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 3 45 >
 
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 3 2010, 2:20 am FoxWolf1 Post #21



Quote from Aristocrat
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
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.

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?



None.

Aug 3 2010, 2:21 am CecilSunkure Post #22



Quote from DavidJCobb
Can't run it, won't get it 'til I can. Nuff said.
Yup, me too.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 2:29 am Gidoza Post #23



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.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 2:38 am CecilSunkure Post #24



Quote from Gidoza
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"
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.

Quote from Gidoza
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.
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.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 2:43 am ToA Post #25

Que Sera, Sera.

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




Aug 3 2010, 3:01 am Crimson Magnum Post #26

Shogun

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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 3:43 am TiKels Post #27



Quote from Gidoza
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.

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.
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.



"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."

-NudeRaider

Aug 3 2010, 4:05 am l)ark_ssj9kevin Post #28

Just here for the activity... well not really

I'm getting it in a few weeks as a birthday present.
Quote from Crimson Magnum
I have the trial version. I like it. I think I might wait a few months or so before I buy it though.
Trial version?



guy lifting weight (animated smiley):

O-IC
OI-C

"Oh, I see it"


Aug 3 2010, 4:26 am O)FaRTy1billion[MM] Post #29

👻 👾 👽 💪

Quote from FoxWolf1
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).
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.



TinyMap2 - Latest in map compression! ( 7/09/14 - New build! )
EUD Action Enabler - Lightweight EUD/EPD support! (ChaosLauncher/MPQDraft support!)
EUDDB - topic - Help out by adding your EUDs! Or Submit reference files in the References tab!
MapSketch - New image->map generator!
EUDTrig - topic - Quickly and easily convert offsets to EUDs! (extended players supported)
SC2 Map Texture Mask Importer/Exporter - Edit texture placement in an image editor!
\:farty\: This page has been viewed [img]http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/Clicky.php?img.gif[/img] times!

Aug 3 2010, 4:30 am Gidoza Post #30



Quote
True, although it gives users like me, a dialupper, an advantage where I don't get booted when I want to dl a map.

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.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 4:33 am Crimson Magnum Post #31

Shogun

Quote from l)ark_ssj9kevin
I'm getting it in a few weeks as a birthday present.
Quote from Crimson Magnum
I have the trial version. I like it. I think I might wait a few months or so before I buy it though.
Trial version?

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.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 5:04 am Dem0n Post #32

ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

Quote from Crimson Magnum
Quote from l)ark_ssj9kevin
I'm getting it in a few weeks as a birthday present.
Quote from Crimson Magnum
I have the trial version. I like it. I think I might wait a few months or so before I buy it though.
Trial version?

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? :0_0:




Aug 3 2010, 5:43 am RIVE Post #33

Just Here For The Pie

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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 5:50 am EzDay281 Post #34



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 :D) 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.

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

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

Quote
you have no right to be demanding that they port it for your convenience.
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.

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

Quote
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.
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.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 6:04 am DevliN Post #35

OVERWATCH STATUS GO

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.



\:devlin\: Currently Working On: \:devlin\:
My Overwatch addiction.

Aug 3 2010, 6:10 am FatalException Post #36



Quote from NudeRaider
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.
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.



None.

Aug 3 2010, 6:45 am Gigins Post #37



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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 12:52 pm NudeRaider Post #38

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

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




Aug 3 2010, 2:46 pm Crimson Magnum Post #39

Shogun

Quote from name:Dem0nS1ayer
Does that mean that you could play the campaign even after your seven hours are up? :0_0:

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



None.

Aug 3 2010, 4:45 pm CecilSunkure Post #40



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



None.

Options
Pages: < 1 2 3 45 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[10:53 pm]
Butch -- prob some weird character on a string somewhere or something dumb like that
[09:50 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
[05:35 pm]
Zoan -- I haven't played in like 2 years so maybe something changed I don't know about
[05:35 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?
[05:34 pm]
Zoan -- I'll try Butch's suggestion of running in 32-bit, maybe that will fix it?
[05:34 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.
[03:19 pm]
No-Name-Needed-II -- 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..
[2022-5-23. : 12:21 am]
Oh_Man -- Wat precisely is wrong with spellsword now?
[2022-5-23. : 12:19 am]
Oh_Man -- Did martiss' link not work?
[2022-5-22. : 8:11 pm]
Zoan -- Also my KOTK maps all have the nooks and crannies issue when they didn't before; what changed?
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy, Oh_Man