StarCraft 2 Trashed by Gamers, Called Incomplete

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]Gamers are pretty whiny these days. 20+ years of gaming and I've never had a problem with paying 50 dollars for a game that gave me 50 hours of enjoyment. Most gave me less and I still didn't pitch a fit unless it was really awful and gave me less than an hour of enjoyment.Get off my lawn you whippersnappers.[/citation]

that's because kids these days have been taught like they were Jerry's kids ("everybody is a winner" BS). Sorry kiddies, the world is a rough and tumble place, whining won't get you far and not everybody gets a star. If you're not unemployed desperately looking for a job, you're going to be welcomed into the workplace with a boot on your neck.

"attention" and "opinion" ain't worth jack, and nothing good comes free.
 
I must say....sc2 was a disappointment. I played sc1 like mad and loved the campaign/multiplayer, even though it got pretty repetitive. SC2 just had a couple new units, slightly updated graphics, and same repetitive gameplay. I was hoping for heroes at the very least seeing as that is why wc3 was such a hit, but i guess blizzard didn't get the tps report. It really didn't look like they put any real effort into it. I really hope that they don't F up warcraft 4 ten years from now. For over 10 years of waiting, I give this game a thumbs down.
 
Ok.... people need to grow up. The game is great! I'm having an absolute blast with it. I was pissed back when I found out it wasn't gonna have LAN support, but you know- you can STILL play ON a LAN! You just all hook up together on a LAN- as long as you have the LAN on the internet, then you are all set. We actually traced it playing last night, and the games create a direct connection to the host. No big deal. Also- stop crying about it being $180 for the whole game! There are 30 missions (the Original Starcraft also had 30- 10 for each race). Its a complete game now, and the other sections will be expansions- and will most likely NOT cost $60 each! just relax and enjoy the game. If you are so upset about these "issues" DON'T BUY IT. If you are complaining now AFTER you bought it- its your own fault because we have all known all of these things for months now.
 
Yeah, count me out, there's a reason for the "embargo" - most likely they want everyone to buy it first, then realize it sucks. I love starcraft, but to me it sounds like they went the same route as GTA4, requiring this and that, time wasting anti-piracy BS. Piracy is killing the industry, but what they're doing... is only making it worse.
 
i don't know what game everyone else is playing. sure it doesn't have state of the art graphics, but it doesn't need it! i like that i can play this on my laptop, and i don't need a 5850 to run it.
and the campaign felt like a full game, though i hope they don't charge a full $60 for the future campaigns.
 
[citation][nom]immoral medic[/nom]I must say....sc2 was a disappointment. I played sc1 like mad and loved the campaign/multiplayer, even though it got pretty repetitive. SC2 just had a couple new units, slightly updated graphics, and same repetitive gameplay. I was hoping for heroes at the very least seeing as that is why wc3 was such a hit, but i guess blizzard didn't get the tps report. It really didn't look like they put any real effort into it. I really hope that they don't F up warcraft 4 ten years from now. For over 10 years of waiting, I give this game a thumbs down.[/citation]

Some of us hated WC3 BECAUSE of the heros- I like the pure RTS OR the pure RPG, not an attempted mix of the two.
 
$60 for a game is nothing to scoff at for some of us. For my hard earned it better be good.
 
also want to add that all my friends live out in the boonies so they don't have internet but want to play the game. Plus, there is no lan which sucks cuz we all played sc1 lan. Plz don't be like Apple and just offer a free bumper....please consider making a fix for all these shortcomings. My thumb might have been up if it had the normal expected basic functions in a game, but sadly, blizzard has failed...I salute you o7
 
[citation][nom]rockstone1[/nom]You're the reason they have this stupid DRM anyway...[/citation]

Uh if he owns the game outright, then he is perfectly entitled to cracking the game he owns to play it whenever and however he chooses (It's officially legal now to boot). Its DRM like this that obviously screws the legal owners always. The lack of LAN play still boggles me due to it being a freakin RTS.
 
A review embargo smacks of insecurity. Blizzard knows they've been caught pulling a 'funny' with their circa 2005 graphics, ridiculous DRM, and rampant price gouging (3 installments), and don't want fair and unbiased reviews prior to release hurting their badly thought out bottom line.

That having been said, I have played the beta and do like the game - but given the limitations I wouldn't spend money on it.
 
total bs, especially on toms behalf. SP doesn't require an always active internet connection. The game is complete for multiplayer...
 
Now, like some readers pointed out, this is very serious.

How on earth are publications abiding to this embargo ? They should all boycott it! If the game is on sale in stores, and therefore EVERYBODY (including journalists - hello Jane) can buy it, then by agreeing to stick to this ridiculous and outrageous limitation, journalists everywhere are just siding with a company that just wants to make millions in sales before anything bad is "officially" said.

Tom's is trying to diplomatically circumvent this embargo with this article (although I sense some bias towards Blizzard), but it is not enough. You should be explicit about it and not be afraid of the embargo. By the way, when is it lifted ? Is that under NDA too ?

You journalists from all publications should simply ignore it. Other wise your conduct is just as unacceptable as Blizzard's!
 
I've had no issues with the game, the story telling is top notch. I was in the beta so I already know what to expect in multiplayer.

People complain when the specs are to high (Mafia 2) and then people complain when the game isn't high end.

What is with the DRM complaint? All you need to do is connect, verify once, then you can play the singleplayer.

 
Bought the game online yesterday, left the 7GB download running overnight. Installed this morning. It asked me to update my graphics drivers (AMD 4850). Did this, restarted, computer won't boot into Windows. I know its (probably) not Blizzard's fault, but now I don't get to play the game, I have to fix my machine AND I have to download the game again. ARG!!! On another note, I purchased Windows 7 today. Figured this is a good a time as any to upgrade from XP.
 
Well I dont hate the game, played the beta for along time and find it to be the best yet in its category. Problem is I bought the game and made sure to have it on the day of release. Well 24 hours later and I am still waiting for them to pull it out and figure out why many of us cannot connect. I have sent a dozen emails asking for help and I am being ignored! If anyone has a crack for this I would love to have it so I can play the game.
 
Well I dont hate the game, played the beta for along time and find it to be the best yet in its category. Problem is I bought the game and made sure to have it on the day of release. Well 24 hours later and I am still waiting for them to pull it out and figure out why many of us cannot connect. I have sent a dozen emails asking for help and I am being ignored! If anyone has a crack for this I would love to have it so I can play the game.
 
Pretty much all of the whining is coming from people who haven't even played the game and/or just have completely false information:

1. Game is coming in 3 parts. The first part, the Terran campaign, is three times as big as the Terran campaign in the first game. So if the single player campaign is still nearly 30 missions long, how is that a rip off? It's the same amount of game as SC1 but we just get more story over the long run because we'll be getting two expansions instead of one.

2. Developers have confirmed in interviews that the second and third installments will probably come priced as expansions, as they're not completely new games but additions to the SC2 story that are created with the same game engine. True, pricing is not completely finalized but why are you worrying when we're at least 1.5+ years away from the next installment?

3. You can play the Single Player campaign offline. You have to authenticate the copy once and then you can play offline. It's a giant button on the campaign screen, kinda hard to miss (or so I thought).

4. There's no LAN support. But who the hell goes to a LAN party and doesn't have an internet connection?!? It's the year 2010, not 1998. If you're worried about latency for tournaments then there's no reason to worry, tournament organizers will be granted a special Tournament Edition copy of the game that does in fact allow LAN play. It's already been confirmed.

5. Review embargoes are pretty much standard in the industry. It's called you can't review a game based on your experience in beta. Some companies will send advance final copies of the game to media outlets so that the reviews are launched on release. However in SC2's case the game was completely finalized until launch day so there's no way a reviewer can write a proper review of the final game within a few hours. It takes at least 16 hours to play through the campaign and you'd need at least a few hours playing through multiplayer to get a decent feel for it. Unless you're suggesting the reviewer should write the review based on beta, in which case, you're pretty much an idiot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom