a release cycle that goes beyond how good the game actually will be, and my money is on Dungeon Siege 3 for the best dungeon crawler with online co-op play of the 2011.
Comments
$40 is for the battlechest versions. You can pick up D2 for $11 and WC3 for $10. You can pick up the SC battlechest for $10.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I doubt the "WOW kids" even know what starcraft is
I doubt the WoW kids would care for anything that has "stratergy" in the description.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
Good point; was just a prime opportunity to get my bashing post in.
Seriously, the first one was fun but not for what Blizzard produced. The community made maps and UMS (Use Map Settings) custom modes were the best part.
Blizzard is not the same company as when the SC1 was made, not that it was original in any way but it's just not the same anymore. I can't be the only one who won't touch a Blizzard product with a 10 foot pole.
I totally know what StarCraft is. I've watched it a thousand times. My favorite character is Yoda.
... Wait...
Oh, well, I gotta get back to playing my Frost Mage.
Or of course they are people like me who though SC was crap and expect sc2 to be more crap lol. The best days of RTS are long gone and just because Korea and China can't get enough of it really doesn't mean jack squat seeing as how they wouldn't know a good game if it clobbered them upside the head with a 2x4.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
Hoped anyone would convince me why SC2 is that great, but apart from "ITS STARCRAFT!!!!!!111" and "ITS BLIZZARD!!!!111" I didn't see a lot of arguments.
A standard RTS without any innovations or new stuff. Sure it got fine graphics and sounds, not jaw-dropping either though. It will probably be quite balanced too, but I kinda expect that from a game.
And that's it? Pffff.... I won't touch it.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
Yea I agree, I already have SC, why would I be excited for this. 10 years ago Blizzard was a great company now they are j ust living on their past making re-makes of their games. They have not done ONE good thing since they merged with Activision.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Can you Co-op the campaign with someone else? Is the only way to play with someone else to go 3v3 or something against people or bots still?
Never really understood the hype about Star Craft, though I can enjoy arcade RTS games, as at the time I did enjoy C&C untill they removed the things I liked about it and made it more fluffy looking atleast towards what I liked about it. I am more of a Sin of Solar type of RTS player.
From what I have seen about the gameplay in SC2 it doesn't really seems appealing to me which does NOT make it a bad game, just a game I don't really have intrest in, but like always hope that those looking forward to SC2 will have a blast playing it.
And like almost any commercially popular game people will play it and might take a break with the MMORPG they might be playing, this goes for most new released popular title's, even within the MMORPG genre people will try them, some will stick to the new and some will return to what they where playing, even some might play both if not more of them off and on.
Aslong people find their game to enjoy and have fun with it.
^^ This. I played SC1 and didn't care for it at all. I thought AoE2 was as good as it gets, and love RTS games but SC1 wasn't my thing. I think it's going to be a far stretch to say every MMO's population will fall from it. Diablo 3 is no different. One is an RTS and another is an ARPG. They're not other big MMOs like SW:TOR.
Now if Blizzard's next MMO was coming out, then I might agree. The player base from WoW is so spread out nowadays that it's guaranteed there are WoW players in every other MMO now because of how many new MMO players it generated. That's the irony with all this retarded "WoW kids do this or that" statements. I swear it sounds more ignorant and naive every time I see them. Absolutely amazes me people still say it after all this time.
Wow, starcraft players sure think there game is just the greatest thing since air dont they, newsflash, it isnt.
only 5 million copies of stacraft were sold outside korea, so how do you think every mmo is gonna suffer a population drop exactly?
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Bye Bye MMORPG for now !!
MMORPG has been disappointed so far recently and with Starcraft 2 coming (also now I am almost like full-time playing League of Legends !! GREAT GAME!!)... I can see myself playing Strategy game all over again.
Maybe until Sept when FF MMO coming out and Starwars KOTOR !
Starcraft 1 was fun for it's time. This new game looks to be the exact same thing with slightly updated graphics. I might buy it later on when it's worth buying ($10-$20).
Blizzard has done nothing really that has impressed me design/creative-wise. They stole every idea from the Warhammer universes (Warhammer Fantasy is the orginal Warcraft and Warhammer 40k is the original Starcraft) and if Games Workshop comes out with a new Warhammer universe, they'll copy that too. Also, Starcraft 2 probably couldn't hold a candle to Dawn of War 2, just sayin'.
Another thing, like someone else stated in this thread, why buy into the whole "We're selling 3 seperate games at full price because there's just SOOOO much we can't fit into a single production right now. We love our fans and want to give them the best, most fleshed out release of Starcraft" bullshit. I won't.
Starcraft 1 was good for its time, and SC2 is essentially a graphically updated game. From everything that I've gathered, it seems to play like it's 1998 still.
RTS games have moved quite a bit past old school format, and it's too bad Blizzard didn't get the memo.
Company of Heroes, WH40k Dawn of War are good examples that have gone past the old RTS format. I'd dare to even put the Total War games in with using Turn Based Strategy Map + RTS Tactical Battles to be far superior, especially Napoleon Total War and the improved AI it has.
The other thing that disturbs me about SC2 is that they've got 3 campaigns but they will not be included in initial release. They're going to chop it up and you'll have to buy the game like x3 to get the full experience. And $60 for a standard edition? Blizzard's gone out of their freakin' minds. Oh wait, they're lapdogs for Activision now. Forgot all about that!
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Never really played RTS games for more then a few hours per title, so it would hardly take away any MMO playtime if I would play one.
Just don't like the high pace of these games. Unless you click like mad, all you do is loose anyway. I need games where I can relax a bit more
But Diablo 3 is on my list
Hope its released before the next decent MMO (GW2, SWTOR) comes along.
Wont be buying it just now. Im more of a Dawn of War fan.
That's plain silly. I cba about SC simply because i was a C&C fan back at the SC1 days and now enjoy CoH which i'm pretty sure still beats the SC franchise Tactic and strategy wise . (the lore is something else)
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
What is everyone complaining about? I myself am excited to see the storyline of SC1 continue. The singleplayer campaign looks very well done (Especially with Blizzard's cutscenes), the multiplayer has everything casuals and non-casuals are looking for.
But I guess everyone is so used to bashing Blizzard over WoW, might as well bash them over SC2 as well. You lot are never gonna be happy, no matter what they do.
That said, who cares really. Tomorrow, around this time, I'lle be playing a game I have been anticipating for a very long time, and I'm gonna love every minute of it, while leaving you to your silly rantings.
SC1 was only good after brood wars and good only if u were not lazy enough to move your bulky PC around for LAN parties.
I always have been the lazy kind, so i didn't play it much
Now with SC2 u can play online from home without the risk of damaging ur PC (or ur 19' IIyama CRT for that matter, back then). So yeah, why the hell not.
Wasn't too keen on it tho, cuz i hate blizzard's principle of gathering stuff but the game between liquid nazgul and littleone changed my mind
You're a Hardcore Survivor!
You not only survived the zombie apocalypse, but did it with style! Your mastery of zombie knowledge, survival tactics, and weaponry is nearly unmatched. Congratulations, for you are hardcore!
This will be me. I enjoyed the orginial, played it several times through, but I've sort of moved past single player games so I'll hold off until all 3 come in a single set and end up playing it more for the curiosity value.
It's just a game folks.....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hmm, no, I have to agree, Blizzard isn't the same company anymore that it was 5-10 years ago, they've changed, too many signs prove that they have and sadly not for the better.
That being said, I still intend to buy and play SC2, but I don't have the same admiration for Activision Blizzard that I once had. So I won't buy their games blindly as I used to do, but wait for the reviews and then decide to buy, or if the reviews show disappointment, then not.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I don't think I will play SCII, the only RTS I really loved was KKND.
I will buy Diablo III probably though.
I've got a feeling reviews are going to be giving SC2 positive scores, regardless of whether it's good or not :P
Same. I will play it eventually, when it goes platinium collection, all three in one box for $20.
Tired beta, and wasnt really excited.
Now Diablo3 - that would be different story... But if they force us to buy different boxes to play different classes with, then i'm not going for it.
This will be me. I enjoyed the orginial, played it several times through, but I've sort of moved past single player games so I'll hold off until all 3 come in a single set and end up playing it more for the curiosity value.
It's just a game folks.....
I have to admit that for me if SC2 had been released a few years ago then I might have been interested enough to buy a single title on launch day. However, a decade since SC and resource-based RTS looks a bit tired, so best to wait till box sense for teeny bucks. Diablo 3 again has a release cycle that goes beyond how good the game actually will be, and my money is on Dungeon Siege 3 for the best dungeon crawler with online co-op play of the 2011.