Starcraft 2

[~SJ~ Wolf]

Got another question. Does the Single player require internet connection to run? e.g. can you physically unplug your Ethernet jack, start up single player campaign, and it works?

My internet connection is unreliable, and thus any single player game I buy can't require an internet connection. (I have been unable to play MW:LL for the past 2 days for this very reason, and calling to complain to the only ISP in town doesn't get very far).

You can play offline, but achievements are disabled. From your posts tho, I would not recommend the game to you. The single player campaign while awesome is short, and skrims against the AI can only entertain for so long. The single player is not worth 60 dollars, not when it's missing the campaigns for the other 2 races.

[Leeko]

*snip* If it aint broke, don't fix it. *snip*

You sir echo my thoughts exactly with your whole post.

[Pikey]

*snip* If it aint broke, don't fix it. *snip*

You sir echo my thoughts exactly with your whole post.

I completely agree. All this its to expensive crap is ridiculous ive paid less for games that feel about 40% complete. This game even if its just one Race (which it isnt if you count some epic protoss missions) feels 100% complete, polished and more importantly COMPLETELY balanced in MP.

Also reading some comments about LAN play i think someone said they won't pay for or support a game that doesnt support LAN play... well last time i checked I couldnt play MWLL over LAN. Oh and it was removed to reduce Piracy I believe so start buying games and support Devs.

[=KoS= Eldragon]

You can play offline, but achievements are disabled. From your posts tho, I would not recommend the game to you. The single player campaign while awesome is short, and skrims against the AI can only entertain for so long. The single player is not worth 60 dollars, not when it's missing the campaigns for the other 2 races.

I don't mind paying $60. Games have been $50 for so long it was only a matter of time before prices caught up.
After you adjust for inflation I'm pretty sure I paid $60 for starcraft 1. I don't even care if I don't get to play the other two races. I DO mind a short campaign. ~20 hours is my minimum for $50-60 game. I didn't buy Modern Warfare 2 because of no dedicated server support and its ridiculously short campaign (I played through in one sitting with a friend's copy ~4 hours at most). With SC2 I'm just going to wait until it hits the $30 bargain sale.

And now that I know Blizzard holds the keys for all custom content too? blech.

[(TLL) Zeh]

Also reading some comments about LAN play i think someone said they won't pay for or support a game that doesnt support LAN play... well last time i checked I couldnt play MWLL over LAN.

Ohhhhh SNAP.  LAN is completely unnecessary.  I'm a pretty hardcore gamer, and I can say the no-LAN crowd is mostly the pirate crowd.  It's interesting how they can feed on each others' posts until they're convinced that it's actually a good idea for Blizzard to make what they KNOW will be the hottest Multiplayer on the block into something that can be played easily by pirates.  It's the best friggin RTS to date, buy it or admit you're a thief because you like free stuff, not because you're morally upset.

As a disclaimer, I have pirated plenty of stuff, I like to take things for free when I believe the risk is low enough and I don't give a damn about supporting the product.  I want Blizzard rewarded for Starcraft 2.

[Leeko]

And now that I know Blizzard holds the keys for all custom content too? blech.

...what?

[Deathbane]

Also reading some comments about LAN play i think someone said they won't pay for or support a game that doesnt support LAN play... well last time i checked I couldnt play MWLL over LAN.

Ohhhhh SNAP.  LAN is completely unnecessary.  I'm a pretty hardcore gamer, and I can say the no-LAN crowd is mostly the pirate crowd.  It's interesting how they can feed on each others' posts until they're convinced that it's actually a good idea for Blizzard to make what they KNOW will be the hottest Multiplayer on the block into something that can be played easily by pirates.  It's the best friggin RTS to date, buy it or admit you're a thief because you like free stuff, not because you're morally upset.

As a disclaimer, I have pirated plenty of stuff, I like to take things for free when I believe the risk is low enough and I don't give a damn about supporting the product.  I want Blizzard rewarded for Starcraft 2.

You are obviously too young to remember the days of spawned copies. Nobody pirated then because you could set up a lan using 2 copies for about 8 people, which was all you needed for a decent game.

Just for your information, Mechwarrior living legends can be played over lan. Someone even posted how it could be done a few weeks back, search will probably bring it up. Crysis natively supports LAN just fine as a multiplayer option.

Maybe lan is unnecessary because you dont have the opportunity to  host one every day, because you dont live with 5 other friends. Since i do, we were all looking forward to PURCHASING our starcraft 2 so we could play it.

However, all but one of us has decided that its not worth it, due to the lack of lan support. If a bnet emulator is released, im sure some amongst use might buy it legally. But saying its to stop piracy is stupid. I could easily wait for the lan emulator and use it with my cracked version, if thats what i wanted to do.

Removing it doesnt stop piracy, only hurts people who want to have that functionality in the first place. Like many new games, its far too locked down, using a frankly infantile excuse to treat legitimately customers like thieves.

PS: Also, i bet all those people that play it in korea competitively over lan are using pirated versions right? 

[=KoS= Eldragon]

And now that I know Blizzard holds the keys for all custom content too? blech.

...what?

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/starcraft-2-the-latest-game-to-control-user-created-content.ars

[Deathbane]

Ohhhhh SNAP.

[(TLL) Zeh]

Well, I'm 32 and got the first Starcraft when it came out, and I was 19 at the time..  Pretty sure I used/played/did any sort of LAN gaming you did, Duke Nukem, Doom, Warcraft/Starcraft, etc.  Spawned copies are free copies of the game for multiplayer, seeing as multiplayer is by far the obvious focus and draw of this game, giving out free multiplayer copies is probably a bad business decision.

I'm not sure what LAN gaming provides that you can't get through battle.net?  I've played dozens of games on the new bnet and never once experienced latency I could notice. (mid-plat ranking, so I know at least a bit)

I'm as "gamer" as (almost)any of you, and when the lack of LAN was announced, I was somewhat upset.  But after playing the beta and the game, I can tell you it doesn't need it at all.  I now view it as a clear excuse to pirate the game, but maybe you just haven't tried it yet?  Or perhaps you feel you need something that bnet can't provide.. but what that is I don't know.

[Deathbane]

Well, I'm 32 and got the first Starcraft when it came out, and I was 19 at the time..  Pretty sure I used/played/did any sort of LAN gaming you did, Duke Nukem, Doom, Warcraft/Starcraft, etc.  Spawned copies are free copies of the game for multiplayer, seeing as multiplayer is by far the obvious focus and draw of this game, giving out free multiplayer copies is probably a bad business decision.

I'm not sure what LAN gaming provides that you can't get through battle.net?  I've played dozens of games on the new bnet and never once experienced latency I could notice. (mid-plat ranking, so I know at least a bit)

I'm as "gamer" as (almost)any of you, and when the lack of LAN was announced, I was somewhat upset.  But after playing the beta and the game, I can tell you it doesn't need it at all.  I now view it as a clear excuse to pirate the game, but maybe you just haven't tried it yet?  Or perhaps you feel you need something that bnet can't provide.. but what that is I don't know.

Bnet cant provide me with playing with my friends without the use of an active internet connection. Having to connect to a server miles away,  when i want to host a local server, for local computers makes no sense. We could have practically zero ping, rather than having to use our internet connection to bounce signals to some companies server just because they want to control everything, content included.

I want to create a server, a game to play. I dont want your achievements, your stat tracking, your friend options, or all the other bullshit that is being put in games.

I want to create maps, and other content with full voice acting like my original starcraft campaigns me and my friends used to make, but thanks to the limit, this is no longer possible.

Spawn copies do not hurt business: Blizzard made a huge profit on the original starcraft. And no, the piracy and presence of battle net do not correlate. Maybe you would want to see having to be online to play singleplayer games Ubisoft style? Thats the way the industry is heading, with cloud computing.

The game originally had LAN in it. Its not hard to implement, it was done for a purely, business, bullshit decision, because at the end of the day, it wont stop piracy at all, and will just fapp over legal customers like myself that were looking forward to playing it.

I mean, even steam games usually have a lan option.

This is just another move into the cloud, one ill not support financially. Ill probably enjoy the singleplayer on all the expansions, but i have no current intention of buying it. If a lan crack is ever released, i might consider buying an actual copy, but im loathe to support battlenet.

It was and always will be, shit.

I have tried the game, and it is horribly locked down on my gfs collectors edition. Urgh.

[Leeko]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/starcraft-2-the-latest-game-to-control-user-created-content.ars

Oh no, we won't have sequels to "Kerrigan has sex with Duke" and "Strip Sakura"...

Why do people always assume that stuff like this means they're going to act like Nazis about it? The 25mb limit doesn't seem like that big of a problem either, we just won't be seeing Oblivion remakes in the SC2 engine. I don't think that's set in stone, either. After all, they pulled the plug on the social networking thing they were going to do where everyone on their forums would have their full names visible on all their posts instead of their chosen internet alias.

[SquareSphere }12thVR{]

The problem is the what they deem "offensive".  Lets say someone makes a zombie mob, it's a all the rage now.  But someone in Germany takes offensive because they don't like the excessive gore.

Bliz could easily ban the the mod just because of one person.

Hell in China, the original WoW undead models were considered offensive, and the Blizz Chinese partner had to get it changed
http://www.wow.com/2007/07/03/the9-changes-wow-in-china-to-appease-censors/

The point is that yes, while we won't see penis shaped protoss, it's just a very thin line for Blizz tred before they to submit to the demands of a vocal minority in an anti community way.

[(TLL) Zeh]

Maybe you would want to see having to be online to play singleplayer games Ubisoft style? Thats the way the industry is heading, with cloud computing.

You're right.  That IS the way the industry is heading, whether you like it or not.  I never said I like the decisions Blizzard has made, I just think they're ACCEPTABLE.  I think the gaming crowd has a serious self-perception problem.  They view themselves as holding the reigns of powerl. IMO the current PC gaming community has a "give-us-exactly-what-we-want-exactly-how-we-want-it-or-we'll-steal-it" mindset that is terrible for the industry, and in turn, eventually terrible for us gamers.

PC gamers are are FAR second in sales to consoles.  Yes there's a ton of money in MMOs, but for the most part, console profits dwarf PC profits.  To me, game companies making PC-first or PC-only games is a great thing, it's something that often is far less profitable than making every game console-friendly.  This concerns me VAST amounts more than not being able to create whatever nonsense someone wants to make as a mod for a game that doesn't need modding. (IMO)

I care a lot more about the health of the PC gaming industry than I do about some wierd obsession over latency, when that's clearly not an issue WHATSOEVER from my 2-3 months of playing the game.  (And yes I'm quite sensitive to latency, particularly in Starcraft, I've watched hundreds of professional games, and know pretty much all the tricks one can do that involve fast commands.  The way SC2 is designed might be masking any latency, but I've definitely never had an issue with it.)

In conclusion, I get everything you're saying, I don't disagree that it's a negative, but it's SO inconsequential, I find it silly to make a moral stand against a company that is known for being one of the most PC-gamer-centric producers out there.  The only logical explanation for me is:

-Only moderate desire to play the game (Any real SC fan has it already, the objections really don't stand up)
-Active desire to not pay 60 bucks for it.

[Pikey]

Maybe you would want to see having to be online to play singleplayer games Ubisoft style? Thats the way the industry is heading, with cloud computing.

You're right.  That IS the way the industry is heading, whether you like it or not.  I never said I like the decisions Blizzard has made, I just think they're ACCEPTABLE.  I think the gaming crowd has a serious self-perception problem.  They view themselves as holding the reigns of powerl. IMO the current PC gaming community has a "give-us-exactly-what-we-want-exactly-how-we-want-it-or-we'll-steal-it" mindset that is terrible for the industry, and in turn, eventually terrible for us gamers.

PC gamers are are FAR second in sales to consoles.  Yes there's a ton of money in MMOs, but for the most part, console profits dwarf PC profits.  To me, game companies making PC-first or PC-only games is a great thing, it's something that often is far less profitable than making every game console-friendly.  This concerns me VAST amounts more than not being able to create whatever nonsense someone wants to make as a mod for a game that doesn't need modding. (IMO)

I care a lot more about the health of the PC gaming industry than I do about some wierd obsession over latency, when that's clearly not an issue WHATSOEVER from my 2-3 months of playing the game.  (And yes I'm quite sensitive to latency, particularly in Starcraft, I've watched hundreds of professional games, and know pretty much all the tricks one can do that involve fast commands.  The way SC2 is designed might be masking any latency, but I've definitely never had an issue with it.)

In conclusion, I get everything you're saying, I don't disagree that it's a negative, but it's SO inconsequential, I find it silly to make a moral stand against a company that is known for being one of the most PC-gamer-centric producers out there.  The only logical explanation for me is:

-Only moderate desire to play the game (Any real SC fan has it already, the objections really don't stand up)
-Active desire to not pay 60 bucks for it.

Hear hear.