StarCraft 2 Officially Delayed

[Satin6T]

I hate to say this but I think I need to go cry now...
I require a mothership and a terratron

 

[Satin6T]

No surprises here.

Will Blizzard never EVER stop delaying their products? They've been doing this for an absurdly long time now.

Call me a Blizzard fanboy all you want, but they still have yet to put out a bad game.

I dunno, I didn't think this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_Task_Force_(video_game)] was too impressive.

Hahaha oh jeez, I guess I forgot about the small titles. I actually had Starcraft / Warcraft / Diablo in mind when I posted.

I refuse to believe that that is a bad game, it is fact made by blizzard

 

[aquailiz]

They require additional pylons.

loool

 

[aquailiz]

Perhaps with all this extra time to think, they might consider adding in some functionality to the game. You know, LAN play.

Sigh, I'm still not getting this if there's no LAN play. Seriously.

LAN play should be included back seriuosly.

 

[Emphraim]

Although I'm sure any word against the holy Blizzard is bound to attract the slings and arrows of the masses, I have to say that I don't particularly care for StarCraft 2 at all.

StarCraft 2, in everything I've seen of it, is basically just the original StarCraft gone 3D with a few extra features.

The problem is that the RTS genre, by and large, has cloned itself to death. I'm bored sick of the entire genre. If I ever get interested in it again, I've already got Supreme
Commander - I can't see StarCraft 2 introducing enough for me to be worth $50.

Have you ever played Company of Heroes? It is seriously one of the most mind-blowingly unique games I have ever played. The multiplayer in that RTS is second only to Starcraft.

 

[geldonyetich]

Have you ever played Company of Heroes? It is seriously one of the most mind-blowingly unique games I have ever played. The multiplayer in that RTS is second only to Starcraft.

I've had it available, and I hear it's really good, but I'm so burnt from RTS that I never bothered to try.

 

[Emphraim]

Have you ever played Company of Heroes? It is seriously one of the most mind-blowingly unique games I have ever played. The multiplayer in that RTS is second only to Starcraft.

I've had it available, and I hear it's really good, but I'm so burnt from RTS that I never bothered to try.

I think you would enjoy it. It does away with most of the trappings of traditional RTS games. You don't have to worry about hordes of villagers getting resources. Instead, resources are gained by capturing points on the map, so resources are dynamic and you actually have to guard your flanks.

Unlike starcraft or the C&C series(which I loathe) tactics are actually more important than your commands per minute.(Such a shock for my korean friend who thought he could own in Company of Heroes just cause he could click 200 times a second in Starcraft. And besides all this, one of the awesomest things in Company of Heroes is that it actually has a dynamic environment( so when you shell a place to hell, there will be craters there, which can provide cover for your men), the lack of which ruined for me the experience of most other RTS games.

 

[geldonyetich]

Have you ever played Company of Heroes? It is seriously one of the most mind-blowingly unique games I have ever played. The multiplayer in that RTS is second only to Starcraft.

I've had it available, and I hear it's really good, but I'm so burnt from RTS that I never bothered to try.

I think you would enjoy it. It does away with most of the trappings of traditional RTS games. You don't have to worry about hordes of villagers getting resources. Instead, resources are gained by capturing points on the map, so resources are dynamic and you actually have to guard your flanks.

Unlike starcraft or the C&C series(which I loathe) tactics are actually more important than your commands per minute.(Such a shock for my korean friend who thought he could own in Company of Heroes just cause he could click 200 times a second in Starcraft. And besides all this, one of the awesomest things in Company of Heroes is that it actually has a dynamic environment( so when you shell a place to hell, there will be craters there, which can provide cover for your men), the lack of which ruined for me the experience of most other RTS games.

Hmm, sounds interesting. I'll add it to my list of games to play.

 

[Thurmer]

I'm officially not surprised I mean its Blizz so theyre going to keep pushing it back till they think its ready, its probably why they're as good as they are, attention to detail and not rushing it out.

 

[neosonichdghg]

I never really got the idea of early-announced release dates. Experience has shown that they're pretty much never accurate. It's not really surprising, either. Release dates are generally based on ideal or near-ideal predictions, without anywhere near enough compensation for unforeseen delays.

Doesn't this just boil down to "You can't give us your money yet", anyway? It seems a bit silly to get upset. Although, I have to admit, this is much more level-headed than on-line reactions to such things tend to be.

 

[SonofSeth]

Blogs suck!

 

[messy]

For a game who's tagline is "hell, it's about time" it seems to be worryingly taking that phrase to heart

 

[John Funk]

I'm not surprised, given that you seem to persist in thinking it was supposed to come out before it was ever announced

That, and every bit of news about the game is bad news. Delay, delay, delay, game split into pieces like the Triforce of Power, delay, delay, April Fools prank, delay...

...what "Delay, Delay, Delay"? This is the first official announcement of it being delayed. Everything else was people predicting it would be delayed, or the beta not starting when people were guessing.

 

[matt87_50]

"its about time" seriously?? they must be using Microsoft minutes...
should be
"its almost time,
its time will come when it is ready,
its nearly time,
oh wait, it will be time after we actually test it,
Christmas is about the time,
wait we just need more Time to update battle net to spam you with more ads, and also make it better for private games cause we didn't do lan, sure we could use the TIME just putting in LAN but WHO THE FUCK WANTS THAT!,
then it should be about time...".

I remain fairly confident that diablo 3 will come out first...

oh, does it not say? at Toms hardware it says its because they "haven't finished work on battle.net yet"

- saying "thats good, it means they are working on the network code for less lag" is wrong, battle net doesn't have anything to do with the network system, also they got it working in SC one when everyone was on dial up, so whats so hard about getting BASICALLY THE SAME THING working now?

regarding the LAN argument:

- saying that "all LANs have net now" is wrong, you will just have to trust me on this, this is based on some of my very recent experiences, its also irrelevant, the problem is it DOESN'T NEED net access, in fact, given the reason for the delay, it seems they are going out of there way to make sure that you HAVE to have net access. if you are already making internet networking, its very easy to tac on LAN, its EXACTLY the same except for the initialization of the connection, what i'm basically saying is; they seem to be putting more effort into NOT having LAN than they would ever have to put into just adding LAN. there are only two reasons they are doing it: as a form of DRM and so you all see their ads.

- saying that "everyone who is bitching about LAN is a pirate" is wrong, firstly for the above mentioned reason it hinders legitimate buyers as well, and secondly because it doesn't stop pirates, at a LAN all you would need is a custom DNS/DHCP (what ever translates web addresses into ip addresses) and then a web server running a hacked emulation of battle.net, this requires no mod to the game at all.

- saying "then don't buy it, no one is forcing you to" is wrong. imagine the squeal to your favourite game ever was announced, imagine it turned out to be better than you could ever hope, but then imagine that there was this little technical thing in it that was so irritating that it put you off buying it, Now tell me you wouldn't be at least a bit pissed off!
I could also tell you about marketing, about user expectations - functionallity expected due to a previous similar product having it...

I'm not in any way angry that its delayed, seriously, saying "a blizzard product has been delayed" is like 'revealing' that a new Apple product "won't be cheap". its pretty much a given. and they've always said it will be ready when its done, or done when it is ready...

I am angry about the reason, I've never used battle net, never needed it, and I wouldn't need it in the new game, IF THEY WEREN'T FORCING US TO USE IT!

thanks for letting me vent, I promise i will never mention anything about this game ever again

 

[DonPandon]

Perhaps with all this extra time to think, they might consider adding in some functionality to the game. You know, LAN play.

Sigh, I'm still not getting this if there's no LAN play. Seriously.

I believe that, when I used to play starcraft , it had some "complicated" LAN options that included connections with the old 54k modem oO...

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Good, I would rather a company hold off and release a really excellent product than release an uncompleted buggy piece of shit like so many others.

 

[Kiutu]

Now, StarCraft 2, what is your reason for this delay?
"Well, everyone else was doing it, I just wanna fit in"

 

[crooked_ferret]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me, and I don't believe it should to any informed gamer. I mean we are talking about blizzard here...