I guess I don't understand what is taking them so long, with this or D2.

Ok so you need to play bad for the first few games to be put with the noob bracket then own them. Check.

It's Official, StarCraft II Hits Stores July 27

Matt Peckham
May 3, 2010 6:04 pm

StarCraft II Wings of Liberty

Don't worry, the clattering cacophony you're hearing is probably just the sound of a million gamers pre-ordering StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, since it finally has a launch date, and it's sooner than you think.

Sooner, as in July 27, the day Blizzard Entertainment says its space-based real-time game should be available from sea to shining sea, along with Canada, Europe, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Mexico, Singapore...need I continue? (Okay: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and regions of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and of all places, Macau--no, I couldn't tell you where that is without looking it up first either.)

Insert the part where Blizzard bigwig Mike Morhaine says they've been waiting to revisit the StarCraft universe for years, that the beta's going great, that they can't wait to welcome all the new players, and all that yada-yada. Really Blizzard, we don't need to know you're excited. That goes without saying. Your job's to tell us something we don't already know.

Like, are you sure the only copy protection scheme you're using in the game is the ol' one-time online activation? Even that's new for you, and I think I speak for most in saying anything more would be a deal-breaker.

And speaking of "most," are you still stoked for this one? Cool with the notion it'll be nothing revolutionary, but rather more of the same, zeroed on competitive multi-play, with spiffier graphics?

I am in Beta atm game is fun but does stay close to the original design.

CakvalaSC.cak

I just started about a week ago ;( so still rusty but Im happy I still remember the keyboard commands !

For Venen, where can I find screenshots from RTSs with better graphics? I typically don't play a large volume of games so it's quite possible I'm out of the loop with respect to what other studios are able to do but I've found the graphics, at least on 'ultra', to be very impressive - certainly no less impressive than the best that CoH and DoW2 had to offer and neither game approaches the number of units on screen at once that you regularly find in SC2.

Second, why would you want to zoom out? Such a feature drastically changes how the game is played. Starcraft is a very intimate real time strategy, to simply state that zooming out should be a required method of control shows little understanding of the genre.

I got a beta key from a friend. My first reaction is that Starcraft 2 is almost exactly like Starcraft 1. Disappointed but I'm not surprised at all
.

That's a good thing; my computer is about 3 years old!

Just for the record, SupCom2 is a horrible incarnation of SupCom1 in terms of gameplay, don't buy it. Just wanted to get that out of the way =p

Those screenshots are proof enough, thanks for posting them. C&C4 looks worse, but still obviously has better particle effects than you see anywhere in SC2. SupCom2 looks significantly better in terms of environmental layout, particle effects, and texture. I'm partial to videos since it's always better to judge graphics while they're animated to get a good feel for the engine, and it's also where SC2 looks the saddest.

DoW2 and World in Conflict arguably have better graphics than C&C4 as well, without even mentioning SC2, and they were released years before(well, 1 year or so in the case of DoW2).

The only worthy note of the SC2 SS's here is the lower one where they have some relatively decent structual units and city street detail. But, considering you can only rotate the camera half-circle and barely even zoom in, you won't be seeing much of that detail in any variety of perspective at all. It almost goes hand in hand with the points I noted about the complete lack of a zoomout feature. Forget the fact that it doesn't have it, it won't even give you a simpler rotating camera that(in modern terms at least) sorta started with the TW series and now is seen in a variety of RTS games.

It's convenient that you're now asking for video because 'that's where SC2's awfulness really shines'... Anyway, it's clear to me that you're simply just trying to get a rise out of me; claiming the textures in SupCom2 are significantly better made that pretty clear, anyone can look at the ground textures and see that that's not the case.

The whole zoom bandwagon that people have jumped on is another matter entirely, as I've said before such a 'feature' changes the way the game is played. The difference is comparable to that of a 1st person RPG versus a 3rd person RPG and if that's your cup of tea than great. Company of Heroes is one the best RTSs released in the past 5+ years years and it has no 'zoom out' feature, what gives there? Dawn of War?

The real irony here is that people are slamming SC2 for its bad graphics yet also want to be able to zoom out and control their army when they're no more than squares, triangles and circles on a map.

My favorite RTS games are when you have units that gain experience as they stay alive. It makes protection and healing a pretty big deal, and if you ever lose that unit, pretty upsetting. Master of Magic actually had a great system for that, though it wasn't an RTS.

We can talk about our favorite features from Starcraft 1 that are perfectly preserved for us to experience all over again, and the effect SC2 will have on the Korean competitive market! I just hope I don't get too hot in my giant Protoss costume! Maybe we can roleplay while we're in line!

Note A: This entry reflects a “current event”. Things change. So if I’m ranting that Pac-Man represents the technological heights of Reagan’s America, keep an open mind.

Note B: Took note of the complaints about the structure of the article and I agreed with you guys. I made a goof. Went ahead and fixed that up. Hopefully, this works out a bit better.

Note C: Noticed I got a nod on Reddit. And now Fark. Props to all the feedback. Always looking to get better at this, and comments (positive or negative) help me do that. I want to emphasize that Dustin Browder and company did an awesome, awesome job on the game itself. My qualms are with an interface I believe the game design team had little to do with. Just don’t want the achievements of Starcraft II lost in a combination of corporate politics and gamer rage.

I’m late to the Battle.net 2.0 Hate Party, but I brought a keg, so here goes.

I don’t get angry about video games. Passionate? Yeah, it’s pathetic. But no, not angry. Game developers are people, too. They got bills to pay. But Battle.net 2.0 makes me angry.

Starcraft II is excellence. It’s sensational. Dustin Browder knew this game was his legacy and his squad delivered. And it’s a fucking shame people are going to turn on this product for things Browder has no control over. Right now, the Battle.net Forums look like the Battle of the Somme and Starcraft fan site TeamLiquid is trying to disown the game. The internet has shat a brick. What the hell happened?

I wasn’t around for the “Atari owns the industry” days. But in my lifetime, nothing tops Activision-Blizzard, a corporate culture whose roots lie in four developers who escaped Atari’s corporate culture. I have never seen one company try so hard to tell me this is the product I want.

Battle.net 2.0 is supposed to be the future of online gaming. Instead, it is the antithesis of consumer confidence, a combination of corporate suits who don’t play video games and game designers who can’t do damage control.

Fine, tell me it’s wrong to assume an Activision corporate culture would impact its corporate partner. You know, where the President of Blizzard Entertainment answers directly to Thomas Tippl, an executive who answers to Activision C.E.O. Bobby Kotick. The Bobby Kotick who disowned projects that lacked “the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential”. The Bobby Kotick who stated he wants to “take the fun out of making video games.” Or you can see what happens when an online gaming service is not a game design decision.

—

The Battle.net 2.0 marketing approach has been simple: “We removed [function] because of [scapegoat].” It’ll sound good to the GameStop crowd, and Starcraft players will call bullshit. Since computer gamers have a habit of organizing boycotts on the grounds of crappy box art, the mainstream will throw up their hands and say “There they go again.” And then when Blizzard releases the game, computer fans will say “We told you so.”

Look at LAN. In June of 2009, Blizzard Entertainment revealed there would be none. The reason? Blizzard wanted to give its fans a quality product.

“While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.” – Bob Colyaco, Blizzard Public Relations Representative

That’s right: Battle.net 2.0 is going to be so awesome, you won’t need LAN. May surprise you: Many months ago, I defended it.

“Eliminating the ability to play Starcraft II through a Local Area Network does not mean you won’t be able to play the game through an equivalent. You can’t cut through a Battle Report or Q&A Batch or Dustin’s Terrible Terrible Blogspot without having it drenched in e-sport. Blizzard didn’t build the game for competition, for television, simply to decide we can’t fight it out latency free. This is the sequel to gaming’s biggest spectator sport.

“What we can say is that you will have to hook into the internet to play the game. This is a piracy thing, and the Steam approach appears to be the compromise being offered by developers. Ten years ago, a CD-Key was good enough. Today, Blizzard does not want to get snakebit by another case of Garena, where hundreds of thousands play Defense of the Ancients with illegal copies of Warcraft III. My guess is that Battle.net 2.0 will emulate Steam’s product. Players looking to LAN will log into Battle.net to verify the game’s legitimacy, and then proceed to play on an emulated equivalent.

…

“If you are playing somebody through Battle.net via a local network, you will have LAN latency, and you will not be disconnected from your local game if your internet connection dies on you. There. I just eased eighty percent of the concern.”

I made a mistake. Not just assuming “There’s no way Blizzard can be that dumb.” I thought LAN was about piracy. If piracy was the concern, it wouldn’t make sense to pass up internet-authenticated LAN. But piracy is an easy target. Especially when the real reason is a laughingstock in the Western World. Already discussed it in detail: The elimination of LAN creates a world where Blizzard is the unquestioned overlord of “Starcraft II: The Sport”. Read the Terms of Service lately?

“You agree that you will not, under any circumstances…use the Service for any “e-sports” or group competition sponsored, promoted or facilitated by any commercial or non-profit entity without Blizzard’s prior written consent;” – Starcraft II Battle.net Terms of Use, Current as of May 28th

Want to run a major Starcraft II tournament? Hope you got money. Blizzard wants a cut. Yeah, Blizzard isn’t tossing lawyers at your college tournament. And why bother? Saw what happened at the University of Central Florida? Where 100 gamers showed up for a tournament and found out Battle.net could only handle twelve university network users at once? And then Battle.net crashed during the round of sixteen and threw the legitimacy of the event into question? Blizzard isn’t worried. The company set up the system so you can’t compete with them. It just sells the message: “Thanks for making Starcraft a spectator sport, fans. Now fuck off.“

That’s why your game is region-locked. Got friends in Europe? Too bad. You can’t play with them. Blizzard has international Starcraft tournaments to sell. They can’t have Germany’s Dario Wunsch (TheLittleOne) and American-in-Korea Greg Fields (IdrA) playing each other whenever they feel like it. That’ll dilute the demand for Major League Gaming’s “Europe versus America” event, brought to you by Mountain Dew: Rainbow Seizure. Your “official reason” for the omission?

“Yes, when it releases on day one, if you want to connect with your friends in the US, get the US box or if you want to play with Koreans, then get the Korean box. However if you want to get the best experience out of your game here in South East Asia, you should get the local boxset. The latency, the community, those things are going to really define the experience, and you don’t want to miss out on that.” – Kevin Yu, Blizzard Community Manager

Blizzard Entertainment eliminated LAN on an implied premise that everyone has broadband internet and latency will not be an issue. According to the company, the game is region-locked because latency will be an issue. Starcraft features an internationally-diverse competitive gaming scene. According to the company, confining them to regional servers will foster community. Can’t make this stuff up.

Next? Battle.net 2.0 limits you to a single CD-Key per person. That’s it. That’s your sixty-dollar purchase. According to the company, this is because you are an asshole.

“Really good players, they don’t necessarily want to play themselves. They want to go beat up on the noob because that’s really fun.” – Rob Pardo, Vice President of Game Design, Blizzard Entertainment

More..........

(Full story on link)