|
On January 24 2012 10:23 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:22 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:20 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:13 DyEnasTy wrote:On January 24 2012 10:10 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:00 Hyde wrote:On January 24 2012 09:27 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 09:25 Elefanto wrote:On January 24 2012 09:23 supernovamaniac wrote:
[quote]
True/false aside, this is the worse timing to start a new league based on proleague schedule.
Also, what really questions me is that 3 B-Teamers from KT quit recently, while they could have gone for SC2 if this was indeed happening so soon. Thought anyppi was considering it? I just edited my thread, but those three leaving means that KeSPA won't get involved with SC2 in Feb at the earliest, because there's no reason for person like anyppi leaving KT if the switch was happening so soon. On January 24 2012 09:26 JMave wrote:
in all honesty, i think moving to sc2 is not a bad idea. as much as i love bw, we cannot deny that it is on the decline. let's face it. they are pro-gamers to make a living for themselves and their families so why not go to where the money is. In Korea, BW has more money than SC2. More edits: Let me elaborate on that. BW players have solid salary coming from major Korean corporations based on their rank and past performance, and they can live off their salary + incentive + OSL wins and whatsoever. SC2, on the other hand, does not have as much money funded by their sponsors, and the salary, if there is one, is really low. Is there any indication that sponsors are going to pull funding and disband their teams if Kespa does switch to SC2? (legit question) It's just that I see things being the same if PL does make a full switch. When I say the same, I mean that the teams are still sponsored and they still get the salaries + incentives, and also whatever individual leagues exists at that point. So if BW disappears, everything would just shift towards SC2? This is all "if" there is a full switch happening, just curious. On January 24 2012 09:12 Lightwip wrote:
I'm gone if BW goes. I have no interest in SC2. I understand how you feel, I'm in the same boat. BW dies, and I might stop going on TL as often as I do altogether. I'm sorry to say this, but BW's the only reason I'm really still on TL at all. unfortunately we are a dying breed and the minority. Even still, I think that there's something to be said about the fact that we still support BW even though other RTS games have come out and tried to dethrone it. Remember WC3? I barely do. Warhammer RTS (can we even call them that..?)? Not a huge eSport (fun fun fun fun fun. Don't get me wrong, fans), is it? Remember that those of us who really care about BW will be gone, but at least TL can focus on eSports with or without us, and I think that's important. Then again, Blizzard tried to shove eSports down everyone's throat once SC2 came out, instead of letting the community grow first. I'm willing to believe ('cuz I'm deluded like that) that it was more of Blizzard (like you're saying) rather than the game itself. Making a game? Fine. Putting effort into making a game which has a very famous first installment? Faaaair enough. But designing the game so that it can try to support world-class entertainment right off the bat? Seems a little pretentious, or is it just me?
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
@FXOpeneSports FXOpen e-Sports Am a bit sad. The mentioned players in my blog from BW were going to join TSL....  20 Jan via web
http://twitter.com/#!/FXOpeneSports/status/160244968387129344[/QUOTE]
If anything, ex-MBCHero
|
That is a terrible way to start a thread in this section. -__-
What an ignorant thing to say.
I've already read it and I follow both games.
There is no need for more speculation and this subject is really starting to get redundant.
Chae and Nestea provided a few nuggets, but nothing to make my eyes widen. It's just more of the same.
In other words, wait until business picks up and official statements.
|
On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero
Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general).
|
On January 24 2012 10:29 StarStruck wrote:That is a terrible way to start a thread in this section. -__- What an ignorant thing to say.
idk, he's probably right. I rarely click on the SC2 boards
|
On January 24 2012 10:32 Ikonn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:29 StarStruck wrote:That is a terrible way to start a thread in this section. -__- What an ignorant thing to say. idk, he's probably right. I rarely click on the SC2 boards
i think its safe to say most of us hides the SC2 bars
but i agree thats not a good way to start hte thread
|
On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general).
In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer.
In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues).
If you're going to make a game for and only for multiplayer (tbh that's what SC2 felt like to me; I just didn't find singleplayer that enjoyable and I didn't find that much support for it either), either take LoL approach at the game (free to play but costs more for extra) or sell it off cheaper (CS series for example). In this case, less $$$ would work.
|
On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues).
My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so.
|
On January 24 2012 09:12 Lightwip wrote:
I'm gone if BW goes. I have no interest in SC2.
Same here. Ironically it was SC2 that brought me into BW progaming...
|
On January 24 2012 10:37 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues). My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so.
Pretty much. Everything was shallow and really easy to follow. To be honest, they probably wanted to make more money off the franchise through eSports, so they made the new game. Then again, I might be the only one hating on the shallowness of SC2 singleplayer storyline and character development.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong here, I play BW and SC2, and support both scenes to some extent.
|
On January 24 2012 10:40 supernovamaniac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues). My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so. Pretty much. Everything was shallow and really easy to follow. To be honest, they probably wanted to make more money off the franchise through eSports, so they made the new game. Then again, I might be the only one hating on the shallowness of SC2 singleplayer storyline and character development.
Biggest disappointment? Mine was the artifact just HAPPENING TO BE AWESOME. That just killed it right there. Tassadar's ghost-thing also annoyed me. I spend days when I first beat the campaign finding a way to take it out and now Blizzard slaps me in the face. D-, Blizzard.
|
On January 24 2012 10:41 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:40 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues). My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so. Pretty much. Everything was shallow and really easy to follow. To be honest, they probably wanted to make more money off the franchise through eSports, so they made the new game. Then again, I might be the only one hating on the shallowness of SC2 singleplayer storyline and character development. Biggest disappointment? Mine was the artifact just HAPPENING TO BE AWESOME. That just killed it right there. Tassadar's ghost-thing also annoyed me. I spend days when I first beat the campaign finding a way to take it out and now Blizzard slaps me in the face. D-, Blizzard.
I don't know anything about SC II but did you just say Tassadar's ghost?!
|
10387 Posts
I'm fairly certain Bisu has said that if there's a switch to SC2, he'll go to the military first and let the scene/game develop. It's one of those older interviews though, so I won't be able to dig it up ..
|
I've been following SC and stalking TL since around 2006, so while I'm not an old guard like some of you guys and I am a fan of both BW and SC2, please don't disregard my comment. I think it's a natural progression that the BW teams eventually switch to SC2. I expected it to happen in 2 years, but they seem to really be hustling things. Kespa apparently sees it's the right time to go with what's new, so, so be it. Starcraft is Starcraft to me. In any case, I'll be happy to see Taek Yong kick ass in SC2  .
In Korea, BW has more money than SC2.
Is is necessary to say this? BW is practically a national sport there, probably the most popular after soccer and.. what else? Of course it has more money than SC2 in Korea, which is very, very tiny in comparison. I thought this was common knowledge :S.
|
On January 24 2012 10:47 Taekwon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:41 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:40 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues). My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so. Pretty much. Everything was shallow and really easy to follow. To be honest, they probably wanted to make more money off the franchise through eSports, so they made the new game. Then again, I might be the only one hating on the shallowness of SC2 singleplayer storyline and character development. Biggest disappointment? Mine was the artifact just HAPPENING TO BE AWESOME. That just killed it right there. Tassadar's ghost-thing also annoyed me. I spend days when I first beat the campaign finding a way to take it out and now Blizzard slaps me in the face. D-, Blizzard. I don't know anything about SC II but did you just say Tassadar's ghost?!
I wish I was kidding. I almost cried. Ready to kill.
|
On January 24 2012 09:18 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:13 Taekwon wrote:On January 24 2012 08:09 Woony wrote:On January 24 2012 08:05 Taekwon wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 Luepert wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Taekwon wrote:On January 24 2012 07:47 Luepert wrote:
If Nestea (zergbong) leaves IM for a BW team I'm gunna be so friggin pissed.
As long my precious SC2 players stay in the Sc2 scene and there continues to be GSTL and GSL, I am happy You read wrong. BW teams would never be interested in SC II players. "Zergbong, the current best zerg in SC2, has received offers from KeSPA teams as well" Zergbong mentions that KeSPA teams are interested in the lowest rung of sc2 talent" If they are going to try to compete in the sc2 proleague, and maybe in gom events they may need some sc2 players... Kespa team =/= BW team. Your "precious SC2 players [will] stay in the Sc2 scene and there [will] be GSTL and GSL" BW teams would never be interested in SC II players. What do you mean by Kespa team =/= BW team? It's not like he will get an offer by a cartrider team or something lol. And I think Zergbong was a coach for KT for a long time? So it doesn't seem too far stretched that they would give him an offer. Sigh. I can't believe I have to clean this up for you. original poster thought zergbong was going to be taken away from sc II and dragged into bw. my first reply was misconstrued as "Kespa would never want to pick up Zergbong". This is the same assumption you're making. I clarified with 2nd reply: Kespa is an eSports organization that wants to make a sc 2 team supposedly and ergo offered him a position on the sc 2 team. original poster therefore does not need to feel any sadness becuz "precious SC2 players [will] stay in the Sc2 scene and there [will] be GSTL and GSL". But kespa or any bw team would never want to pick up bong to play Brood War. The original assumption of the original poster. BW teams would never be interested in SC II players. mkay? I may be mistaken but my original impression of the situation was that BW teams (I thought they were kespa teams, still not 100% sure the distinction) were going to be fielding sc2 teams in addition to their BW squads. I was under the impression that some of these team were already practicing s2 and were planning on picking up some low tier players to augment their sc2 squads. When I read the thing about ZergBong I though they meant they would recruit to one of the Kespa team (I thought those were too 8 current brood war teams) to be part of their sc2 squad, NOT to play broodwar, to play sc2. You comment, "B team would never be interested in SC II players" didn't make sense to me because I was and still am under the impression that the team we now consider "BW team" will also start playing sc2, thus those teams would be interested in sc2. My issue with ZergBong leaving IM to a Kespa team is that I am an incredible Miracle fanboy and would hate to see them lose their best zerg. Feel free to correct me on anything, I'm really confused.
He wanted to make a smartass comment and in his fervor failed in reading comprehension is all.
|
I don't understand why sc2 fans just watch some BW games, honestly there is no reason not to because its just so entertaining to watch AND its free for the top level play.
|
On January 24 2012 10:57 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:47 Taekwon wrote:On January 24 2012 10:41 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:40 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues). My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so. Pretty much. Everything was shallow and really easy to follow. To be honest, they probably wanted to make more money off the franchise through eSports, so they made the new game. Then again, I might be the only one hating on the shallowness of SC2 singleplayer storyline and character development. Biggest disappointment? Mine was the artifact just HAPPENING TO BE AWESOME. That just killed it right there. Tassadar's ghost-thing also annoyed me. I spend days when I first beat the campaign finding a way to take it out and now Blizzard slaps me in the face. D-, Blizzard. I don't know anything about SC II but did you just say Tassadar's ghost?! I wish I was kidding. I almost cried. Ready to kill.
Is it bad to say I only bought SC2 originally for the story, having not watched a game of BW for six years?
|
On January 24 2012 11:03 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:57 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:47 Taekwon wrote:On January 24 2012 10:41 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:40 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:35 supernovamaniac wrote:On January 24 2012 10:30 IntoTheheart wrote:On January 24 2012 10:26 supernovamaniac wrote:
I did edit the first post so there's the non-game perspective, but essentially that's how I felt the game was made. Right off the bat they were talking about tournaments of this 'great and upcoming sequel to the greatest eSports title of our time, BW' rather than reinventing the game itself. As soon as it came out, there were updates to balance the game a little more, while adding pretty much nothing to the singleplayer experience.
If anything, ex-MBCHero Out of curiosity, do you feel that games need to be able to stand on their singleplayer? I certainly do (but then again, I'm really focused on singleplayer in general). In my honest opinion, the singleplayer aspect of any given game should be as good as the multiplayer experience, as long as the game both supports singleplayer and multiplayer. In recent times, the development of Internet just boomed the multiplayer scene, and that's why we have everyone bitching about the balance online or how some gun is overpowered as soon as the game gets released. It feels like noone plays the singleplayers anymore. I, on one hand, enjoyed the MW3 singleplayer and play the multiplayer whenever I want to play some mindless shooting games. On the other hand, I quit SC2 singleplayer campaign after playing about 6~7 of them because it felt too dull and repetitive (this is, of course, without the balance/UI issues). My other issue with the SC2 campaign were the characters. Extremely one-dimensional and uninspiring (except for Zeratul and Findley). The Deus Ex Machina which was the Artifact robbed Blizzard of any way to make the character of Raynor expand. I mean, the box blurb told me more about him than the game itself. Is that sad? I think so. Pretty much. Everything was shallow and really easy to follow. To be honest, they probably wanted to make more money off the franchise through eSports, so they made the new game. Then again, I might be the only one hating on the shallowness of SC2 singleplayer storyline and character development. Biggest disappointment? Mine was the artifact just HAPPENING TO BE AWESOME. That just killed it right there. Tassadar's ghost-thing also annoyed me. I spend days when I first beat the campaign finding a way to take it out and now Blizzard slaps me in the face. D-, Blizzard. I don't know anything about SC II but did you just say Tassadar's ghost?! I wish I was kidding. I almost cried. Ready to kill. Is it bad to say I only bought SC2 originally for the story, having not watched a game of BW for six years?
I can't insult you since I wanted it for the same reason.
|
On January 24 2012 11:02 poopman wrote:
I don't understand why sc2 fans just watch some BW games, honestly there is no reason not to because its just so entertaining to watch AND its free for the top level play.
Problem is that most people think
Good graphic = Good game
Also, they are more graphic "whores"
They cant watch low resolution awesome gameplays...
|
But brood war looks so "clean"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
