What massive DRM? Once you activate you can play the whole Single player side of the game offline (which indeed I have)and the only difference is you won't get achievements. You need to be online to play multiplayer, but that is hardly surprising.ionveau said:
As someone who played both games, I call bullshit on this.ionveau said:
Correction: 1 online account per CD key. You have three offline guest accounts.ionveau said:
Liesionveau said:
Massive DRM? All you need is to make a simple and free account, type in your CD key, login and play. Then all you need to do is have an active internet connection and you can even play the campaign in offline mode once you've logged atleast one time. (Altho achievements would be disabled)ionveau said:
You can play with them just fine - your LAN just has to be connected to the internet. The game handles multiple connections from the same network without any real issues - it's obvious that Blizzard has learned a lot from the networking code behind World of Warcraft. We have had plenty of matches between people in the office here, all connecting through the same (not so great) internet connection with the same external IP.ionveau said:
Actually, once you have the game installed and activate the game by logging in once, the DRM is quite light. The single-player campaign can be played without logging in, without an internet connection (though obviously not tied to games linked to the account), and without a CD key.ionveau said:
That's not DRM. That's whining because they don't support a feature you think you want. You've made your point that you don't like that there's no LAN play. You can stop mentioning it in this thread now - you're on the verge of trolling, and we don't like that here.
Ok, let me explain to you the basic difference between lan and internetCaptain Placeholder said:
Yeah, the campaign was a lot of fun and there are options for playing skirmishes against the A.I. if you'd like to.Zhukov said:
Here's the thing, though - they're both RTSes, and they both have campaigns - how different do you expect each mission to be? Warcraft III's single-player had a lot to do with how well you used the abilities of your heroes, whereas there's only one level (that I've played) in Starcraft II that does this (I've only gone through the campaign once); Starcraft II has the in-between mission hub wherein you buy upgrades and hire mercenaries - something I don't remember having a Warcraft III equivalent. Level for level, anything can look the same, but then again, you can look at every game on earth and say "they're all the same, you push buttons until you win."ionveau said:
I assumed he was right at first, since I didn't play any versus AI matches myself (and didn't play 'offline' either). I doublechecked though and updated my post. The Challenge maps are also available in single-player, and offline mode doesn't require a CD at all.Xocrates said:
Likewise, waiting for the BattleChest. The visuals don't impress me though, and I'd go as far as to call them a bit dated. They do have style though, even if it doesn't resonate with me.DeadlyYellow said:
Haha, what? Copy-pasted from WC3? Son, you best be joking. WC3's mission design is positively archaic compared to SC2.ionveau said:
Sure, No LAN sucks, but I would still buy this game, as this is probably one of the few RTS that I have truly enjoyed, along with the other Blizzard games, Warhammer 40K and Rome Total War.paketep said:
Like the level in WC3 where you have to keep moving your base from a on coming wave of fire or the where race an enemy to see who can hit a resource point the fastest. Or maybe the the one where you chase down enemy transports. Perhaps the one where you gather resources while dodging rising and falling tides of lava. Thoughs were all in WC3 right?ionveau said:
