Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty [release: July 27, 2010]

I'm pretty disappointed that Blizzard really creates 3 games that are together Starcraft 2 -_-. But well, my question is: is it still worth it to buy Starcraft 2? I think about buying the "Zerg" game. Wings Of Liberty is the "human" game. Here are the "negative points" in the opinion of the amazon users Peri and Ness [the following information is without guarantee]:

No chat rooms unlike in Starcraft 1.
Facebook is integrated into the game...
No LAN-Support (in the future also not planned).
If a person buys the game and agrees the final user's arrangements (Terms of service), the person automatically agrees that Blizzard can transmit all data of the user to other persons. To stop this, he must write Blizzard an e-mail. Mail address: unknown.
A mapper can provide only one restricted number of maps - namely 5.
StarCraft 2 will be region locked, EU users vs. EU opponents only, US users vs. US opponents only.

Especially that the game may be region locked is really bad for me, because I want to have the US version as always...

None of those affect the game play it'self. Indeed, the first two are related to Battle.net 2 rather than Starcraft 2.

That said, I've never heard of the bottom three points.

Starcraft, together with Warcraft, is a black sheep of the real time strategy genre anyway, so don't bother. :P Micromanagement Hell-games are only for Korean kiddies with self esteem problems anyway.

I remember being extremely excited about Starcraft II about a year ago. Since then I've really lost interest. Hearing that Blizzard had replaced Glynnis Talken Campbell as the voice of Kerrigan was a real disappointment. After that, it was a deluge bad news: selling the game as three parts, paying for custom maps, and worst of all: no LAN support?

Deeforce said:

Facebook is integrated into the game...

I'm not even sure what that means, but I don't like the sound of it.

I'm certainly not going to buy Wings of Liberty. Maybe once all three are released together and the price goes down a bit, I'll think about it.

Starcraft 2 is amazingly fun. My usual playgroup (me, my boyfriend, and our token canadian nerd) have been playing it almost nonstop since we got into the beta.

Well worth buying.

Jodwin said:

Starcraft, together with Warcraft, is a black sheep of the real time strategy genre anyway, so don't bother. :P Micromanagement Hell-games are only for Korean kiddies with self esteem problems anyway.

Oh get off your high horse, both Starcraft and Warcraft are fun games.

But, as is the prevailing opinion I also agree that Blizzard has more or less fallen off the deep end and their WoW mentality (fix it later) as well as the complete dissolution of their former stylistic approach leaves a lot to be desired, at least for me. I feel that Blizzard is a modern example of a company that has decided to do things the popular or profitable way and not necessarily the right one.

eargosedown said:
Starcraft 2 is amazingly fun. My usual playgroup (me, my boyfriend, and our token canadian nerd) have been playing it almost nonstop since we got into the beta.

Well worth buying.

Don't call Creaphis that.

Jodwin said:

Starcraft, together with Warcraft, is a black sheep of the real time strategy genre anyway, so don't bother. :P

Even through I find RTS games very boring in my opinion, Starcraft was the only one of its kind that was actually fun. Now will I ever bother with its trilogy sequel? Probably not but I might consider once all 3 games are released.

I still can't decide if I want to buy it a week or so after release or wait until all three parts come out.

The fact that you have to buy the game three times should be enough of a giveaway of this game's quality. Add in no LAN suport, Facebook integration, and the invasions of privacy, and you have the shittiest RTS imaginable.

Enjoy giving Kotick more money.

How are battle.net features and the lack of non-tournament LAN any indication of an RTS game's quality level?

Can't wait to play it.

SC and BW are among my favorite RTS games. I've been playing through the C&C series recently. Played everything up to Generals, and the only one that could compete with SC in terms of fun and playability was RA2 (the original C&C and RA not included).

eargosedown said:

How are battle.net features and the lack of non-tournament LAN any indication of an RTS game's quality level?

Basically it's just a "Blizzard made WoW and it's cool to hate on WoW" thing.

Deeforce said:

Especially that the game may be region locked is really bad for me, because I want to have the US version as always...

Go get the english EU version.

Scientists, philosophers, theologians and mathematicians could spend aeons pondering what relationship, if any, exists between this game being released and me caring.

In truth, the game itself will probably be pretty good, but all the crap that goes with it just makes the whole thing just, well, meh.

But will it have Zerg Rushes ZOMG <^-^> KEKEKEKEKE ?!

If it's region locked, existing clans will crumble away or split on the move to Starcraft 2 since they can't keep their foreign members. They'd need to create their own UN heh.

Also, someone will probably make proxies and all that too so.

Starcraft is one of the few RTS games that actually requires strategy to win.

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with Blizzard. You can count me out.

kristus said:

Starcraft is one of the few RTS games that actually requires strategy to win.

Oh noes. Only Supreme Commander has that, because it's balanced using netwonian physics. It ain't that rock-paper-scissors bullshit -also sprach Chris Taylor, the John Romero of RTSs.

Bitch making included ;-)

I'm just feeling that SC2 is a great game that's getting buried by the truckload of bullshit they call Battle.net 2.0. It's a shame, seems they just want to make their money from exploiting their chances to the max and not from making simply good games like back in the day.

I'll wait for the reviews to roll in, and more importantly, the price to drop well below $60 before I get it.

Xenphire said:

Basically it's just a "Blizzard made WoW and it's cool to hate on WoW" thing.

On the other hand, WoW does suck pretty hard.

eargosedown said:

How are battle.net features and the lack of non-tournament LAN any indication of an RTS game's quality level?

Because we can tell the difference between development decisions made to focus the gameplay, and those extra steps taken to remove features to "discourage piracy" (which never discourage pirates, only legit buyers), and fad features which almost never contribute to the quality of a game (motion features, Twitter updates, achievements).

I can't fathom the decision to support online play but NOT local network play. By that I mean I can think of plenty of reasons - but none that haven't been demonstrated as shortsighted, and ultimately bad for the company and community.

Why can't you just play hell commander?

Bucket said:

Because we can tell the difference between development decisions made to focus the gameplay, and those extra steps taken to remove features to "discourage piracy" (which never discourage pirates, only legit buyers), and fad features which almost never contribute to the quality of a game (motion features, Twitter updates, achievements).

I can't fathom the decision to support online play but NOT local network play. By that I mean I can think of plenty of reasons - but none that haven't been demonstrated as shortsighted, and ultimately bad for the company and community.

Which have nothing to do with actual gameplay experience.

I have to say, the game so far is brilliantly done. Everything sans one or two things is perfectly balanced. the ability for UMS customization makes the sky the limit basically on user maps.

For a beta, it's really really good so far. I can live without LAN in all honesty.

I'm still having trouble seeing why Facebook should have anything whatsoever to do with battle.net. :P

Not that it matters, anyway, considering the general WTFness of the game's design decisions as of late. The three-way split, at least, sealed the deal as a "no" for me. Or at least, a "no buy" -- I'll happily play the game on someone else's system since I do know a couple of people who are absolutely getting the game (well, "games" now) come hell or high water. Sneaky time.

I'll just wait for the complete pack in several years that will be cheaper then buying the games separately.

By then, most of the bugs and balancing issues will be fixed as well.

caco_killer said:

I'll just wait for the complete pack in several years that will be cheaper then buying the games separately.

By then, most of the bugs and balancing issues will be fixed as well.

I will be doing the same thing. I did like Starcaft and the Warcaft games. I just don't feel the need to rush out and buy Starcaft 2 when it hits the shelfs. On top of that War40k:DOW2 is so much fun, I don't see my self switching to Starcraft 2 any time soon.

As for the Blizzard bashing. I can't sit here and slam Blizzard to much. Yes, I did play wow back in the day and I don't like how Blizzard dumbed the game down. But, I to this day enjoy playing the Diablo games and Blackthorne. To be honest, I might check out wow after Cataclysm is released. Just to check out the revamped 1-40 zones.

I'm really looking forward to this.
StarCraft1 had decent storytelling and blizzard has only improved in that aspect since then. They're also doing something new and interesting with the in-between mission stuff. I've had the beta for a long time and it's the most fun I've ever had with an RTS. I'm not all that good at the game especially in terms of micro management. I enjoy 3v3 games and usually a really good strategy can topple APM (actions per minute) freaks.

My biggest expactations are for the single player portion though. I'm really looking forward to that and the decision to split the game into three parts was great. Please remember that the game will be three times the length as well. We're getting three games for the price of....three.

Only 15 days left.