LAN is hardly necessary in this day and age. I really don't get all the gripes about it. People who hate it the most seem to be people who want to play with friends and family who either don't have the game or who aren't on an internet connection, In the first case, that's the idea. You want to play the game, you buy it. As for internet, with all the options available these days I find it hard to believe someone couldn't come to an arrangement.ionveau said:
They don't charge a flat monthly fee. What they do is, you pay for a part of the game, like a subscription, and you can play it for a while without having bought the game. Like a month long demo, but with all the game features. If I recall correctly, once they have paid off as much as the game costs they own the game. It's not like an MMORPG where you buy the game and have to keep paying.
Pretty much your whole post in nonsense. Want to know why people defend this game so much? Because they LIKE IT. Is that a hard concept to grasp? People who talk about blind loyalty are fooling themselves. The first game is beloved to this day. If anything, people would be LESS lenient in their views on this game, what with expectations so high. However, this is the realm of the internet, and that means that when people post saying they like something popular they are automatically fanboys, jumping on the bandwagon, and blind idiots. StarCraft 2 was made for the fans. We didn't want them to radically change the formula. They did what a sequel does, which is take the core mechanics and refine them. It doesn't look like much when you watch, but the UI is MUCH better, menial tasks are smoother (now you can rally minerals and they will mine them when they spawn, for example). It's the little changes they made, along with refining core gameplay, that makes it work so well. If you don't like that, fine. The twitch heavy micro/strategy combo that makes SC what it is isn't for everyone. However, I don't understand why people are getting so upset in here about the game. If you don't like it don't play it. Just because it is not your personal cup of tea doesn't make it bad, it makes it not your type of game. I have never enjoyed a GTA game, but I don't come into GTA topics telling people how bad it is, or how they are mindless sheep for liking it. So please, stop with the pointless attacks in here. You won't convince us of your points, and we won't convince you, so what does it accomplish?
God, why are you STILL harping on about the graphics? And to compare it to a FPS of all things, a game rendered and programmed totally different? You are really starting to reach, here. It's actually kind of funny. I've been willing to read your posts and not say anything, since you simply have a different opinion, but now you are being ridiculous. Strategy games have to have the entire map and everything on it rendered at once, hence why they look worse than other games. FPS games render small amounts of the map at once, hence why they can look so good. And are you arguing STYLE now. Saying that you don't like the style does not make the graphics bad. I will admit, SC2's graphics aren't top of the line. However, they are not bad in the slightest, and it's not worth knocking the game about it.Mazty said:
