EPT1) too poor
2) too noob to play matchmaking
3) actual issues with bnet 2.0 / gameplay
I think people are just saying 3 when its really 1 and 2
Will you buy SC2 or pretend you won't but then buy it anyw…
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
CrunkOwns
United States138 Posts
1) too poor 2) too noob to play matchmaking 3) actual issues with bnet 2.0 / gameplay I think people are just saying 3 when its really 1 and 2 | ||
|
futoM4ki
Germany73 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:41 BuFFo wrote: For me, it is esentially a clone of SC1. I was expecting a new race, but instead, I got a rehash of a 12 year old game. Did you even play both games??? ridiculous | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:33 speedphlux wrote: Definately BUY, but not immediately ... Kinda broke ATM. This is just... I don't find any sense in it.. You know that this game is awesome and will be even more so but you won't help it be even better... The whole boycott thing is totally idiotic to me. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:41 BuFFo wrote: I will not be buying SC2. For me, it is esentially a clone of SC1. I was expecting a new race, but instead, I got a rehash of a 12 year old game. Not only that, but to insult me, I need ot buy the campaigns for the races I like? That is unacceptable. Also, Bnet v2. 'Nuff said. Should I even begin to say what I don't like about Bnet? It's funny that you say it's bad for being a rehash considering that 99% of the complaints about SC2's gameplay are that it's too different from SC1. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Mostly the game is gonna work as an alternative to Civ V when im burned out from playing it 20 hours straight | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
| ||
|
BuFFo
United States24 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:48 Spawkuring wrote: It's funny that you say it's bad for being a rehash considering that 99% of the complaints about SC2's gameplay are that it's too different from SC1. For the Layman, the game play is essentially the same. For the 'elite' few, it may be worlds different. I am not a pro, but the game, to me, mine as well be an expansion to the first game. Add some units here, and that is it. So yeah, for that 1 person who understand the deep mechanics of the game, it may be different, but for the other 10,000 casual gamers, it is the same shuck and jive. Such a witty remark. First off, it is my opinion. If you do not like it, I do not care. Second... Yes, it is a rehash. For a decade I was waiting to see the Xel'Naga as a playable race, but instead I have SC1 all over again, minus two campaigns that I need to buy? Really? Maybe you are okay with substandard quality, but I am not. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:48 Talic_Zealot wrote: This is just... I don't find any sense in it.. You know that this game is awesome and will be even more so but you won't help it be even better... The whole boycott thing is totally idiotic to me. He's saying he will buy it but he can't afford it straight away... | ||
|
theslayer922
Canada304 Posts
(+ bnet 2.0 is terribad) voting boycott | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
| ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
Obviously I'll buy it. | ||
|
Tuplex
80 Posts
| ||
|
UbiNax
Denmark381 Posts
i will buy collector  | ||
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
I wouldn't call it amazing. Better graphics and smoother mechanics, and I like watching the average SC2 game a lot more than the average BW... (progamers are still awesome to watch). I'm only really paying 20$ for ladder though. I'm paying 20$ for an awesome single player campaign, and 20$ for the chance to play some crazy fricken custom maps. its not worth 60$ just to play ladder.. to me. Also in regards to Blizzard trying to maximize profits...... I'm interested to see how the fee structure for this game will be... There's this stuff about limited battlenet time, I don't want to pay a fee to use battle.net and if they require that i'm not buying their damn game til its in a bargain bin. Other shit like cross-region play I don't personally care about, and i'm kinda happy that i won't have to deal with laggy non-region players in my games. But they ought to set up SOMETHING just for the pro-scene. | ||
|
Uriel_SVK
Slovakia427 Posts
| ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
That doesn't mean they'll add LAN or x-region, those are design decissions. But you can be sure they'll do all they can for it to be a rock solid platform for years to come. | ||
|
showbiz
United States66 Posts
| ||
|
Kisra
United Kingdom466 Posts
1) The WoW playerbase is enormous. Those posting on the forums tend to be in the camp of the well known saying: "Scissors are fine, but nerf paper please. Signed, rock.". Even good suggestions will be drowned out by the huge number of people arguing about whether warlocks are imbalanced, rogues do too much DPS, or that warriors aren't good tanks. Getting distilled, good feedback to the devs is nigh impossible, especially with such a broad game. 2) The above point brings me onto SC2. SC2 will similarly be enormous, but it's a very focused game. It's designed around 1v1 gameplay in a highly competitive sense and will be built up around that. Starcraft 2 as a game will, however, most likely be balanced around data and not community feedback. The community is simply too large and this means the "My faction is too weak!" camp will be far more reprisentative, as these are often the ones screaming on forums. What does this mean for game balance? It means the only thing that should influence design decisions are numbers, or if one issue is overwhelmingly evident in the pro circuit (IE: Every tournament won by the same build, so every pro swaps to play that way). I think, personally, this is a far, far more comforting thought than everyone having their say in the development of the game. The public does not actually know best. 3) Battle.net 2.0 seems to be the biggest bugbear for now, and yeah, I get worried too. However, Blizzard have recently stated that they'll look at the major community complaints, and do you know what? I trust them. Especially if names like Husky, HDstarcraft, and Day9 keep pointing out the flaws to their large audiences (such as the kitten video), it won't be something they can forget. I doubt LAN play will be implemented due to piracy fears, and yeah, I can see the bugbear there. Cross-realm play will also be a big frustration, which might get implemented (although I'm not holding my breath). Still, any pro league will have accounts on standby for foreign players and I have to say I think the people desperate to spread their time 50/50 over two realms are in the severe minority. You probably know a few European people and would like to play against them every now and then, but I don't think it's gamebreaking. Call me a maverick for saying so. 4) Achievements, groups, and some units remind me of WoW!. Achievements have been around a long, long time before WoW ever adopted them and, you know what? They're not different than how the WC3 ladder had different icons for wins with a certain race. They're not exactly a good reason to boycott the entire game. Groups, if neatened up, could actually be a very easy way to organise you and your friends into team battles. My only complaint with the grouping system is that I can't pick 1v1 maps while in a group, if that gets fixed, I rather like it. It makes it very quick and easy to get me and my friends in a game. Stalkers, Immortals and Roaches remind you of nerubians? What? Protoss sure don't have a history of making four-legged semi-mech units, do they? Zerg never had a unit that used to scuttle it's way over a battlefield and do interesting things while burrowed. They're just impersonating nerubians, of course. To close: Rogue's vanish has been bugged since 2006 and still never been fixed. Debatable. It's vastly improved but due to how latency works, vanish will always have a chance of not working ideally. It still works 99.9% of the times in the modern game, however. This post reminds me of the usual post you get on WoW forums complaining about how bad the game has become for everyone since the old days. Did you ever raid Naxxramas? If you did, you were one of the top percentile, and no doubt a huge chunk of your gameplay was either farming money for pots, or farming resources for pots. Gee, fun times. Clearly Blizzard are a soulless monster for making WoW a more accessible game, and clearly they're the epitome of evil for adding Immortals and Stalkers to SC2. Some of the points in this post might've sounded a little snarky. Being honest, they were. | ||
|
futoM4ki
Germany73 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:54 BuFFo wrote: Maybe you are okay with substandard quality, but I am not. Substandard quality.... XD Fine, stay with C&C :-P | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On June 08 2010 19:37 killercheebo wrote: and that is how activision is misleading you. they are exploiting SC1 and blizzard's past good reputation into making fans believe that they will improve bnet 0.2, when in fact they won't. After enough units have been sold and money have been squeezed out of SC2, they will simply stop caring And you have what for your baseless assumptions? Have you even played any other Blizz game other than BW? Games have been increasingly supported and updated AFTER Brood War. You have every right to be dissatisfied with their Bnet 2.0 service and not buy the game if you want, but don't spread blatant misinformation because others don't agree with you. | ||
| ||
