| Page 26 of 179 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 6th Aug 2009 04:06 Post subject: |
|
 |
If i understand that "statement" blizzard gave right, they postponed it due to the new battlenet.
So the game is prolly gonna get some more months of polishing due to it. But i dont like that they'll "fix" it until middle 2010... Just feels like another possible delay at that point. Besides... the beta has to include that battlenet... So dunno, doesnt feel like the release date is near at all. Probably Xmas 2010. *shrug*
I would wait for blizzcon tho now 21st and 22nd august. They are bound to announce more release details then imo.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Aug 2009 04:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dm242 wrote: | If i understand that "statement" blizzard gave right, they postponed it due to the new battlenet.
So the game is prolly gonna get some more months of polishing due to it. But i dont like that they'll "fix" it until middle 2010... Just feels like another possible delay at that point. Besides... the beta has to include that battlenet... So dunno, doesnt feel like the release date is near at all. Probably Xmas 2010. *shrug*
I would wait for blizzcon tho now 21st and 22nd august. They are bound to announce more release details then imo. |
First half 2010 ... that could be anywhere from january 1st to june 30th ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Aug 2009 04:26 Post subject: |
|
|
They should just put this game on indefinite hold and get Diablo 3 out by Christmas.
Gustave the Steel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohen
Posts: 7155
Location: Rapture
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Aug 2009 05:45 Post subject: |
|
|
it should be common knowledge now that the best game developers never set a final release date until they are certain. Blizzard is a shining example of game development with care. They dont just released unfinished, unpolished pieces of shit and patch it every 3 weeks a'la EA.
troll detected by SiN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Aug 2009 15:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dm242 wrote: | Dunno if i can agree with you there..
WoTLK was crap, little content and little updates to improve it. Was rushed out to keep people from switching over to Warhammer imo. Even after it was out it wasnt really well kept. It has gone way too streamlined. From vanilla wow where epic was epic to a expansion where "everybody" is able to see content and get epics. The "hard" part are suppose to be the achievements atm.
Not sure about PVP, was more into PVE but hear that PVP wasnt that good either 2-3 weeks ago when I decided to quit  |
who cares about that ...
Blizzard has more than one department lulz. None of the guys working at WOW has anything to do with D3 or SC2.
And oh gosh, people crying about a mmo, you've to be the first one to do so.
And imho, wotlk, with all the flaws you want (and surely can) find, it still surpasses every other mmo out there in terms of being polished and more or less bug free. Hell, i enjoyed the pve content in wotlk, More than i enjoyed the pve in classic and bc of wow ....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 13:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| AKofC wrote: | | They should just put this game on indefinite hold and get Diablo 3 out by Christmas. |
never i tell you, never. SC2 must be released before Diablo 3.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 13:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| wgem wrote: | | it should be common knowledge now that the best game developers never set a final release date until they are certain. Blizzard is a shining example of game development with care. They dont just released unfinished, unpolished pieces of shit and patch it every 3 months, if at all a'la EA. |
Fixed that for you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 20:14 Post subject: |
|
|
they would not be the only ones..... 
it's very unlikely they will cancel it. but i still hope they know they can earn a lot more money (cos it's all money related afterall) with SC2 than with Diablo 3 (which will be boring, imo)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 20:15 Post subject: |
|
|
they'll make as much money with d3 as with sc2, you can bet on that lol.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 20:17 Post subject: |
|
|
well, you could be right. but since i am an rts fan and i really don't like rpgs (played Diablo 2 only one time when i was unable to play Q3 because of a broken arm) i still hope they will release SC2 before D3.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 20:25 Post subject: |
|
|
pretty sure they will. They didnt even showed all of the classes yet in d3 hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 22:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sin317 wrote: | | pretty sure they will. They didnt even showed all of the classes yet in d3 hehe |
Doesn't mean they aren't all done, already. It's just good thinking to reveal them one at a time, spikes the hype up every time.
They'll probably reveal just one in this year's Blizzcon and leave the last class secret until close to the actual release.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Aug 2009 22:18 Post subject: |
|
|
well they revealed 3 so far, and last time is quite some time ago. Dunno what they've been doing since lol
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34994
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon, 17th Aug 2009 10:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 13:04 Post subject: |
|
|
ShackNews has conducted an extensive four-page interview with Starcraft 2 lead producer Chris Sigaty. Topics include the new challenge mode, the editor, the upcoming expansions, and why it's taken so long for StarCraft II to hit shelves. Here's a bit:
Shack: There was a pretty strong reaction to the news that there will be no LAN support in StarCraft II. Were you expecting that?
Chris Sigaty: Yeah, I think any time that people hear news like that, they're going to be upset, or some people will be certainly. The really hard thing about is the primary reason we made it--and it's a tough decision--are some of the things we intend to do with Battle.net. And really a sense of being connected all the time, and whether you are a competitive player or a casual player--we're adding things in there that try and enhance that experience by being connected. So that's really the primary driver behind it, but we can't show that driver, so I think people are reacting to that in the way they will, and they don't have any information.
Shack: Like, perhaps, seeing a rainbow in a screenshot, and then..
Chris Sigaty: Precisely. So I think ultimately, it's going to be a great experience. We're really concerned--of course, it's our bread and butter, is a good, connected, fun multiplayer game. Playing with low latency, and having an experience where you're not complaining about the connection. I know people are saying, "But I do it this way now." There's things that we're going to try to do that if you are close to one another, you get the best connection possible. So we're going to try to alleviate all of people's concerns, but until people play it and see it, I think they'll just react to what they see on paper. I mean, we've gone through a lot of this so far on the project. Even things as much as us saying we're going to add unlimited selection to the game was met with all sorts of various crazy reactions, even on our own team. It's funny, thinking about the unlimited selection argument--that's still ongoing, although I think it's going to turn out to be just fine. But unlimited selection, originally that was a huge deal, and on our team as well. And one of the guys on our team recently went back and was playing original StarCraft some more, and he said, "Wow, I don't know why I ever pitched a fit, because I can barely go back and think of the older interface in that way." [laughs]
Shack: EA just announced Command and Conquer 4, which will require all players to be constantly connected online, even in singleplayer. Have you considered something similar for StarCraft II?
Chris Sigaty: Well, there's a couple things. You will need to connect once for sure, to basically authenticate the game. And then you can choose to play "offline," we're calling it. But playing offline is more limited. There's a bunch of achievements and that sort of stuff, and that stuff does not happen when you're offline. So it's really to your advantage to be connected.
Shack: But you're not requiring it.
Chris Sigaty: Not for singleplayer. And I think that's also true--singleplayer and challenges. Which you probably saw the button for it, but didn't know anything about it--challenges is another area you can go to. Challenges are something we're trying. We always hear people say, "You look at singleplayer as the training ground for multiplayer, right?" And we don't really.
And in fact here we're kind of training you all wrong, because you can have any unit depending on what missions you went through, and there are units that aren't in multiplayer at all, like Firebats, Medics, all sorts of stuff. We kind of created challenges out of this, and our concept behind challenges is to train you at some of the things that are important to a good competitive player, to be at least aware of. They're little minigames that teach you about things like economy, how to maximize getting resources, unit countering, control grouping, micro, spell usage, all sorts of things like that. Those two things are available when you're offline.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b0se
Banned
Posts: 5901
Location: Rapture
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 13:19 Post subject: |
|
|
i sense fail in this game
[spoiler][quote="SteamDRM"]i've bought mohw :derp: / FPS of the year! [/quote]
[quote="SteamDRM"][quote="b0se"]BLACK OPS GOTY[/quote]
No.[/quote][/spoiler]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 13:25 Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, i don't care what's in Battle.net, the reason why i think LAN should be included has nothing to do with the features of Battle.net, it's simply just a matter of being able to play the game in multiplayer if you're unfortunate enough to not have a usable internet connection for Battle.net where you are.
But given the fact that they're also going to do a one-time activation over the internet, just goes to show that they actions speak differently from their words, if no LAN support and internet activation hasn't got anything to do with Piracy, then they're just putting in useless copy protection for no benefit at all.
Also comparing it to C&C4 isn't fair at all, because atleast C&C4 is a persistent world, singleplayer doesn't work without internet support.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tnisa8
Posts: 113
Location: ASEXUALLY REPRODUCTIVE ORGANISM
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 16:39 Post subject: |
|
|
the thing here that pisses me off
is the singleplayer campaign bullshit they are doing
the first game will have all the units but you get only Terra campaign for 60$
then Protos another 60$
and last Zerg 60$
thats 180$ for a game that should have those 3 campaign right from the start
and now they are doing the SECUROM 7 shit
they lost me here
ahoy piracy fuck them
SINGLE-CELLED ASEXUALLY REPRODUCTIVE ORGANISMS RULE.
I agree. It's no big deal. Animal, mineral or vegetable; I'll DO anything TO anything.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34994
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 16:41 Post subject: |
|
|
I added in a article in my above previews from Shacknews that mentions their pricing details, still no word on the actual price for each "chapter" though I'll doubt it's going to be 60 USD/60 Euro
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 17:05 Post subject: |
|
|
They certainly pulled something dumb saying the game would come in 3 parts, and then not bothering to mention the actual price.
Should've released it without saying shit, and then tacked on the expansions like you usually would.
I guess they were trying to avoid magazines whining about 'only one race' campaign setting.
Instead they've just blown away their own crediibility. Mags would've given it a 9.0 or would have been defaced by users anyway.
Last edited by jermore on Tue, 18th Aug 2009 17:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 17:13 Post subject: |
|
|
each campaign is gonna be huge from what i heard, like 30 missions for each race. So i am more then willing to pay the extra for each game as long as they deliver a good solid experiance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 17:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| tnisa8 wrote: | the thing here that pisses me off
is the singleplayer campaign bullshit they are doing
the first game will have all the units but you get only Terra campaign for 60$
then Protos another 60$
and last Zerg 60$
thats 180$ for a game that should have those 3 campaign right from the start
and now they are doing the SECUROM 7 shit
they lost me here
ahoy piracy fuck them |
Each campaign is bigger then the complete SC1 campaign... each campaign is the size of full game.
So you want a game that is 3 times bigger than normal games and you only want to pay the normal price?
hm... i would like this too.. but i understand the reason why each campaign costs 60$...
And WHO said, that the following campaigns are going to cost 60$ too?
i think the following campaigns will have the price of the normal addons from blizzard. So about 40-45$
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Aug 2009 17:43 Post subject: |
|
|
There were around 30 missions in the original SC. There will be 26 missions in SC2: Wings of Liberty.
plus if you read the single player impressions there will be more things to do between missions as well as branching mission lines (but with the same story ending at the last few missions I think, to keep the story consistent). so you'll probably rack up more playing time than the original sc.
there are things to complain about for SC2, the fact that they separated each race campaigns really shouldn't be one of them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Aug 2009 04:01 Post subject: |
|
|
it would be great if they release a cheaper "bnet edition" of the expansions without the solo missions .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Aug 2009 05:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| Master wrote: | | it would be great if they release a cheaper "bnet edition" of the expansions without the solo missions . |
That'd mean those versions would have to be cheaper, and multiplayer-focused people would get that instead of the "full" version. Not good for business.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Aug 2009 05:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Master wrote: | | it would be great if they release a cheaper "bnet edition" of the expansions without the solo missions . |
they said they will price it accordingly depending on the amount of content they add.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karmeck
Posts: 3348
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 22nd Aug 2009 01:29 Post subject: |
|
|
If you cheat at starcraft 2 and get caught and banned you have to buy a new copy to play the game again.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 26 of 179 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
