Any of you gamers P.O.'ed with Starcraft 2?

[Ikarus]

I realize this thread is about complaining, but I actually really liked Starcraft 2
I thought the single player campaign was excellent. Only 26 missions sure, but they were much more interesting and varied than the ones in sc1 and bw. The story was good, for a game at least. The characters were much more fleshed out than in the old games, even if they are all stereotypes (again it's a game, not a movie ).
I haven't tried multiplayer yet, because I suck and would get crushed even in the lower leagues :grumpy:

Sure it's pretty stupid that you need a connection to play (well, not if you crack it I guess?). But come on, who doesn't have internet access these days?
No LAN was pretty bad too, but I'm sure it was done to delay the warez scene from cracking it. I think it actually took a couple of days before someone came out with a crack for single player, so I'm sure they sold at least a couple of hundred thousand extra copies just because people didn't want to wait for the pirates to figure out a work around. I don't know, I could be wrong.
Anyway, there's a patch coming that will add LAN, which was probably the plan all along. You know, release it without LAN to delay the pirates and then include it in a patch soon after the game is cracked.

Also, I think the requirements are very low for a brand new game. No you can't play it with max settings on a computer from the stone age. That's just a part of computer gaming. If developers kept making games to suit hardware from half a decade ago, there would never be any progress.
If you expect to be able to play new games on the same hardware you had 5 years ago, I would recommend sticking with consoles

 

[bitter1]

Yeah I do not have the game but for them not to have LAN multi player is just plain idiotic I mean the most basic of PC games that have multi player will most likely have LAN.

 

[A.L.]

Well, copyprotection systems these days are like if knife company would make a knife and every time you wanted to use it you'd have to call them permission to do so. And if you passed the knife to someone, you could only do it five times and that's it.

You don't own these products anymore despite you buy them. The company does, and you play their game. That's why I haven't bought anything like it ever and never will. Only one who loses is the customer and not the one who pirates the game, wich is propably allready in some torrent page for free download and working fine.

 

[Grimspoon]

This is one of those games where the hardcore fans' outrage over too many changes would far outweigh the complaints of the casual player's issues with not enough innovation.

As far as battle.net integration, I can live with it. If it curbs piracy, at very least for the online component (single player is already pirated), then so be it. Blizzard is one of good guys in my opinion. I'm happy to see them make money, and with SC2 being the fastest selling RTS of all time, sure looks like its working out that way.

I will miss LAN support, but I haven't been to a LAN party in over 10 years. So I just sort of shrug that off.

 

[hardheart]

Blizzard was one of the good guys. Now they are owned by Activision, the company that wants to charge a monthly subscription for 16 player FPS, along with continuing to sell map packs and featuring in-game advertising. Kotick even thinks they have enough juice to tell Sony or MS how to design their next gen of consoles.

 

[Bill86]

See thats the thing though the new piracy protection isnt going to do anything. The pirated single player was available FASTER than the legal copies (don't have to buy it at the store or wait 6 hours on the download). You could pirate it 5 days early and crack it at midnight. Give it some time and they'll just have PRIVATE online servers. So the only one losing is YOU the customer.

Also as I stated you are clearly purchasing 1/3 of the game. No Zerg or Protoss campaigns is FAIL. I bet each race will cost the same $60 bucks so you pay $180-$200 depending on your state tax for the REAL Starcraft 2. Blizzard doesn't produce a crapton of games they just find a way to get a crapton of your money with A LOT less time spent on their part. BUT the upside is their games are always quite good.

 

[Ikarus]

Also as I stated you are clearly purchasing 1/3 of the game. No Zerg or Protoss campaigns is FAIL.

Keep in mind that the original only had 10 missions for each race, and most of those missions were just "kill the enemy base" type of missions.
This one has 26 missions, so 4 less than sc1 had; but the missions have MUCH more variation and are a lot more fun than the old ones were IMO.

 

[Ethelred]

Also as I stated you are clearly purchasing 1/3 of the game. No Zerg or Protoss campaigns is FAIL. I bet each race will cost the same $60 bucks so you pay $180-$200 depending on your state tax for the REAL Starcraft 2. Blizzard doesn't produce a crapton of games they just find a way to get a crapton of your money with A LOT less time spent on their part. BUT the upside is their games are always quite good.

Blizzard has been addressing this and while they haven't released a price for the next two games they have said that they will be priced according to content. The next two are expansions on this first one and they have said they will be priced as such. I would expect them to cost about 40usd or something close to that. (Which for 30 more missions and new units that wouldn't be to bad)

Blizzard has always been pretty good for giving good bang for your buck (second to Valve of course).

 

[Ethelred]

Yeah I do not have the game but for them not to have LAN multi player is just plain idiotic I mean the most basic of PC games that have multi player will most likely have LAN.

Not a lot of games still do LAN, I don't even think TF2 and CS:S do LAN only. Maybe I'm just old and my cynical but one of the major reasons for LAN parties was that the internet connections were slow and dial-up so the fastest way for you to even play a game with your friends was over LAN. Nowadays its no problem to play multiplayer with 20+ players connected and have hardly any lag.

LAN gaming is a thing of the past in the US.

 

[aggiebuilder2003]

Not a lot of games still do LAN, I don't even think TF2 and CS:S do LAN only. Maybe I'm just old and my cynical but one of the major reasons for LAN parties was that the internet connections were slow and dial-up so the fastest way for you to even play a game with your friends was over LAN. Nowadays its no problem to play multiplayer with 20+ players connected and have hardly any lag.

LAN gaming is a thing of the past in the US.

I disagree. It was only a year and a half ago that anything more than dial-up was available at my parents and they by no means live in the sticks. It is a rural area yes, but it isn't that far out from "civilization". Not to mention that some, such as myself, do not want to be tied down to someone's corporate server to play a video game.

Chuck

 

[Ethelred]

I disagree. It was only a year and a half ago that anything more than dial-up was available at my parents and they by no means live in the sticks. It is a rural area yes, but it isn't that far out from "civilization". Not to mention that some, such as myself, do not want to be tied down to someone's corporate server to play a video game.

Chuck

FCC reports about 14-24mil Americans don't have access to high speed internet...that's about 10% of the population. I think I am safe in saying that majority of American's and majority of gamers have no problem connecting and playing the games with their friends online rather than through a LAN.

Not all multiplayer games are hosted server side, yeah big ones like WoW and such are. But games like CS, TF2 and SC2 are hosted client side. I would expect that DIII will be the same with the rooms being hosted client side as well.

Edit: Games aren't designed for the gaming minority they are designed for the majority, and you can't expect them to design for the few out there that don't want X or have Y hardware. Majority of players play online it's just a fact of life.

 

[X in 415]

Blizzard was one of the good guys. Now they are owned by Activision, the company that wants to charge a monthly subscription for 16 player FPS, along with continuing to sell map packs and featuring in-game advertising. Kotick even thinks they have enough juice to tell Sony or MS how to design their next gen of consoles.

Kotick is such a douche bag.

 

[richard thurman]

http://www.ehow.com/how_4530389_change-laptop-processor.html
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/how-to-tech/add-ram-laptop.htm

You sure about that? It's not that hard to do, you just have to have some time and patience. It's pointless to change out the mobo, but it is certainly possible to add more ram and change the processor in a laptop. Shoot, some people even go so far as to add and change out the heatsinks in their laptops to make them run cooler.

Laptops are the same as desktops, just smaller...everything can be changed out.

a lap top is a one time deal computor. you may be able to add more ram or swap out the hard drive to a bigger size the processer is what ever you buy at the time and that is why to up grade you have to buy a new on.

 

[Ethelred]

a lap top is a one time deal computor. you may be able to add more ram or swap out the hard drive to a bigger size the processer is what ever you buy at the time and that is why to up grade you have to buy a new on.

I think we can agree to disagree. I've seen it done, I've read about it being done and believe it can be done quite easily. Heck, Newegg's page selling mobile CPUs would even beg to disagree with you on the feasibility of the matter.

 

[Ikarus]

a lap top is a one time deal computor. you may be able to add more ram or swap out the hard drive to a bigger size the processer is what ever you buy at the time and that is why to up grade you have to buy a new on.

Dude, Ethelred is right. The insides of a laptop are essentially the same as a desktop computer, just more compact. Changing the processor shouldn't be that big of a deal, as long as the new one uses the same socket. Doing so will void the warranty, but if the warranty has expired it doesn't matter right?

Of course, if the computer is really old, the motherboard probably uses an outdated socket so you might not even be able to get a processor that fits.

 

[richard thurman]

Dude, Ethelred is right. The insides of a laptop are essentially the same as a desktop computer, just more compact. Changing the processor shouldn't be that big of a deal, as long as the new one uses the same socket. Doing so will void the warranty, but if the warranty has expired it doesn't matter right?

Of course, if the computer is really old, the motherboard probably uses an outdated socket so you might not even be able to get a processor that fits.

So are you saying that they are no longer soldering the CPU to the mother boards?? I had an old one that I took apart and it was soldered to the mother board.

 

[Ethelred]

So are you saying that they are no longer soldering the CPU to the mother boards?? I had an old one that I took apart and it was soldered to the mother board.

No, they haven't done that for about 10yrs. It's a pin and socket type...just pop out the old one, align the new one and lock it in. A little thermal paste/glue and you're done.

AMD has different pins that actually stand-off of the chips board and kind of 'plug in' to the socket whereas Intel (as shown above) Socket LGA 775 and 1366 just make contact to the socket.

 

[Bill86]

Blizzard has been addressing this and while they haven't released a price for the next two games they have said that they will be priced according to content. The next two are expansions on this first one and they have said they will be priced as such. I would expect them to cost about 40usd or something close to that. (Which for 30 more missions and new units that wouldn't be to bad)

Blizzard has always been pretty good for giving good bang for your buck (second to Valve of course).

Agreed

WOW = your arm, your leg and your soul in that alone blizzard is horrible. Also they are SO notorious for producing expensive expansions to EVERY game they make. I still say ....SC1 and brood war had 3 races of campaigns WITH LONG MAPS. This new game...1 race 22 maps.....30-40 min a map....it's TOTAL BS. Even if it's 40 a piece .....~150-160 for the FULL Starcraft 2 ...customer gets RAPED again. I won't pay for the expansions that's all I'm saying.

 

[Ethelred]

I still say ....SC1 and brood war had 3 races of campaigns WITH LONG MAPS. This new game...1 race 22 maps.....30-40 min a map....it's TOTAL BS. Even if it's 40 a piece .....~150-160 for the FULL Starcraft 2 ...customer gets RAPED again. I won't pay for the expansions that's all I'm saying.

Meh, I think that most people wont simply play single player. I think that most of the gameplay is going to be online particularly with the use of the new ladder system. 12yrs ago SC1 had to have single player that way so that people could play all the races, now over 10mil people regularly log in every day to simply play WoW. I haven't bought SC2 and probably wont till the price goes down (I refuse to pay 60usd for a video game, unless it's Portal 2) but I think the value is still pretty good considering how easy it is to get online and play hours and hours as any race you want.

WoW is just ridiculous, I never played it. I don't know if I was afraid of becoming addicted or just thought the beginning was to boring to actually get past.

 

[BoxANT]

I'm loving SC2, great game, great mechanics. I've even been watching some pro commentary matches and they're intense

And then I found out that in Korea (land of starcraft insanity) there going to have monthly tournaments with a 1st place prize of 85 THOUSAND DOLLARS, this shit is serious.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141496

ps. if you want to play off line, just disable your net connect when you start SC2.