|
|
| Page 70 of 179 |
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
 Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 18:56 Post subject: |
|
 |
| m3th0d2008 wrote: | | I give a shit about the game itself but I hope it sells big time. Would be interesting what some specific developers/publishers have to say about PC sales then. |
You mean, that a derp game with no innovation can sell, so by all means, derp your games so they sell well? How is that going to help? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 18:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| royo wrote: | | Don't you have some rockets to shoot? |
The other side shoots rockets at civilians. 
We flatten out residential areas and use children as human shields.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 19:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Can I play patch 17 with a launcher ? (which one? I've been using the zoxc launcher)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 20:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Is this going to be on steam eventually?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr-nix
Posts: 996
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 21:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| chaingang23 wrote: | | Is this going to be on steam eventually? |
Afaik no Blizzard games are available via steam. I doubt it, you should never say never but if you want this one just buy it via battle.net (if you want a digital version)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 21:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| dr-nix wrote: | | chaingang23 wrote: | | Is this going to be on steam eventually? |
Afaik no Blizzard games are available via steam. I doubt it, you should never say never but if you want this one just buy it via battle.net (if you want a digital version) |
Oh okay then ill buy it via there then thanks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 21:13 Post subject: |
|
|
yes i got it from them too also downloaded it today cant wait till the big launch:)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34981
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 22:36 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr-nix
Posts: 996
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 16th Jul 2010 23:18 Post subject: |
|
|
you r forgeting about the map editor.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 09:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| m3th0d2008 wrote: | I just don't get what you're aiming for with your question. Your personal OP about the game doesn't matter for what I said.  |
I am aiming that I do not want PC gaming in the next few years to be associated with StarCraft 2, just as they have been associated with WoW until now.
It has been bad enough so far; now what is going to happen is have all the console producers say that PC gaming is good for MMOs and non-innovative bland strategy games. How does that help you with PC gaming in any meaningful way?
That's what my personal "OP" has to do with what you said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 09:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | m3th0d2008 wrote: | | I just don't get what you're aiming for with your question. Your personal OP about the game doesn't matter for what I said. :roll: |
I am aiming that I do not want PC gaming in the next few years to be associated with StarCraft 2, just as they have been associated with WoW until now. :roll:
It has been bad enough so far; now what is going to happen is have all the console producers say that PC gaming is good for MMOs and non-innovative bland strategy games. How does that help you with PC gaming in any meaningful way?
That's what my personal "OP" has to do with what you said. |
why do you judge the game based solely on the default multiplayer, ignoring the single player campaign which is unlike any other RTS campaign (DoW2 probably comes close in terms of campaign structure) and map editor which will lead to crazy amounts of innovation and variety?
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 12:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Surray wrote: | | why do you judge the game based solely on the default multiplayer, ignoring the single player campaign which is unlike any other RTS campaign (DoW2 probably comes close in terms of campaign structure) and map editor which will lead to crazy amounts of innovation and variety? |
Alright, fair enough. So far I haven't seen much of the single-player, so lets wait and see if it is really as good as you say. 
| ClifftonBeach wrote: | | Sorry if I sound hostile or whatever. You certainly have seniority at this forum. It's just been page after page of you shitting on a game because it isn't what you want it to be. Let it go, it's not going to change. |
This has nothing to do with seniority, I am just expressing my opinion on the game as are you. Others have expressed similar problems with the title, and they have been a lot less time here than me.
And yes, I am pissed this game is going to be presented as the pinnacle of PC gaming. Are you not upset that shit like Twilight is as successful as it is? Since when has has standing silent to mediocrity become the best thing to do? Yeah, OK, lets wait for the single player, which could be a good surprise, and I always admit when I have been wrong. But as you fans like to keep telling, StarCraft is about MP, so it is right to assume that most work went there. And Blizzard, instead of pushing PC gaming forward - god knows they can with the shit loads of money and blind fans that would swallow everything - what do they do? Take us 12 years back to the SAME FUCKING GAME stomping in the same fucking spot!
How am I "shitting" when I post this from a video you find to be AMAZING?
 Spoiler: | |
This is the tiniest of flaws, but it projects on the entire project for me, and it is really a shame. You say I want everything to be like Company of Heroes, but that's not true. Is Dawn of War 2 anything like CoH? And still I love it just as much as I love CoH. Or perhaps you mean that I want the game to be good and have features not seen before just like CoH did at its time (and DoW1 had before it)? Damn right I do! No, I don't want CoH (or DoW2) with StarCraft models put in. I just want a good game.
But no, I am supposed to shut up and stand by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 13:05 Post subject: |
|
|
They could do it that one goes over the other (one unit going UP). A little creativity goes a long way.
You mention Supreme Commander, but look at the scope of the two games, it's no contest.
DoW2 and CoH do have some aspects similar, just like CoH had similar aspects with DoW1, but that doesn't make them exactly the same, or like some have called CoH a "DoW1 in WW2". Faulting game for having similar aspects is like faulting shooters for having to kill people or having to shoot with the LMB. I am not saying make it completely different. I do want a strategy game, but come on... I mean, even Warcraft 3 gameplay seems more interesting than SC2... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 13:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| Surray wrote: | | ...and dow2 is pretty similar to coh in terms of gameplay isn't? I admit I didn't play either game too much but the cover mechanics, victory points and lack of base building seemed almost identical to me. |
There's nothing similar between COH and DOW2, maybe between COH and DOW1. Dow2 separated itself a lot from Dow1 and went more towards rpg. Some like it some don't, but at least they gave it a go and reinvented the 1st game, and it has been a huge success.
Blizzard went with a more conservative approach in order to preserve their huge starcraft fanbase, and i'm sure that they're more than pleased, but those of us that only play for fun and are not trying to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, it just feels too little too late. 12years after and they tweak it a bit and update the graphics, common!!!
Still i'm eager to try the single player, i hope it rocks.
Last edited by Pl@tinum on Sat, 17th Jul 2010 13:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 14:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pl@tinum wrote: | | Surray wrote: | | ...and dow2 is pretty similar to coh in terms of gameplay isn't? I admit I didn't play either game too much but the cover mechanics, victory points and lack of base building seemed almost identical to me. |
There's nothing similar between COH and DOW2, maybe between COH and DOW1. Dow2 separated itself a lot from Dow1 and went more towards rpg. Some like it some don't, but at least they gave it a go and reinvented the 1st game, and it has been a huge success.
Blizzard went with a more conservative approach in order to preserve their huge starcraft fanbase, and i'm sure that they're more than pleased, but those of us that only play for fun and are not trying to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, it just feels too little too late. 12years after and they tweak it a bit and update the graphics, common!!!
Still i'm eager to try the single player, i hope it rocks. |
That, in my opinion, is a pretty narrow-minded way of looking at it, the multiplayer formular works, and it's obvious that they want to maintain this formula to keep the same level of competition.
It's not like you can take Soccer, develop Soccer 2, but then Soccer 2 is more similar to handball, rather than soccer.
I think the Singleplayer version kind of confirms that, they want to give us a better experience rather than 30 maps of skirmish vs. the AI, and they've developed a lot of gameplay functionality to achieve that.
That gameplay functionality, just ruins the Multiplayer part, so it makes sense that they will keep Multiplayer more like Starcraft 1, but in my opinion, still different enough, rather than ruining the game at the cost of the singleplayer campaign or vice versa.
You could've made the same argument for games such as Half-Life 2, but that doesn't make it a bad game.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 15:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Do you have some info on the changes they have made for the SP?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 15:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | Do you have some info on the changes they have made for the SP? |
The singleplayer game has lot more RPG'ish way of working, with persistent upgrades and bonus research you can customize your army.
Then there's of course the whole Hyperion minigame of sorts, in between missions, and then of course the individual scripted missions.
http://us.starcraft2.com/features/gameplay/hyperion.xml
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 16:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| FISKER_Q wrote: | | Pl@tinum wrote: | | Surray wrote: | | ...and dow2 is pretty similar to coh in terms of gameplay isn't? I admit I didn't play either game too much but the cover mechanics, victory points and lack of base building seemed almost identical to me. |
There's nothing similar between COH and DOW2, maybe between COH and DOW1. Dow2 separated itself a lot from Dow1 and went more towards rpg. Some like it some don't, but at least they gave it a go and reinvented the 1st game, and it has been a huge success.
Blizzard went with a more conservative approach in order to preserve their huge starcraft fanbase, and i'm sure that they're more than pleased, but those of us that only play for fun and are not trying to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, it just feels too little too late. 12years after and they tweak it a bit and update the graphics, common!!!
Still i'm eager to try the single player, i hope it rocks. |
That, in my opinion, is a pretty narrow-minded way of looking at it, the multiplayer formular works, and it's obvious that they want to maintain this formula to keep the same level of competition.
It's not like you can take Soccer, develop Soccer 2, but then Soccer 2 is more similar to handball, rather than soccer.
I think the Singleplayer version kind of confirms that, they want to give us a better experience rather than 30 maps of skirmish vs. the AI, and they've developed a lot of gameplay functionality to achieve that.
That gameplay functionality, just ruins the Multiplayer part, so it makes sense that they will keep Multiplayer more like Starcraft 1, but in my opinion, still different enough, rather than ruining the game at the cost of the singleplayer campaign or vice versa.
You could've made the same argument for games such as Half-Life 2, but that doesn't make it a bad game. |
The analogy with soccer doesn't make sense. Soccer has it's predefined rules. You can enhance gameplay, graphics, physics, etc, but you cannot changed it to handball.
Since you brought Half-life into this, did you play the 1st? It's has little to do with second, very little indeed. They only share the genre, which makes sense since they are separated by 6 years.
I cannot judge the singleplayer since so little has been seen and ofc i haven't played it, but i can judge the multiplayer since i did, and it's your typical '90's RTS. They didn't care to evolve it. They could have set a new standard, but they chose to use the same old formula.
If this game was made by another company people would label it as a poor starcaft clone with pretty graphics, that didn't add nothing new to the table.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 16:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pl@tinum wrote: | | The analogy with soccer doesn't make sense. Soccer has it's predefined rules. You can enhance gameplay, graphics, physics, etc, but you cannot changed it to handball. |
Exactly, You can enhance gameplay, graphics, physics, etc. but you cannot change it into something else, Starcraft is and will be Starcraft, that was exactly my point with that analogy, and apparently something you agree with.
| Quote: | | Since you brought Half-life into this, did you play the 1st? It's has little to do with second, very little indeed. They only share the genre, which makes sense since they are separated by 6 years. |
It has little to do with the first game, story-wise, but other than that it actually retains all the key elements, the only thing it really adds is the gravity gun and the vehicle sections.
Games don't have to be entirely different from their predecessors to be a good game.
| Quote: | | I cannot judge the singleplayer since so little has been seen and ofc i haven't played it, but i can judge the multiplayer since i did, and it's your typical '90's RTS. They didn't care to evolve it. They could have set a new standard, but they chose to use the same old formula. |
They did evolve it a bit, again they were quite miniscule changes, especially if you don't play Starcraft obsessively, but i think that plays nice into my Half-Life 2 analogy, they also only have a few new elements in the game, the same can be said for Starcraft 2.
The new macromechanics, and even that they're different from each faction is a pretty huge deal, then there's of course the new units and counters, so like Half-Life 2, it stays very true to the original, but does spice it up a bit with some new stuff.
| Quote: | | If this game was made by another company people would label it as a poor starcaft clone with pretty graphics, that didn't add nothing new to the table. |
Well i don't know if they would label it as a poor clone, but yes you are right, but that would be true because they "stole" the concept, Blizzard didn't steal it, they made it, therefor it is their right to evolve that concept, and just because they kept the same concept doesn't nessecarily mean that it was a poor concept either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 17th Jul 2010 17:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| FISKER_Q wrote: |
Well i don't know if they would label it as a poor clone, but yes you are right, but that would be true because they "stole" the concept, Blizzard didn't steal it, they made it, therefor it is their right to evolve that concept, and just because they kept the same concept doesn't nessecarily mean that it was a poor concept either. |
Actually it was Westwood that created the concept 6 years before Blizzard with Dune II.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 70 of 179 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
