Starcraft II

cuemasterfl said:
The price tag is what's putting me off. To be honest, I never played the original Starcraft, although I've seen videos, so I knew what kind of game it was. I'm not sure if Starcraft II is my cup of tea, but if it were priced at $39.99, I'd consider getting it. At $59.99 (or $59.87 if you go to Walmart, lol), I'll have to pass it by. If I knew for sure I'd love it to death, I'd pay the $60.
Click to expand...

$60 is definitely pricey (just like all 360/PS3 games), but I think it's definitely worth it. The single player with 26 missions has high re-playability and that's not even half of it; you got multiplayer and other fun stuff as well. If you're somewhat interested in RTS games, I think it's a great buy!
 
TheResidentEvil said:
I won a 3v1 yesterday...I played with 2 zerg and I was toss. My teammates got rushed hard by the opposition. They massed marines, zealots and lings in the middle of the map. They even had bunkers and buildings in there. I had a really good choke with double gateway that could only fit a zealot through. They hit me with lings but that didnt work at all.

I teched up to DT and attacked the zerg player. My teammate was being attacked at the same time. He got taken out. I took out the other zerg soon after. Then they moved their massive z-rine army into my other teammates base.

I built like 20 DTs after he got eliminated and won. The team didnt know anything after mass up and rush. They were clueless. Beat em down.
Click to expand...

while its a win, its poor teamsmanship to let your team-mates take the hit while u sit back and build an army.
 
Quick question: does Starcraft 2 use DirectX 11? If not, is there any rumor/news/info that it one day will?
 
This is the first game that warrants a 59.99 pricetag IMO. The campaign is solid, epic and recieves a million points for style, and besides replaying it for achievements/different choice missions/for the fun of it, you get singleplayer vs AI and a bunch of cool challenge maps to practice your skill on.
THEN theres the multiplayer and the endless possibilities of the map editor.

I picked it up for 33,5 euroes here :D
 
Jon55 said:
Quick question: does Starcraft 2 use DirectX 11? If not, is there any rumor/news/info that it one day will?
Click to expand...

Blizzard will be using DX9 for the next 8 years, at least. ;)

I doubt they will add support for DX11, they simply want these games to run on even crappy PC's.
 
Jon55 said:
Every game is $60 nowadays though....so, not sure what you're trying to say. I'd say it's easily worth the money.
Click to expand...

Nah, the majority of PC games are still $49.99. Games that you know you will play for years, like this, are generally very worth the extra $10 though.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Blizzard will be using DX9 for the next 8 years, at least. ;)

I doubt they will add support for DX11, they simply want these games to run on even crappy PC's.
Click to expand...

Yep. Blizzard has never released a game that was ever seriously demanding on the hardware side. They want to appeal to the broadest install base. This is why Starcraft II's graphics aren't really any better than C&C3's which came out years ago.
 
krotch said:
Well, getting further into the game and I must say.

Starcraft is still better than Starcraft II.

I just can't get over this zooming thing and it's really starting to detract from the rest of the game. I really hope they decide to update the game and give you a viewing distance that is much further away. I'm playing at 1920x1200 and everything just feels so cramped.
Click to expand...
You couldnt zoom in SC1 either.

As "annoying" as it may be, the locked zoom view is a fundamental aspect of the strategy and competitiveness of the game. Allowing someone to zoom out would drastically effect the macro/micro skills that separate players.
 
hardware_failure said:
You couldnt zoom in SC1 either.

As "annoying" as it may be, the locked zoom view is a fundamental aspect of the strategy and competitiveness of the game. Allowing someone to zoom out would drastically effect the macro/micro skills that separate players.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time accepting this. They could have set the zoom further out than they did. Apparently many of the beta testers said that the beta was setup better in regard to the zoom distance. Why the hell didn't they carry that over into the retail version?

Honestly that image I saw a couple pages back has kept me from purchasing this game. I can't stand it when RTS's lock me into such ridiculously close viewing distances. If I am going to strategize while playing the game I need to be able to see more of the damned battlefield at once. What I saw a couple pages ago was worse than the maximum out distance of C&C3 which is as close as I ever cared to get. This problem in RTS games seems to be a fairly new one and something that's getting worse. Star Wars Empire at War was terrible about this as well. Earlier C&C games as well as the original Starcraft were nearly perfect in regard to the viewing angle. WTF developers?
 
hardware_failure said:
You couldnt zoom in SC1 either.

As "annoying" as it may be, the locked zoom view is a fundamental aspect of the strategy and competitiveness of the game. Allowing someone to zoom out would drastically effect the macro/micro skills that separate players.
Click to expand...

Both sides having the same zooming capability would cancel any unfair advantage...
 
Do any of you guys know if the 7 hour trial codes that come with these are stackable? Between my immediate friends, we have about 10 trial codes, which one of our free loader buddies would like to redeem.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Blizzard will be using DX9 for the next 8 years, at least. ;)

I doubt they will add support for DX11, they simply want these games to run on even crappy PC's.
Click to expand...

Cataclysm has DX11 support, so it's not out of the question.
 
TheGamerZ said:
Cataclysm has DX11 support, so it's not out of the question.
Click to expand...

Just water tesselation, right? Blizzard isn't known for pushing the envelope with graphics, they just make things look good enough then focus on polishing the game.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Just water tesselation, right? Blizzard isn't known for pushing the envelope with graphics, they just make things look good enough then focus on polishing the game.
Click to expand...

I believe so- just water tessellation. They want their games to work on the widest range of platforms as possible.
 
ichow23 said:
$60 is definitely pricey (just like all 360/PS3 games), but I think it's definitely worth it. The single player with 26 missions has high re-playability and that's not even half of it; you got multiplayer and other fun stuff as well. If you're somewhat interested in RTS games, I think it's a great buy!
Click to expand...

This isn't new for Blizzard either. Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 were both $60 games
 
All Blizzard games when they first came out were $60 and they were worth.......every.......penny.
 
I supported all the blizzard games
I just hope activation not going to turn blizzard into yearly EA
:rolleyes:
 
i didnt mind spending my hard earned $60 on sc2. worth every penny imo.
 
pandora's box said:
while its a win, its poor teamsmanship to let your team-mates take the hit while u sit back and build an army.
Click to expand...

you know your teammates get a win too even if they arent in the game? they do. they didnt get losses because of what i did. I got them wins. Not to mention i didnt have an army. I had 4 DTs and a choke point when one got eliminated.
 
It annoys that people refuse to buy the game because it doesn't have LAN, or requires Battle.Net for single player. People are concerned wether it has DX11 and whether it ever will. Really guys, how spoiled are we as gamers that this matters?

Where are the days that we focus on the quality of the game, the story being told, the gameplay, unique missions, high replay value, and all the things that make the game great.

I love the interface of SC 2, and the ways you interact with it. The ability to do side missions to get Zerg and Protoss research is unique, and a nice twist. The levels are far from repetitive, and the ability to choose which missions you take and what order allow for flexibility on the players end.

This game is nothing like Starcraft outside the fact that it shares units, and is an RTS.

I'm just fed up with people complaining and bashing a game not because of the story, or gameplay, or anything that matters to the quality of the game itself, but for trivial things like no LAN support, or DX11, or the ability to zoom. I can understand being disappointed, but what I see is not disapointment, but hatred and refusal to even buy the game. That makes me sad to be honest.
 
I bought the first starcraft for 45 when it first came out, so no not all blizzard games are 60 bucks. War3 was, and I think Diablo, but that is it.
 
I would love a Guest Pass if anyone has an extra one. Please PM me :)
 
Xenomaniac said:
All Blizzard games when they first came out were $60 and they were worth.......every.......penny.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but can you cite your source?

I'm almost positive I didn't pay $60 for Warcraft 1 or 2, nor for Diablo 1, nor for Starcraft 1.

I'm fairly certain I paid $50 for Warcraft 3 when it was released, and the same for WoW.
 
KatalDT said:
Sorry, but can you cite your source?

I'm almost positive I didn't pay $60 for Warcraft 1 or 2, nor for Diablo 1, nor for Starcraft 1.

I'm fairly certain I paid $50 for Warcraft 3 when it was released, and the same for WoW.
Click to expand...

I think someone posted this earlier before SC2 came out and showed scans of his price tags. Think the title was called "Starcraft 2 is going to cost $60," and then a bunch of people bitched they weren't going to pay that. IDK, I'm not going to dig for old drama.
 
Xenomaniac said:
I think someone posted this earlier before SC2 came out and showed scans of his price tags. Think the title was called "Starcraft 2 is going to cost $60," and then a bunch of people bitched they weren't going to pay that. IDK, I'm not going to dig for old drama.
Click to expand...

$60 has been the console standard for years now and is becoming the PC standard. Yeah, it sucks but game prices have been $49.99 or more since the original NES days. Budgets have skyrocketed since then. The cost of other forms of entertainment have also gone up quite a bit. I don't mind paying $60 now. Although, when I had the NES I had a $1/week allowance and now I earn a salary...
 
Count yourself lucky you're not down here in Australia. $90 for SC2. With the current exchange rate, that comes out to $80 US. Beats me why they can charge more down here. Personally I get friends in the States to purchase online games for me, much cheaper.
 
EQTakeOffense said:
It annoys that people refuse to buy the game because it doesn't have LAN, or requires Battle.Net for single player. People are concerned wether it has DX11 and whether it ever will. Really guys, how spoiled are we as gamers that this matters?

Where are the days that we focus on the quality of the game, the story being told, the gameplay, unique missions, high replay value, and all the things that make the game great.

I love the interface of SC 2, and the ways you interact with it. The ability to do side missions to get Zerg and Protoss research is unique, and a nice twist. The levels are far from repetitive, and the ability to choose which missions you take and what order allow for flexibility on the players end.

This game is nothing like Starcraft outside the fact that it shares units, and is an RTS.

I'm just fed up with people complaining and bashing a game not because of the story, or gameplay, or anything that matters to the quality of the game itself, but for trivial things like no LAN support, or DX11, or the ability to zoom. I can understand being disappointed, but what I see is not disapointment, but hatred and refusal to even buy the game. That makes me sad to be honest.
Click to expand...


Yeah, how dare we ask questions! We should just take what we're given and be done with it. :rolleyes:

Very few people here are upset about the lack of LAN, $60 price, or whatever. The vast majority of us are very happy with SC2, and feels it's worth every penny. I was the one who asked about DX11. ASKED, not complained about the lack of it. Stop your bitching.
 
Playing the Supernova mission right now. I'm finding it to be the most difficult one so far. Only because there's no timer to tell you how long until the fire burns your shit up.
 
Indeterministic said:
Count yourself lucky you're not down here in Australia. $90 for SC2. With the current exchange rate, that comes out to $80 US. Beats me why they can charge more down here. Personally I get friends in the States to purchase online games for me, much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Why bother, when you can just download digital distros. Course you will need a stateside address.
 
KatalDT said:
Sorry, but can you cite your source?

I'm almost positive I didn't pay $60 for Warcraft 1 or 2, nor for Diablo 1, nor for Starcraft 1.

I'm fairly certain I paid $50 for Warcraft 3 when it was released, and the same for WoW.
Click to expand...

Do we need to beat the horse some more? This was debated a few months ago. There was proof (pics of diablo2 / warcraft 3 / WOW release boxes) that those games were $60. Not sure about the OLD ones that you mentioned. But goddamn if Diablo 2 was $60, they're still charging the same price TEN YEARS LATER. Grow up people.
 
Indeterministic said:
Count yourself lucky you're not down here in Australia. $90 for SC2. With the current exchange rate, that comes out to $80 US. Beats me why they can charge more down here. Personally I get friends in the States to purchase online games for me, much cheaper.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet it costs a lot more down under because of taxes of some sort.
 
Bought it, seems pretty excellent. The multiplayer is worth the price alone for most people but I only purchased it for the single player campaign and am not dissatisfied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top