The StarCraft II Launch and Discussion Post

Page 6 - 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.
I will buy it in a few weeks after its all patched up.. Only if it's on Steam for download. I don't buy software in stores anymore, seems pointless.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Did they just take down the news post by Kevin Parrish regarding SC2 user complaints? Or have they just accidentally misplaced it? I just refreshed the page and apparently it no longer exists. It's also no longer listed under "News". That would be pretty funny, becasue many people where criticizing the legitimacy of the article, as well as Parrish's definition of "embargo". lol. If they're going to retract an inaccurate news post they should at least offer a formal retraction, and not just delete it as though it never existed.[/citation]

This, what happened to that article? I was just to send the link to a friend but its no longer there, like if it never existed
 
Even if you had purchased the game early, It would not let you install until the 27th.
The game supervisor at Best Buy tried to install for a store tournament before Tuesday for Tuesday and was rejected by the software.
 
StarCraft 2 Trashed by Gamers, Called Incomplete
4:30 PM - July 28, 2010 by Kevin Parrish - source: Tom's Hardware US

Many consumers who purchased StarCraft II are trashing the game based on known shortcomings.

Just one day after StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty's release, gamers are already trashing Blizzard's new sci-fi RTS sequel.

We already know that it's not a complete game, consisting merely of one part in an overall "trilogy." Yet apparently many are complaining that it's "incomplete" and not worth the $60 payment--$100 if you bought the Special Edition. What they're not getting is that they've purchased the base game and Wings of Liberty--the other two installments aren't expected to be quite so costly.

There are also other complaints. Gamers are annoyed by the installation and registration process. Others are complaining about the constant need for an Internet connection--required even for the single-player campaign--and the lack of LAN support. Again, all of these issues were addressed prior to the game's release--Blizzard left us no surprises.

"Blizzard has proved to us for the second time, that they are unable to develop a modern strategy game," reads one user review. "The graphics engine looks like Warcraft III tweaked to work at higher resolutions and utilize some modern gfx card features, but I would hardly call these graphics state of the art for 2010. They honestly don't even stack up to games made 3 years ago. No LAN play = deal breaker. Have fun spending 180+ and waiting probably another ten years to get the actual full game. Blizzard, hire real developers, and quit hiring EverQuest players to create your games."

One user points out that not everyone has an ideal Internet connection, especially dedicated fans on military duty overseas. "I am in the Army and we all ordered our copies of the game, but being deployed in Afghanistan we don’t have the best internet connection being in a third world country," reads another complaint. "So our gameplay is horrible!! The lag is just really bad and in a way is just a slap in the face for military personnel as well as all Blizzard fans."

An Internet connection should be required for registration, but optional thereafter for the single-player campaign.

Currently Blizzard has a review embargo in place for those of us in the press. For now, you'll have to rely on both the positive and negative feedback to determine if plunging $60 into StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty will be worth the effort. Things will be much more clearer once the embargo is lifted and reviews go live.

What's your take on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty? Was it worth the wait, or not worth the money?
 
I don't understand how a company can have a review embargo in place after a game has officially been released in stores. How can you prevent a review? Anyone has the right to review a game and share all the secrets once it's been released. What can Blizzard do about it? Isin't that a way of censoring the press? Once something is officially released in stores it's fair game.
 
I'm amazed that the only comment that we see in here is "$60 is too much for a PC game." Most console games are that price. PC games are usually 10-20$ cheaper? Big whoop. A night at the bar costs me the same price as SC2. A night of drinking fun or a couple of weeks, months, if not years, of gaming? Value is a very relative word.

Regardless, I'm not in a hurry of trying it. I'm sure it will be just as fun in a couple of weeks, when I actually have time to play it!
 
[citation][nom]lauxenburg[/nom]Yeah you know the download servers are going to be maxed out for the week with SC2.[/citation]
I downloaded it on launch day at 10am when it was first availible and it only took 40mins not bad for 7 gigs right at launch.
 
Disappointed so far. Plays surprisingly (disappointingly) like the original game, albeit with prettier graphics. Considering I paid $60 and can remember seeing Star Craft II advertisements on the inside of the CD case from the original game, which I bought TEN YEARS AGO, I expected quite a bit more.
 
[citation][nom]Nightsilver[/nom]Disappointed so far. Plays surprisingly (disappointingly) like the original game, albeit with prettier graphics. Considering I paid $60 and can remember seeing Star Craft II advertisements on the inside of the CD case from the original game, which I bought TEN YEARS AGO, I expected quite a bit more.[/citation]

Man- if they had changed it more than they did, people would be whining about how they changed it so much and lost the magic of the original game. Now, when they've updated and improved it, still keeping the successful play and feel of the original, you're complaining that its too similar? They've made a GREAT game, that manages to improve and update, but maintain the basics of what was a great game 12 years ago (and still is today). Keep the magic and the feel, update the graphics and engine etc, and you have a winner in my book.
 
Soooo what happened to TH's article about 'StarCraft 2 Trashed by Gamers, Called Incomplete'?

Did TH wilfully remove the article on their own. Or did the blizzard 'suits get to ya?

I'm guessing that article promoted a technical 'review' which goes against blizzard's review embargo?
 
Starcraft II is the best game I've played in years. $60 is cheap for the amount of entertainment included right from the box, let alone what will come from the map editor, mods, etc. So many whiners here.
 
[citation][nom]anony8923[/nom]I don't understand how a company can have a review embargo in place after a game has officially been released in stores. How can you prevent a review? Anyone has the right to review a game and share all the secrets once it's been released. What can Blizzard do about it? Isin't that a way of censoring the press? Once something is officially released in stores it's fair game.[/citation]
I, and a few others commenting on the "StarCraft 2 Trashed by Gamers, Called Incomplete" article (which was taken down), don't believe it was an actual review embargo, or at least not the type many were lead to believe. Blizzard placed an activation key on SC2, preventing anyone from trying out the final version of the game until 7/27/10, including game reviewers. So where as reviewers are usually given a copy of a game ahead of its public debut, this time they had to wait until the day of its release like everyone else. And yes, game reviews take time. The game has to be thoroughly played through and analyzed, and then a review has to be written up. This can take days or even weeks. This is why there weren't any SC2 reviews on 7/27, and why even today they're still scarce. It's also why no one on the Tom's staff could give an answer as to when the "review embargo" would be lifted... lol.

So he wasn't referring to a "review embargo" preventing people from posting reviews of SC2, he was referring to the activation key that applied to everyone, including the Tom's staff. I honestly think it was just a slip of the tongue, a poor choice of words on the part of Kevin Parrish. I just wish I could credit the person who originally connected the dots and was drawn to this conclusion, because it wasn't me. But unfortunately the original article was spontaneously taken down without warning, or a formal retraction. Oh, and just so you know, a few sights have already posted either full or partial reviews of the campaign and multiplayer modes. Google it.
 
[citation][nom]furty[/nom]StarCraft 2 Trashed by Gamers, Called Incomplete 4:30 PM - July 28, 2010 by Kevin Parrish - source: Tom's Hardware US... Currently Blizzard has a review embargo in place for those of us in the press... Things will be much more clearer once the embargo is lifted and reviews go live.[/citation]
Thanks furty for posting a copy the article.

I just have two short questions. How were you able to post of a copy of the original article without the original source? Does it still exist somewhere? Hmmm... this is your first post under a brand new account... strange.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Did they just take down the news post by Kevin Parrish regarding SC2 user complaints? Or have they just accidentally misplaced it? I just refreshed the page and apparently it no longer exists. It's also no longer listed under "News". That would be pretty funny, becasue many people where criticizing the legitimacy of the article, as well as Parrish's definition of "embargo". lol. If they're going to retract an inaccurate news post they should at least offer a formal retraction, and not just delete it as though it never existed.[/citation]

Agreed! They took down that article in record time. I noticed and immediately sent an email to webmaster@tomshardware.com. When that bounced back, I sent an email to the parent company.

Retracting an inaccurate article would be one thing, but censorship of an article with negative user comments is appalling. Especially since the inaccuracies in the article could have been fixed with a simple [edit].
 
[citation][nom]kanazak[/nom]Agreed! They took down that article in record time. I noticed and immediately sent an email to webmaster@tomshardware.com. When that bounced back, I sent an email to the parent company.Retracting an inaccurate article would be one thing, but censorship of an article with negative user comments is appalling. Especially since the inaccuracies in the article could have been fixed with a simple [edit].[/citation]

LOL yah. Normally Tom's retitles their articles with "[UPDATED]" etc. Not just simple delete.

Maybe the so-called "gamers" that were supposedly "trashing" Starcraft II was actually the author of that article himself?

I guess we'll never know now.
 
[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]Wrong wrong wrong!!! Investing money in a rig is just that, an investment. One that may last for years. Video games, on the other hand, offer temporary entertainment. Game companies now charge $60 for a game because they need to recoup the money they spent on advertising it, and because corporations like Activision and Ubisoft control the games market and get to set the market price.You go ahead and be a sucker- pull that money out of your pocket and pay full price or, if you're stupid enough, buy the special edition. I'll be smart and wait six months for the price to drop to a semi-reasonable level.[/citation]

I can't believe I'm even dignifying this drivel with a response, but here goes.

First - define the terms. Investment: An asset or item that is purchased with the hope that it will generate income or appreciate in the future. When was the last time you sold your rig or any part of it for more than you paid for it? "Investment" has nothing to do with the enjoyment you draw from use. That's called "Utility". Therefore, the guy is right when he says that buying games is hardly different than buying the platform. You enjoy your depreciating rig as much as he enjoys his new copy of SC2. And frankly, he'll still be enjoying it 10 years while you won't even remember what was in that rig. So...he pays less for more long-term enjoyment.

Second - Inflation. At 3-5% per year, the fact that we had 5-10 years of flat-rate $50 games is amazing. Guess what? gasoline isn't 25 cents a gallon any more. You can't buy a soda for a nickel either! in 20 years we'll probably be paying $100 for a game. Get over it.
 
Got to try SC2 in general I like the it. It's kind of like a warcraft 3 remixed with starcraft, and a couple of new features but all in all its a pretty good, new look same stuff.

One thing that kept me on the campaign is the awesome story and trailers, cool stuff, very addictive you keep playing just to see how the story plays out.

This is coming from a guy who said I wouldn't touch it because of what they short changed us on. Gotta give credit where it's due, and change is hard but good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom