Staredit Network > Forums > Null > Topic: The 'Why I didn't get StarCraft 2' Thread
The 'Why I didn't get StarCraft 2' Thread
Aug 2 2010, 10:11 pm
By: lSHaDoW-FoXl
Pages: 1 2 35 >
 
Polls
Did you get SC2?
Did you get SC2?
Answer Votes Percentage % Voters
Yes, and it's better then SC1 17
 
31%
Yes, it's not as good as SC1 6
 
11%
No, I don't plan on getting it 7
 
13%
No, but I plan on getting it 14
 
26%
I don't care I just want to fuck a Zergling! 11
 
20%
Please login to vote.
Poll has 55 votes. You can vote for at most 1 option(s).

Aug 2 2010, 10:11 pm lSHaDoW-FoXl Post #1



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



None.

Aug 2 2010, 11:02 pm NudeRaider Post #2

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

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.




Aug 2 2010, 11:12 pm EzTerix Post #3



I'm definitely getting SC2, like really soon :P

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



None.

Aug 2 2010, 11:18 pm Devourer Post #4

Hello

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 ).



Please report errors in the Staredit.Network forum.

Aug 2 2010, 11:27 pm NudeRaider Post #5

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

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




Aug 2 2010, 11:45 pm DavidJCobb Post #6



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



None.

Aug 2 2010, 11:47 pm Lanthanide Post #7



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.



None.

Aug 2 2010, 11:57 pm Devourer Post #8

Hello

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



Please report errors in the Staredit.Network forum.

Aug 3 2010, 12:07 am MadZombie Post #9



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/



None.

Aug 3 2010, 12:37 am FoxWolf1 Post #10



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? :P

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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 12:41 am The Starport Post #11



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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 12:42 am Centreri Post #12

Relatively ancient and inactive

NO. NEED MOAR.

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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 12:59 am Aristocrat Post #13



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

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."

Quote
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.
^ Implying SC2 is the same as BW.

What.

Quote
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.
:facepalm:
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.

Quote
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 you're going to treat me as a second-class citizen, you can go fuck yourself; end of story.
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.

Quote
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.

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

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

Quote
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?

'Nuff said.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 1:30 am Dem0n Post #14

ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

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




Aug 3 2010, 1:36 am FatalException Post #15



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.
Quote from FoxWolf1
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 you're going to treat me as a second-class citizen, you can go fuck yourself; end of story.
Yeah, that's pretty much like saying you're boycotting Microsoft because they treat Nintendo users poorly by not porting Halo to Wii. :|



None.

Aug 3 2010, 1:37 am FoxWolf1 Post #16



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

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."

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

Quote
Quote
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.
^ Implying SC2 is the same as BW.

What.

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.

Quote
Quote
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.
:facepalm:
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.

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.

Quote
Quote
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 you're going to treat me as a second-class citizen, you can go fuck yourself; end of story.
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.

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

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

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.

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

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.

Quote
Quote
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?

'Nuff said.

*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?



None.

Aug 3 2010, 1:42 am NudeRaider Post #17

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

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.




Aug 3 2010, 1:42 am Norm Post #18



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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 1:44 am Dem0n Post #19

ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

Quote from Norm
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




Aug 3 2010, 2:01 am Aristocrat Post #20



Quote
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.


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.

Quote
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.
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.

Quote
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.
Sour grapes, foxwolf, sour grapes.

Quote
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.
See above.

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

Quote
*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?
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.



None.

Options
Pages: 1 2 35 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[07:35 am]
MINT_H -- Map Upload
[02:42 am]
Zoan -- TheHappy115
TheHappy115 shouted: I had played spellsword on Remastered roughly 3 - 4 years and it worked fine so not sure why it doesn't work now. Big Rips. I know there is some form of trigger that detects whether its online or not but I imagine it has something to due with latency
Oh, I mentioned in a thread but not the shoutbox, but it does work if you run SC in 32bit as suggested by Butch.
[08:53 pm]
TheHappy115 -- such as things like Center View work differently on online play (instant on online while single moves the screen slowly and pauses)
[08:52 pm]
TheHappy115 -- I had played spellsword on Remastered roughly 3 - 4 years and it worked fine so not sure why it doesn't work now. Big Rips. I know there is some form of trigger that detects whether its online or not but I imagine it has something to due with latency
[2022-5-23. : 10:53 pm]
Butch -- prob some weird character on a string somewhere or something dumb like that
[2022-5-23. : 9:50 pm]
Ultraviolet -- It's weird indeed, not really sure what is so special about Spellsword that causes it to react differently on Remastered, usually EUDs are the cause of things like that
[2022-5-23. : 5:35 pm]
Zoan -- I haven't played in like 2 years so maybe something changed I don't know about
[2022-5-23. : 5:35 pm]
Zoan -- No-Name-Needed-II
No-Name-Needed-II shouted: Zoan No idea if anything changed.. I've made several maps that push TMOANC to the limit and they are still working.. 3 causes of it I've narrowed down are -Too many islands which some terrain on certain tilesets can create micro islands on cliff edges with basic isometric.. -Too many changes in elevation from high to mid to low ground.. -And too many tiles from certain doodads that block tank fire..
Any clue as to why a map which would previously work fine on past patches would now suddenly not work on the current remastered patch?
[2022-5-23. : 5:34 pm]
Zoan -- I'll try Butch's suggestion of running in 32-bit, maybe that will fix it?
[2022-5-23. : 5:34 pm]
Zoan -- Oh_Man
Oh_Man shouted: Did martiss' link not work?
It crashes as it does when you use EUD's incorrectly - like it closes starcraft and has the error window pop up with a ticket to send to Blizzard. I know it's not EUDs though since obviously spellsword doesn't use any, so IDK what it is.
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: No-Name-Needed-II, Roy, UndeadStar, Voyager7456