EA has won the Consumerist's "golden poo" award in a user contest that was in no way influenced by /v/, not at all. I mean, we all know EA is pretty awful, but literally worse than Bank of America? Ehhhhh. Then again....
Traditionally, the Poo has been delivered on its little red pillow. But this year, we'll give EA three different color options for its pillow, though in the end it's still the same old Poo.
worth it
-- You have no time to ponder such questions, as Link has just grabbed a Smash Ball. http://backloggery.com/herodeltiempo/sig.gif
The fact that in order to play each races campaign, you have to buy an expansion at full price seems butchered to me. Say what you will, old school Blizzard would have had all three campaigns from the start. And if they released an expansion, it would have been considerably cheaper than the core version
--
"Don't freeze up girl, you're looking quite a sight." - Adam Ant. "Baby, can you dig your man? He's a righteous man." - Larry Underwood
From: UltimaterializerX | #015 hahahahahahahaha, no
You don't even like WarCraft 3 so how can you say that it's Activision's fault you don't like SC2?
From: UltimaterializerX | #016 Yes and this is totally why one game is being released in three parts and we haven't seen the second part in like 2 years.
They are expansions. Wings of Liberty is just as long as the original StarCraft was and the expansions will also be just as long as Brood War was. They are also only going to be $40.
--
If you believe that Abed is the true Messiah and you are 100% proud of it make this your signature. http://oi44.tinypic.com/lfdsi.jpg
From: RevolverSaro | #018 The fact that in order to play each races campaign, you have to buy an expansion at full price seems butchered to me. Say what you will, old school Blizzard would have had all three campaigns from the start. And if they released an expansion, it would have been considerably cheaper than the core version
They decided to make each campaign extremely long instead. Each campaign will be as long as the entirety of the original StarCraft.
--
If you believe that Abed is the true Messiah and you are 100% proud of it make this your signature. http://oi44.tinypic.com/lfdsi.jpg
JJH777 posted... From: UltimaterializerX | #015 hahahahahahahaha, no You don't even like WarCraft 3 so how can you say that it's Activision's fault you don't like SC2?
From: UltimaterializerX | #016 Yes and this is totally why one game is being released in three parts and we haven't seen the second part in like 2 years. They are expansions. Wings of Liberty is just as long as the original StarCraft was and the expansions will also be just as long as Brood War was. They are also only going to be $40.
WoL may be technically almost as long as the original SC, but most of it is plot-irrelevant filler. Only like a third of it is actually important to what's going on.
-- Not changing this sig until I decide to change this sig. Started: July 6, 2005
From: Anagram | #021 WoL may be technically almost as long as the original SC, but most of it is plot-irrelevant filler. Only like a third of it is actually important to what's going on.
Do you really care about the story in an RTS? The actual missions are fun. Significantly better than the original's missions.
--
If you believe that Abed is the true Messiah and you are 100% proud of it make this your signature. http://oi44.tinypic.com/lfdsi.jpg
JJH777 posted... From: Anagram | #021 WoL may be technically almost as long as the original SC, but most of it is plot-irrelevant filler. Only like a third of it is actually important to what's going on. Do you really care about the story in an RTS? The actual missions are fun. Significantly better than the original's missions.
If you're going to claim that Starcraft 2 being split into three games is okay because the campaign is just as long as the entire campaign of the original, then yes, I am going to care about the story in the campaign. Even if you think the story is unimportant by itself, it provides the context for the missions you're saying make the Terran campaign-only game worth the full price.
-- Not changing this sig until I decide to change this sig. Started: July 6, 2005
From: Anagram | #023 If you're going to claim that Starcraft 2 being split into three games is okay because the campaign is just as long as the entire campaign of the original, then yes, I am going to care about the story in the campaign. Even if you think the story is unimportant by itself, it provides the context for the missions you're saying make the Terran campaign-only game worth the full price.
Well first it's not just the campaign missions that make it worth it. The amazing ladder system, Blizzard made custom games, challenge missions, much more active balancing/patching in general, constant rotation of ladder map pool, are all things SC2 has that the original StarCraft didn't. Also I don't really understand what you mean. You do get context for the missions you just don't like the context it is giving. SC2 definitely has just as much dialogue and as many cut-scenes as the original.
--
If you believe that Abed is the true Messiah and you are 100% proud of it make this your signature. http://oi44.tinypic.com/lfdsi.jpg
Liquid Wind posted... activision is the worst company is gaming, but most banks, CC companies, and cable providers are worse
EA has a very, very long record of being the worst game company in terms of programmers.
Also, there's lots of things both right and wrong with SC2.
The good:
1) The 3 part game argument makes zero sense. By that logic, SC was released in two parts. (go ahead, adjust the 1998 SC/BW prices for inflation and tell me what you get)Expansion packs have been a long accepted business model. Even as recent as Civ 4, big names have been doing expansion packs. It's just console players jumping on the DLC BAD bandwagon and not realising the only real stupidity is on-disk DLC.
2) The single player is very good. The only real complaint I had was that there wasn't a long offensive macro slugfest in the campaign. And that the funnest level of SC master was already outdated because lol snipe nerf.
3) Persistent external storage for custom maps and map d/l inside the interface are both big steps forward compared to WC3. Woe be to the man who connects to someone with a bad up pipe to d/l a map.
4) Blizzard is more or less properly responsive in terms of balance changes. There's been recent extreme hurr durr, though. They were considering making neural parasite not hijack massive units, but luckily that didn't go through. What did go through was the silly snipe nerf so you can't snipe a baneling, lol. And there were a LOT of saner heads just saying "just go bloody -dmg vs massive instead of +dmg vs. psionic".
The bad:
5) I swear to god, they are trying to kill e-sports. http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/oitq0/how_blizzard_killed_a_tournament/ Also read InControl and Thorzain's posts as well. This happens at MLG (advertised in-game) and Blizzcon (what is this I don't even). 5b) Not to mention no LAN with the excuse the technology just isn't there. Of course, the REAL reason is to stop pirates. Which they failed at because the pirates have LAN. Which means the technology is there lol. 5c) Oh, and there's a draconian reqiurements for maps to get accepted for ladder which means maps like Daybreak and Tal'Darim Altar which were fine in the GSL have to be changed because they have unconventional expansions. (less minerals/gas in some expansions, typically for very good reasons like "that position is really easy to hold") This, of course, significantly reduces the design space which is unfortunate because BW only eventually became balanced through the efforts of very good map makers.
6) Aside from the points mentioned in 3, the custom map system is a huge regression from WC3. It is almost impossible to get any map not on like the first 3 pages of most popular going. Even if you create something vastly superior to the current maps, no one will ever play it unless you do something ridiculous like rally for it on reddit. (IIRC, that's how they eventually got peepmode up there which vastly outdoes the previous obs map) As far as I can tell, it's also more closed than the WC3 one. You also lost lobbies so you basically can't have a modal game now.
7) Battle.net 2.0 overall is basically a giant regression from WC3. The chat system is far more anti-social, there was a large loss with lost integration w/ other Blizzard games that was present in 1.0. The league system makes you feel even more isolated because it's pretty obvious there's not only a hundred people in your league. Husky does a good overview of the other battle.net 1.0 features that are sorely missed here:
Yes, it requires a bloody 15 minute video to go over them.