StarCraft II Has a Release Date At Last: July 27th
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Damn silver league! My placement matches landed me there, now I get a vicious beat-down every match. All because some dude's game crashed while he was loading the map, giving me a win I shouldn't have had.Internet Kraken said:
I even think I won exactly as many matches as my flatmate, yet he ended up in copper league, how the hell does it calculate where to put you?
I believe it's based on your number of wins and who you were playing against when you got these wins. So if you beat a platinum player, that's going to place you higher up than beating a copper player. Or something like that. It could be worse for you though. Some guys got lucky and won all 5 placement matches, putting then in platinum league when they have bronze level skills.SultanP said:
Ah, right, I've heard of those poor sods. I can hardly be bothered playing any more since I'm almost certain to get my ass handed to me. Might just load up some matches and let people win to get a lower rank.Internet Kraken said:
Or maybe I should grow some balls and actually try and win. Tough call.
Well there should be a patch coming up soon that will reset all the ladder, so you could wait for that to redo your placement matches. I understand not wanting to play if you keep on losing. It's hard to motivate yourself to play when you keep getting stomped. And while losing does teach you more than winning, it's certainly not nearly as fun.SultanP said:
Place your bets! Place your bets!
How many folks are gonna die from playing SC2 nonstop? This is kind of a sub-bet but, how many Koreans are we gonna lose to this gem?
How many folks are gonna die from playing SC2 nonstop? This is kind of a sub-bet but, how many Koreans are we gonna lose to this gem?
To put it simply, Having Starcraft II with that level of graphics throughout the entire game would melt all but the highest end gaming rigs. and would cost tons more money and likely add another decade onto the development time of SC2, given it's Blizzard, and I'd rather have my balanced, well oiled tightly fashioned and polished to a mirror shine games from Blizzard than shiny broken ones any day of the week.Nimbus said:
I feel exactly the same way. For some reason it was never anywhere near as fun as Warcraft, Age of Empires or Command and Conquer. The single player never dragged me in, so when it came to multiplayer with friends, I never had enough experience to know what I was doing.Plinglebob said:
That's exactly my point. Graphics have slowly been improving over the years, which in turn has pushed forward the improvement of hardware, which in turn has allowed graphics to improve even more, not to mention the ease with which great looking games are created is improved with each new cycle. Gradual improvement via iteration is what has allowed graphics to improve to this point, and it is what will eventually allow games to look like THAT!elvor0 said:
Bah!
One game at thrice the price! Humbug! And don't give me this "too big for 1 package release" argument, it's too frail to stand on it's own legs, sort of like how they tried justifying LAN removal. World of Warcraft was huge, GTA SA was huge, so many huge games out there and they don't split it into pieces to charge their customer base more for the rest of the game. Why? Because they're not as crooked, and ultimately that's what it's about. They're doing it for the money. It's why Stephen King admitted they split The Green Mile into parts rather than releasing the whole thing. Blizz is ding it because they know they can with this ip, and buying it sets up the precedent for more of this in the future.
I don't doubt they have a hit on their hands, but then I've seen people shell out bucks for Xbox 360 Avatar junk, so money well spent is clearly relative to the consumer.
One game at thrice the price! Humbug! And don't give me this "too big for 1 package release" argument, it's too frail to stand on it's own legs, sort of like how they tried justifying LAN removal. World of Warcraft was huge, GTA SA was huge, so many huge games out there and they don't split it into pieces to charge their customer base more for the rest of the game. Why? Because they're not as crooked, and ultimately that's what it's about. They're doing it for the money. It's why Stephen King admitted they split The Green Mile into parts rather than releasing the whole thing. Blizz is ding it because they know they can with this ip, and buying it sets up the precedent for more of this in the future.
I don't doubt they have a hit on their hands, but then I've seen people shell out bucks for Xbox 360 Avatar junk, so money well spent is clearly relative to the consumer.
hmm it seems my StarCraft friends are having mixed views about the beta
some are like oh it feels different but it's amazing, and another called the change of things a factor that renders it broken
I wouldn't know haha but it's big news sooo see what happens when the game hits
(good thing it's proposed to be released during the summer, wouldn't wanna shut down all the engineering schools lol)
some are like oh it feels different but it's amazing, and another called the change of things a factor that renders it broken
I wouldn't know haha but it's big news sooo see what happens when the game hits
(good thing it's proposed to be released during the summer, wouldn't wanna shut down all the engineering schools lol)
They're not doing it because it's "too big" for one disc. They're doing it because it would take them too long.Icehearted said:
There's a great interview with Dustin Browder over at Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/02/blizzards-dustin-browder-talks-starcraft-2/] that I'd like to quote from:
[blockquote]Yeah. I know you're all focused on Wings of Liberty, but have you guys been able to even conceptualize or think about the next title?
A little bit. Not a lot. That's going to be challenging for us to make that transition. But we've done a little bit of thinking about it. I think the biggest challenge for us is we've got so much content that we're so comfortable with here, and the challenge is to really make it feel like a Zerg game. We really want to make sure that, "Hey, I'm sort of playing the villains!" I want to feel that. I want to feel that switch over to the dark side and I want you to feel like, "Dude. This is the bad guy game. Woo! Yeah!" And not feel like it's just a slimy version of the Terran game. So that means the nature of our mission objectives needs to change, the nature of the opponents you're fighting needs to change.
The kinds of things you do needs to change. The story mode spaces need to change, you know, how we conceptualize. And there are a lot of characters in this one. How many conversations do I need to have with the Hydralisk? Probably not very many. So, the choices that we give you and the kinds of story that surround you need to feel uniquely Zerg, and we've got a few ideas about direction. I think, right now, more of what we've got is a general philosophy that we're going to try to pursue and we're just going to see how the features shake out.[/blockquote]
They're making the singleplayer campaigns very, very different from one another, and the Zerg game is going to be conceptually VERY different from how the singleplayer game works in WoL. Kerrigan ain't walking around her flagship talking to her senior officers, for one thing. GTA SA was all one engine, it all used the same interface (as does WoW), so building that sort of world was... well, not easy, but it's an entirely different set of challenges.
Unless you're going to whine about you needing to give George Lucas three/six movie tickets to see one story, or BioWare charging you for three games to see the Mass Effect story, this argument holds less water than a leaky sieve.
Screw you Valve, you're making multiple Half-Life 2 episodes? All of those should have been in one game! What a ripoff! And what's this about Super Mario Galaxy "2"? Those levels should have been in the first Super Mario Galaxy!
