You're still missing the point. Usually, when a game comes out, I don't buy it. SC2 being a sequel to SC1 doesn't give me a reason to change that.


I never said that I wouldn't spend money on pure entertainment, only that I would not do so when where are plenty of perfectly good, free alternatives in the same area.


You mean you spend your money on things you don't like? How does that make sense?


That's just the thing, though...you talk like you think I'm unhappy about not being able to run SC2, when the fact is, I'm not. If I wanted to buy a newer computer and get SC2, I could easily do so. But I don't want to.


Not only does that not make any sense in the original context, it's also not the case for me-- I can do all the non-gaming things that I need to do with my current computer. I'd think buying a new computer just to buy video games would be much closer to taking them too seriously than not doing so, wouldn't you?


If there's one thing that making maps for SC1 has taught me, it's that nobody likes a game where they don't feel that they have any chance of winning. Why should I be any different?

Yup, me too.

I think among other things, Blizzard's sheer greed and incompetence top my list for not being interested in buying the game.

Premium maps? Who wants to pay for a MAP? This is Blizzard's way of saying "well, this map is popular, people will want to play it, so let's make it premium, make it look more special, so we can get money off of it". It seems like such an honor to have your map called "premium", but in fact, this is the worst of curses.

Secondly, the "map slots" are limiting to mapmakers on the one hand, and horrible to players on the other. My capability of playing a map I like is entirely dependent on whether someone else holds the map in one of their slots? This is absurd.

Third, the graphics are meh. SC1 is far nicer to look at. Complexity has gone to the level where the only thing to have appreciation for isn't the game itself, but how much time it took to code it.

And on a petty note, the naming is utterly horrendous. Baneling? BANEling? Seriously. And "Wings of Liberty" has to be THE lamest name ever. Simply calling it "StarCraft II" without the obligatory underlining of an added name would have been good enough.


There's just nothing presented here that's exciting. I'm going back to 1990's gaming when developers were actually intelligent.

Wrong. As far as I understand it's more the mappers choice to allow their game to be on the premium list or not. Blizzard wouldn't do something as stupid as "stealing" people's maps and piss off the mappers.

This was intentional so that the minimum specifications for play were kept to a minimum. Making games is about making money, and they thought they'd make more money by allowing more people with worse computers to play the game.

My computer cant run it. Need more ram and a better graphics card.

I have the trial version. I like it. I think I might wait a few months or so before I buy it though.

True, although it gives users like me, a dialupper, an advantage where I don't get booted when I want to dl a map.
Disagree. It's really an opinion, but it just sounds like you're nay saying b/c sour grapes.
Agreed, except the last part about leaving. Blizz is basically the best game company, whether it's good or not is another debate.

I'm getting it in a few weeks as a birthday present.
Trial version?

It's mostly because the PC users were doing things that weren't even indirectly supported by Blizzard by abusing the (PC) game engine ... Strictly using the editor given by Blizzard, mac could actually do more (clicking+dragging units to move them allowing stacked units, random glitches with terrain allowing square terrain without a 3rd party tool to corrupt the map section, etc.). None of this stuff was related to or supported by Blizzard at all.

I don't doubt that, but there's better ways than this to store everything without forcing people to limit # of maps. Heck, my computer could easily store every SC1 map that ever existed without issue, a newer computer would laugh at the space requirements for SC2 maps, especially when they're putting 10MB caps on them. There's no question at all that it isn't a space problem, it must be something else.

Nevertheless, had Blizzard wanted to use their time wisely, they might have tried revamping SC1 and providing better editor flexibility and actually bothering to police Battle.Net so people can play through a whole game without idiots ruining it. Given Blizzard's effort on these matters, through every single game they've made, I hardly expect SC2 to be an improvement. The only realistic way to play a game start to finish is to have a game where a mechanical bobbing chicken nails your mouse over and over to play the game for you, because this is the limit of intelligence of the players on Battle.Net. It's only fun if they can play and win while being away from the computer.

Yup! When someone buys the game, I believe it comes with a key code. When you use that key code, it lets someone who doesn't have the game download the game and play it with full capabilities for seven hours worth of playtime. After that playtime is up, you can only play as a guest and not online.

Does that mean that you could play the campaign even after your seven hours are up?

Be right back as I start up the "Why I Shouldn't Have Got StarCraft 2".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 3 2010, 5:45 am by RIVE. Reason: rawr

I have no intention to buy SC2. I don't like what Blizzard's doing with B.Net, and I have very little (negative, in fact ) money.
I do have intention of leeching off of my friends. I've got two locally who I expect to have it; I know one already does. Along with more online who, if Blizzard doesn't have protections against this, would most likely be willing to share account privacy with me.

Starcraft 2's animations lack weight, the colouring and lighting make it much harder to distinguish units in the midst of chaos, everyone I've heard express opinion on terrain textures hates them, and individual units have about as much visible detail in 1024x768 as Starcraft's sprites showed in 640x480. Deaths are bland and relatively slow-to-read crumbling aparts to Starcraft's immediate and visually appealingly violent explosions.

Starcraft's graphics are weak from a technical perspective.
From an aesthetic and functional perspective, they were excellent for any game of its own or modern times, whatever you think of SC2.

Dude, it's his post. Why people are or aren't getting SC2 is the point of this thread.

He has every right to say "I don't like this, so I am not supporting them", however.
That's how, y'know, capitalism and market competition work.

Looks more like, "Your butter may stop being cuttable with my knife, so I think I'll buy [or find for free, in Foxwolf's case] someone else's butter" to me.

What do minimum specifications and being able to run a game have to do with how good it looks?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 3 2010, 3:48 pm by EzDay281.

I think SC2 surpasses SC1 in every way possible. I don't even mind the new Battle.net so much.

I'm still very much in my honeymoon phase with the editor, too.

I understand where he's coming from, but I really think he's overreacting, especially with that bolded bit. Ok, so they're not really supporting the game for the platform he has. They're not taking away his rights or killing his people; they're just not making their product over for a different platform quite as quickly as he'd like. Just seemed terribly melodramatic.

I'm not spending any of my bill/food/living money on stupid games. I liked the campaign though.

The irony is I wanted to spend money for SC2 and to a big part because I loved SC1 and all the effort they put into it even years after it's been released. I thought Blizzard was a great developer with a company philosophy that deserves support because it cares for their customers. Something I couldn't say about a single other game company.

But then they had to merge with Activision (actually Activision owns Blizzard, it's not an equal partnership) and with that apparently my beloved game developer died and SC2 was degraded from the sequel to the greatest game of all times to a cash cow. I'm so deeply disappointed. Why didn't Blizzard release it 2 years earlier? I'm sad about this beyond measure.



Btw. I think SC2 is much more of a "Warcraft in space"* than SC1 was. Mainly because of the characters' appearance. I love the bulky look of the new space marine suit, but it doesn't stop there. Raynor for some reason has become a scarred and wrinkled bodybuilder. His arms almost look like that of an orc. And what happened to the Protoss? For some inexplicable reason they now have muscles too... What happened to their sleek and smooth physique where you immediately realized that their strength comes from psionics?
Look at Arthas from WC3:


And now look at SC2 Zeratul. Can you see the resemblance? Especially his hands and underarms are so big. WTF? They look like of a construction worker...


Compare with the SC1 Zeratul: _________ (Just for reference a frontal of Artanis because there's no frontal of the SC1 Zeratul.)
__
And now tell me who looks more like a psionic stealth fighter rather than like a medieval knight? The old one or the new one?

Ironically I find this fan art to be a better SC2 Zeratul: ___: They did an excellent job on Selendis though. Why not on Zeratul? *cry*
__
It doesn't have these exaggerated body feats but is still looking very alien despite all this added armor (compared to SC1 Zeratul).


* This was a prejudice Blizzard had to fight for to be put to rest. They did pretty well and nobody thinks that anymore nowadays. Now StarCraft 2 did become "Warcraft in space" (a bit) but seemingly everyone forgot the old prejudice and they get away with it. Funny fact.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 3 2010, 6:06 pm by NudeRaider.

That is correct. But, you will be playing as a guest and not as your account meaning you are unable to unlock any achievements.

Hmm seems like they tried to make Zeratul look old, experienced, battle hardened? I dunno, but he most definitely is a lot uglier and wierd looking :C