Proof that my life blows is the fact that I'm from a poor family. Through nineteen teeth gritting years of my life I had to put up with being insulted simply because I was some 'Poor hippie liberal.' And due to being a haplessly hopeless poor person I have a computer that has troubles running WarCraft III.

In a nut shell this thread is for those that didn't get SC2 whether it's because they're waiting for the price to go down, they simply can't, or because they're loyal to the first StarCraft. My reason is because my comp's incredibly out dated and I don't see the point in trying to get a better graphics card when it might have a heart attack at any moment.

I have a douche bag friend who continually rubs it in so I'm looking for the day I can get him back in the future :3

I got it - the single player part at least - and it can't compete with SC1 on any level. Not even graphics imo. They are just not as recognizable as in SC1.

Not planning on buying it unless Blizzard fixes the terribleterribledamage they did to the multiplayer part.

I'm definitely getting SC2, like really soon

to nude raider: SC1 graphics can't compete with SC2's? Considering SC1 was behind in graphics even for its time

Although the new battle.net system sucks, I got to admit that nearly everything is by far better than sc1. The units, the editor, the graphics, the music (except for terran, the sc1 music of terran been so much better :S ).

I didn't say the graphics engine was the most advanced, I'm talking about the presentation. I still find SC1 graphics to be very efficient, pleasing to the eye (especially BW terrain) and it's easy to tell whats going on on the screen.

Can't run it, won't get it 'til I can. Nuff said.

Definitely the units are not as easy to recognise in SC2, and I also find that their movement is very 'floaty'. In SC1 units like Dragoon, Hydrlisk, Zerglings and Ultralisks had very particular 'jerky' movements, but in SC2 everything just moves around at a constant speed. Much easier to program and mod, but not as nifty. Things like the colossus and immortal in particular look really bland.

The sounds are also much less distinct, especially death sounds.

The storyline is not nearly as epic and interesting as SC1, and while the missions are fun to play, they also feel gimmicky. Also not having to research techs in-game in the campaign makes building tech buildings a little weird - basically just to unlock the units.

Wait, in sc1 everyone had a constant speed. Seriously everything. In sc2, at least the roach had a different movement
Still, I agree on that the colossus and the immortal could have been made better.

Dialup. Looking into pirating it for the campaign like Nudebro over here. I'll buy it for the multi player as soon as I get some decent internet. Until then I guess. I probably wouldn't even feel the need to pirate it if their weren't spoilers everywhere. I can't do anything without running into them. It makes me anxious. ._.

Even though I hear so many "lol story sux bro", my faith will not falter. o/

I don't expect to buy SC2. Here are my reasons:

1. Why would I? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of games that come out every day that I don't buy (I usually play freeware and abandonware); the fact that this one is somewhat similar to one that I already have doesn't suddenly make it a must-buy when nothing else is. And to be honest, I wasn't that impressed with the gameplay.

2. High price. Blizzard has said that they're going to do with SC2 expansions the same thing that they did with SC1 expansions: if you don't buy the expansion, you get sectioned off into a sub-area of battle.net. Judging by how the community treated users without Broodwar on SC1, it seems likely that having a good experience will mean buying the expansions. Add onto that the cost of premium maps, and the price could easily get into the triple digits. I'm sorry, but when there are so many good freeware and abandonware games out there that I can get for free, SC2 just doesn't make financial sense. Yes, I could buy it...I've got enough money in the bank to buy it and have enough left over for a sports car. But you don't get ahead in life by wasting money just because you can.

3. Blizzard treated Mac users, and map-makers in particular, badly for SC1, and show no sign of doing otherwise for SC2. Not only were there long periods of time when new Mac users could not install the game (due to not being able to switch to 256 colors), but after a while, they stopped upgrading SC1 for OS9, while not upgrading StarEdit for OSX. So if you had an old Mac, all of a sudden, a patch came out that made it impossible to play the game (that you paid for, and which was part of your life)...and if you upgraded to a newer computer, StarEdit (and any patched versions thereof, such as StarFire Edit) wouldn't work. The result of all this was that if you were a Mac map maker and didn't have the capability to emulate Windows, or a computer of just the right, intermediate age range, you were basically screwed (okay, there are OS9 emulation solutions that will let you get StarEdit up, but they tend to be fairly slow and unstable, and there's no way to get some of the StarEdit-patch-type editors working this way). Finally, Blizzard has done nothing on SC1 to keep PC users from degrading the Mac playing experience by releasing and popularizing content that will crash Mac users without warning (and I don't just mean EUDs...many protection methods, certain editors, and some completely random, unidentifiable happenings can render maps Mac-incompatible, and the maps are often released that way despite the availability of alternative methods that would keep the maps compatible with absolutely no sacrifice to the PC users). If I thought that Blizzard was going to go back to its old ways of platform equality with SC2, I'd be willing to forgive all of this, but indications from the beta were entirely to the contrary, with the Mac beta lagging behind the PC beta at every stage, including a far earlier release of the editor for PC users. Say whatever you want about profit coming from the company catering to the greatest number...to me, as a consumer, none of that matters. If I'm worried that you're going to let me spend my money and then screw me over down the road, you're not going to get me as a customer.

4. The system requirements state that the minimum system requirements may change at any time. Right now, my three-year-old laptop is just meeting the minimum in some categories, and as I don't support the dynamic of planned obsolescence that works to force computer users to buy constant upgrades when they don't have to be necessary, I have no intention of upgrading my computer anytime soon. What that means is that if I buy the game, at any moment, it might be upgraded beyond my capability to play it...as happened to some users with SC1. I'm not going to spend my money on, and invest my time building development skills for, a game that I have no guarantee of being able to run tomorrow.

5. Battle.net 2.0. Do I even need to say anything here? Map release slots, badly-sorted lists, awkward social functionality...I would have been happier with a re-use of the same Battle.net system that they've always used.

6. I want to keep SC1 alive as long as possible. I'd rather not lose a game that I've spent so long on. Besides, when SC1 dies, so do all of the maps that people have made for it...and so does your ability to get more games to play, for free, from people making new maps for it...and so does the usefulness of the skills that we've developed to make maps for it.

7. SC2 map-making is more powerful, which seems good at first...but it also means that in the long run, those of us who are not "computer people"-- who don't program, who aren't going to be engineers or graphic designers or computer scientists or (insert other form of cubicle-dweller here)-- are going to have a very hard time competing as map-makers against the people who are coders/devs/whatever. As a member of the first category, I just don't see myself having a successful run at SC2 mapping...there's plenty that I'm sure I could easily do and learn, but what does that matter when there's so much more available to the competition?

Is that enough reasons for ya?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 6 2010, 1:37 pm by FoxWolf1.

I'll get it eventually. When the hype, price, and general insanity settle down a bit first, maybe.

NO. NEED MOAR.

Also, stores didn't have it. <_<.

Dude, it's your money. If you really don't want to buy SC2 no need to justify it for yourself, just go "eh I don't like this game, I'll buy something else with my money."

^ Implying SC2 is the same as BW.

What.


The contemporary generation is seriously misinformed about the value of games. Only in 2010 do we have people calling games that cost $1.99 expensive (cf. App Store reviews), and SC2-WoL's price right now is actually quite a bit lower than the inflation-adjusted price for SC Vanilla. Some people got it in retail for 39 Euros; think about the QUANTITY of content you're getting for that price. Heck, a 8-bit cartridge might have cost around this price back then, no one complained.

Having a mac does not entitle you to special treatment. A company can choose to develop a game for a certain platform, and it can also choose to port the game to a different platform. It's their product, and what amounts to essentially re-developing the same product for a far smaller userbase is financially stupid. It's your choice to stick with an operating system that doesn't run their product, you have no right to be demanding that they port it for your convenience.


I read this as "my knife can't cut your butter so your butter is shit."

Mapping is a hobby, gaming is a diversion, don't take it so seriously.


'Nuff said.

My computer can't run it. I'll play it in two years when I get a laptop for college. ;o

I enjoyed the campaign (the presence of different difficulty levels was rather nice), I find melee a bit more fun than SC1 melee, and the new map editor is considerably more awesome and C-like. I just don't like what they've done with Battle.net 2.0--like many of us. The limit on custom map sizes is going to make me RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
Yeah, that's pretty much like saying you're boycotting Microsoft because they treat Nintendo users poorly by not porting Halo to Wii.

This is the "Why I didn't get Starcraft 2 Thread." It's all about reasons.


Not at all. I said it was "somewhat similar", not the same. The point isn't that it's just like SC1; it's that the fact that this game is kind of like SC1 does not provide some special reason to buy it.


The "value" of games? What value? At the end of the day, it's just another virtual toy. It doesn't appreciate, earn money, help you meet people, or further your career-- in fact, the main thing it does is take away time that could be used to do those things. The best it can do is provide a bit of entertainment, and there are other products that can be acquired for $0 that do the same thing.

You don't think I spent my own money on SC1, do you? Commercial games aren't, and have never been, a good buy, not when there are so many other options out there.


Excuse me? If I'm the one choosing whether or not to spend my hard-earned, I can have whatever criteria I want. If it meets the criteria, I buy; if it doesn't, I don't. It just so happens that one of those criteria is feeling like I have equal rights to other members of the game's community. If they don't want to meet that criteria, then they don't get my money.


Once again, this thread is about our reasons for not getting Starcraft 2. One of my reasons is that I don't feel like having to buy a new computer anytime soon-- not when I can not spend the money and find other ways to be, in all likelihood, just as satisfied.


I think, at the end of the day, the person spending their money just to keep up with the latest and greatest is far more in danger of taking gaming too seriously than the person who simply understands the value of what he already has.


*shrug* Not all games play to the same skill-set. Your average programmer-type wouldn't have any interest in a game where people coming in with skill in my field had the overwhelming advantage, so why should I buy a game that, at least in the area that I would be interested in, is built for their skill-set?

Foxwolf don't listen to them. lol
I don't want to go into details, but I think Aristo and Fatal you completely missed Fox's points...

I hate when people pick an arbitrary sentence out of a huge paragraph and then comment on it without taking a minute to think about the context.

SC2 Doesn't have Hero Sanct, no reason to play it. Besides, I don't want to pay money for video games.

Let's keep it that way, along with Temple Siege. ;o

It's a goddamned sequel to an existing product, don't tell me your argument is "don't buy sequels there's no reason to".

Of course is going to be "kind of like" SC1. Almost all sequels share some elements with the initial product and SC2 is one of the few rare cases where the sequel is a vast improvement over the original.

The entertainment industry exists BECAUSE people will pay money to spend their time doing something they find enjoyable. By this logic you will never purchase anything above the bare minimum standard required to live. What a bland and uninteresting life it must be if that is true.

Sour grapes, foxwolf, sour grapes.

See above.

Might be news to you but some of us use newer computers for things other than gaming.

As you have said, SC2 exists for entertainment purposes; I don't understand why you cannot be entertained if you can't "win" at something. People still enjoy sports even though there are others who are vastly better than them at it.