Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fenrif]

I'm going to wait until I play this game to actually contribute an opinion on it.

This is generally a good idea for most things, when you don't want to look like an asshole.

I didn't think logic was allowed here.

Anyway, I bought it, I like it, campaign is a blast and multiplayer is solid. I never played LAN, don't care. Don't have friends overseas, region lock doesn't bother me. Custom map system is annoying, but the original StarCraft shipped without the ability to watch replays..... and map publishing's been around maybe two months? *shrug*

If you have a logistical reason not to buy it, that's completely understandable. But at least take the time to do some (any?) research before you contribute to the background whine of the internet. There is a non-realID friend feature, chat is due out in a month or two, and the next 2 chapters won't be priced as a full game.

I'm assuming you didn't read the articles posted a few pages ago about how crap battlenet 2.0 is? They've removed features wholesale from battlenet 1 simply so they can control the Esport that they hope to make SC2 into. I really don't see how custom map making will change? Its been out only 2 months, eh? But what about the limits on file size, number of maps, etc? What does replays have to do with custom maps?

I've researched, and I've played the game, and I'd tell anyone interested to not buy it. Certainly don't pay the full price +10 they're asking for this particular third of the game. Battlenet 2.0's lack of features, comple screw-uppery of custom mapping support, region locking, no LAN, etc all combine to make a game that has none of the features that made its predecessor such a huge success.

But go ahead and assume that everyone who has something bad to say about the game hasn't played it, or done any research. You even admit there are problems with it, but because you personally aren't effected by them you don't care/

And yeah, keep telling yourself the expansions won't be priced as a full game.

[debvon]

Honestly I think you're being a bit unrealistic. Please don't take offense either, I'm not here to argue, just to share and compare opinions.

Now I agree that the game isn't exactly worth $60, but it is damned close to being worth it. The campaign alone is very fun if you just chillax and enjoy it without analyzing everything, and the multiplayer is decent. It's probably going to get better with time and feedback as well, which we all need to remember. As for the expansions? No, I think that the $60 should cover them. You're paying this money for Starcraft 2. "Starcraft 2" should come complete with ALL of the race campaigns, I don't care how shiny they are. And considering the game is that much money, the campaign we're given is not terribly long, either. Not $60 long. Yeah yeah, the cost covers multiplayer as well.. but that's still stretching it.
This is an obvious (or is it?) attempt to milk fan boy wallets. Or parent wallets, in most cases. But this is Blizzard, what do you expect? Are you honestly going to tell people to pirate this great game simply because of the multiplayer faults which will probably get tweaked in the future?

Now pirate as you will, but I really do think this game and all of the soon-to-be expansions are worth a total of 60 bucks. So if you've got the money, just be honest- unless you don't care either way- and buy it, then pirate the expansions. But if you're not going to pay anything at all, don't blame it on petty little shortcomings. Every game has those. At least, that's how I see it.

[fenrif]

I've said right from the start that I'd gladly pay the rididuclous price for this game if custom mapping and modding support was as good as the original SC1, many many people seem to share this sentiment. It isn't.

One mans petty little shortcomings is another mans main point of interest. The fact of the matter is that there are many issues with this game. even if no one issue is particularly important to you, they all add up. To you the price is the main point of contention... To some people it's no LAN support. Others find region locking to be the dealbreaker. Complaining about the art style of diablo 3 is petty... Complaining about features being removed from the game entirely is a real issue for many people. And with good reason. As I've said, most of what made starcraft 1 such a great game for me isn't present in the sequel. I'm not the only one who has this opinion.

I'm not sayin that people should pirate it, that's what you said. I just said don't buy it. Yeah they might fix all of the issues, but since they're all in there by design I doubt it. Things like region locking, no LAN support, RealID features, etc are all intentional decisions that have been rationalised by Blizzard and Activision staff, and are there so they can control the games life as an Esport. So I wouldn't count on them being changed just because people cry foul.

[Darkmere]

Reading articles? I own the game and actually play it. As in, have looked at the features firsthand to see what's actually there...

Which leads us back to the point I made, of the complaints being from people who haven't purchased it to make a decision about the game they haven't played. And like I said, the issues that everyone touts as being game-breakers don't affect me. Not sure where the failure to communicate here is.

If you're in a rural area and don't have internet stability, lack of LAN support might be a deal breaker. I understand that. I never used it, so I don't miss it. Region lock? I don't play with friends overseas, because I don't have any. Doesn't affect me. If the fact that every other game the company has made has undergone improvements over its lifetime doesn't indicate that the current one will, then the concept of previous behavior indicating future performance clearly escapes people. There's nothing I can really say to explain that concept if it's difficult to grasp.

I have spent more money on DVD's that I'll never watch again than I spent on this game that I'll be playing for years. In simple terms of entertainment value, it's a good purchase.

As for the map system, that was the potential deal-breaker for me. However... the folks at the map-making site that I frequent (dedicated hobbysists, who use the system extensively) don't consider it unusable or a reason not to buy the game. If it's workable by the ones who are using it daily, it's good enough for me.

The campaign alone is worth at least $40 of the price to me, the rest far exceeds the $20 I'd spend on fast food or lame movies in the next several months. *shrug*

[Eugenitor]

Which leads us back to the point I made, of the complaints being from people who haven't purchased it to make a decision about the game they haven't played.

This is ridiculous.

It's like a guy going into a restaurant and ordering the Blue Plate Hepatitis Special, then saying "Why don't you eat it? You've never tried it, why are you making decisions about something you haven't tried?" Um, no. We're not going to eat it because the fucking chef sprinkled hepatitis on it. And we're not going to buy SC2 because Actiblizzard intentionally screwed over their own game. Maybe if they lower the price and serve it to us without the hepatitis, we might think about buying it.

[Grakelin]

I've said right from the start that I'd gladly pay the rididuclous price for this game if custom mapping and modding support was as good as the original SC1, many many people seem to share this sentiment. It isn't.

What are the issues with the new custom mapping? I still haven't played, but I heard (a very long time ago) that they were thinking of charging a subscription fee for some of the very popular ones. I don't know if that's true or not anymore, though if it is, that's a no-buy for me, because I don't have enough money to waste it on DoTA updates.

[Chutney]

I've said right from the start that I'd gladly pay the rididuclous price for this game if custom mapping and modding support was as good as the original SC1, many many people seem to share this sentiment. It isn't.

What are the issues with the new custom mapping? I still haven't played, but I heard (a very long time ago) that they were thinking of charging a subscription fee for some of the very popular ones. I don't know if that's true or not anymore, though if it is, that's a no-buy for me, because I don't have enough money to waste it on DoTA updates.

I have no idea about the subscription/premium maps, because none are on B.net yet if they are planning on doing it. Even if they did, someone else could just as easily replicate the map anyways. for free.

The main problem is that custom maps are now based on a popularity system. You go to join a custom game and it lists all of the custom maps that have been played on B.net, popular ones at top, never played ones at the bottom. The issue here is, you're stuck with the same 12 games (considering the list also has previous versions etc), while to find new ones you have to go down 5-6 pages and HOPE someone else is looking down that far and has the same interests as you.
also, I guess there are limits on the sizes and amounts of maps you can upload. It's really an issue with battle.net. I hope they start reverting it to Battle.Net 1.0, or at least give it most of its features back (the custom map listing, I would like back. They can keep their chat lobbies, though)

[fenrif]

What are the issues with the new custom mapping? I still haven't played, but I heard (a very long time ago) that they were thinking of charging a subscription fee for some of the very popular ones. I don't know if that's true or not anymore, though if it is, that's a no-buy for me, because I don't have enough money to waste it on DoTA updates.

you're given 5 slots to share custom maps. You're limited to 25 meg total storage, and a maximum of 10 megs per map. The mapping tools are apparently full of ridiculous word filters, even in the code, so you can't say words like "blow" ANYWHERE while making a map "go blow that up" is disallowed. You also can't name your match, so it just goes off the mapname apparently. And because it's listed in order of popularity in the game browser you get chutneys issue of having difficulty to find the map you want.

Reading articles? I own the game and actually play it. As in, have looked at the features firsthand to see what's actually there...

Which leads us back to the point I made, of the complaints being from people who haven't purchased it to make a decision about the game they haven't played. And like I said, the issues that everyone touts as being game-breakers don't affect me. Not sure where the failure to communicate here is.

If you're in a rural area and don't have internet stability, lack of LAN support might be a deal breaker. I understand that. I never used it, so I don't miss it. Region lock? I don't play with friends overseas, because I don't have any. Doesn't affect me. If the fact that every other game the company has made has undergone improvements over its lifetime doesn't indicate that the current one will, then the concept of previous behavior indicating future performance clearly escapes people. There's nothing I can really say to explain that concept if it's difficult to grasp.

I have spent more money on DVD's that I'll never watch again than I spent on this game that I'll be playing for years. In simple terms of entertainment value, it's a good purchase.

As for the map system, that was the potential deal-breaker for me. However... the folks at the map-making site that I frequent (dedicated hobbysists, who use the system extensively) don't consider it unusable or a reason not to buy the game. If it's workable by the ones who are using it daily, it's good enough for me.

The campaign alone is worth at least $40 of the price to me, the rest far exceeds the $20 I'd spend on fast food or lame movies in the next several months. *shrug*

You keep mentioning that you've played the game... good job. So have I.

And i understand your point compeltely. You're saying "yeah the game has problems, but they don't affect me personally, so they don't matter to anyone anywhere and only people who have bought the game can criticise the game even though i recommened pirating in my previous posts." As has allready been posted in articles that you don't want to read because you play the game, there are plenty of prominent mappers who think this system is ridiculous. I never said it was universally hated by everyone who's ever used a computer, just that many people find it useless. Again, just because you personally don't find it to be an issue doesn't mean noone else does.

My point, which you don't seem to be getting, is that just because no LAN, region locking, and all the other issues don't bother you, they're still big points of contention for huge amounts of people.

If the idea that after a company has been bought out by another company their behaviour might change (as it allready has) is completely foreign to you then theres nothing i can really say to explain it any more clearly. I guess it's just difficult to grasp.

Noone cares how much money you have spent on things, or how much entertainment they got you. I've spent more on a nights drinking than this game costs, see that? How you don't care? That's because it's no relevance to the topic at hand. Value is subjective anyway, for everyone who finds starcraft 2 better than those dvds you bought there will be someone who disagrees completely.

This is the fundamental difference between what you and I am saying. I'm saying I think the game has some problems, and those problems to me are a dealbreaker. This is a thread for people to talk about the game, so I'm talking about those problems. you're saying noone is allowed to complain about the game because you personally don't have a problem with anything. And also those things might possibly be fixed in the future because that's what they used to do before Activision bought them. Activision being the company that unabashedly says at every available opportunity they want to run their buisness in the exact oppoiste way Blizzard used to run theirs.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll keep telling people my opinion and you can keep telling people that they have to buy the game (that you told them to pirate) before they can comment on it.

[Darkmere]

Find where I told people to pirate the game? For that matter, find where I am telling everyone to go out right now and buy the game... I was pointing out that various and sundry articles written in beta pertain to issues that either flat out never existed or have been exaggerated. (RealID, globalized pay-to-play, the notion that blizzard mentioning the idea of selling exceptionally high-quality maps at some point in the future means every map is going to be taxed tomorrow...)

The only "other modder" I've seen badmouth the system to the point of saying "I quit" is Laz from Medial XL. And frankly his dealings with people and the slant of his (admittedly valid) arguments ALL eventually end with him being an attention-mongering loudmouth jerk to people.  And even after saying he quit and making a huge dramatic scene about the whole thing... he still hangs around map making sites crying to the unwashed masses instead of taking it up with Blizzard. His choice, I suppose.

Still, debating about a subjective topic is silly, so I'll close with: You can read what I say any way you like. I think the game was worth the money, you don't. In the end I'm enjoying myself and you're raging about consumer injustice. Here's some smileys so I look condescending       

[Grakelin]

What are the issues with the new custom mapping? I still haven't played, but I heard (a very long time ago) that they were thinking of charging a subscription fee for some of the very popular ones. I don't know if that's true or not anymore, though if it is, that's a no-buy for me, because I don't have enough money to waste it on DoTA updates.

you're given 5 slots to share custom maps. You're limited to 25 meg total storage, and a maximum of 10 megs per map. The mapping tools are apparently full of ridiculous word filters, even in the code, so you can't say words like "blow" ANYWHERE while making a map "go blow that up" is disallowed. You also can't name your match, so it just goes off the mapname apparently. And because it's listed in order of popularity in the game browser you get chutneys issue of having difficulty to find the map you want.

25 megs of storage in your Downloaded Maps folder? I guess that would be an issue, if I'm thinking of it right, since my WC3 folder had 500 MBs in it. I might be interpreting it wrong, though. Is it only 25 MBs you can upload into the game, or what?

Unless the maps are exponentially larger file size, the size limit shouldn't be too much of an issue, though. Especially large WC3 maps were 2 MBs at the most, with the average being around 50 kbs.

Word filters do sound bad, though. I understand why they decided not to let us name our custom games, seeing as how all the spambots have invaded BNet 1.

[Darkmere]

The map size limit only applies to the maps you create and upload. In order to exceed the limit you'd basically have to re-skin and use half the models in the game (and there are a few) in your map, or use custom music to bloat the map with an MP3 or something to that effect. Yeah, if you're doing a total conversion it might be a problem, I guess? Most maps will be under 1 Mb, the bigger, complex ones that still use standard resources might be 2 Mb.

The word filter for map publishing.... well it strikes me as some amusing joke that someone forgot to remove. Sniper is a filtered word (or at least it was in beta), which is silly enough to make me think that's not intended.

[fenrif]

The map size limit only applies to the maps you create and upload. In order to exceed the limit you'd basically have to re-skin and use half the models in the game (and there are a few) in your map, or use custom music to bloat the map with an MP3 or something to that effect. Yeah, if you're doing a total conversion it might be a problem, I guess? Most maps will be under 1 Mb, the bigger, complex ones that still use standard resources might be 2 Mb.

The word filter for map publishing.... well it strikes me as some amusing joke that someone forgot to remove. Sniper is a filtered word (or at least it was in beta), which is silly enough to make me think that's not intended.

There are plenty of examples of people saying that some of the more popular warcraft 3 maps come close to 5 megs with just the code alone. Also the file limit means no custom textures or units, no custom speech etc. The general impression I got from reading around is that it's fine for making standard sc2 maps, but for anything more in-depth than that you're gonna start butting heads with the file size limit. I'm not actually a mapper or modder, just going from what seems to be the general consensus.

And I apologise, got you confused with someone else in the thread who said to pirate the game or the expansions. My mistake. Guess that'll teach me to post replys after getting in from a night out.

[G-Flex]

If the "popularity system" goes by number of times the map has been played, then there's another huge problem: Maps with shorter play-time get overrepresented to an absurd degree. After all, people are going to play a five-minute map a hell of a lot more often than they'll play a twenty-minute map, even if they enjoy it the same amount and play for the same amount of time. It's an incredibly stupid way to measure popularity, if that's how they're doing it.

[ECrownofFire]

If the "popularity system" goes by number of times the map has been played, then there's another huge problem: Maps with shorter play-time get overrepresented to an absurd degree. After all, people are going to play a five-minute map a hell of a lot more often than they'll play a twenty-minute map, even if they enjoy it the same amount and play for the same amount of time. It's an incredibly stupid way to measure popularity, if that's how they're doing it.

I don't know what system they're going by, but measuring it by playtime would be better than that.

[Captain Hat]

Hmm... Can anyone give a reason why I should spend 60 dollars plus tax to acquire this game? It look cool, and I have a friend who had been waiting for it for 12+ years who bought it at midnight when it first came out.

This is him.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I haven't seen him since he got it.

So really, should I buy this?