Print

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

[DJ]

Yeah, but if AI is all server-side, you'd have to write a new AI from scratch to make that emulator or a single player skirmish crack. And if they really wanted to make it a lot of work, they could make the game-AI interface super obtuse.

*fake edit* Oh? That's good to hear. Strictly for research purposes, of course.

[Pillow_Killer]

Yah, AI seems to be written into mapdata(Which is weird) I remember playing beta skirmish offline, against AI.

[G-Flex]

(ending quote prymid) exactly, if I got the game from a torront and liked it, I'd buy it to be able to use B-net.

Not only that, but many of those people had no intention of buying the game anyway. They download it because it is painless to do so and gives them a chance to try it out. I often do this when the company doesn't release a beta [...]

Companies won't release demo versions of a game if they don't see the necessity. They won't see the necessity if everybody just pirates it instead.

(though I may very well pirate it (blizzard can stand the tiny amount of money loss))

One of these torrents has 20,000 peers on it right now.

Number of pirates does not equal number of lost sales.

That's not what he was arguing. The point he's making is that the "tiny amount of money loss" from you isn't all that matters; it's the amount of money lost from you and everyone like you.

Yes, so that WAS what he was arguing. He is saying that they are losing money because there are 20,000 people pirating the game from that torrent right now.

I was saying that not every one of those people is a lost sale.

But how many are? Apparently you are, but you're acting like the only one.

[fenrif]

Some advice: You're never going to convince an anti-pirate person to change their mind. Also: You're never going to convince a pro-pirate person to change their mind.

[forsaken1111]

Some advice: You're never going to convince an anti-pirate person to change their mind. Also: You're never going to convince a pro-pirate person to change their mind.

I'm neither pro- nor anti-piracy, I don't care what others do really. My entire point was that the number of people pirating a game does not equate directly to lost sales. This is something the video game and movie industries have been saying for a long time, and it is absolutely untrue.

[G-Flex]

Some advice: You're never going to convince an anti-pirate person to change their mind. Also: You're never going to convince a pro-pirate person to change their mind.

I'm neither pro- nor anti-piracy, I don't care what others do really. My entire point was that the number of people pirating a game does not equate directly to lost sales. This is something the video game and movie industries have been saying for a long time, and it is absolutely untrue.

Your "entire point" was more than that; I was mostly referring to your first post, to which I initially replied, which was less "number of people pirating > lost sales from pirating" and more "it's only one person's money, what harm am I doing?". I'm aware that not everybody who pirates something would have bought it regardless. That's not what I'm disagreeing with, or ever did. I disagree with this I'm-a-special-island sort of "how much does it matter if they lose MY tiny amount of cash?" sort of sentiment that can't see the bigger picture. It's like when people say "one vote doesn't matter" as an excuse to not go to the polls.

I'm not saying this in defense of the game (I don't really care about Starcraft very much) or its price (too high) or its corporate sponsorship (what), or even as an attack against piracy itself. I'm saying this because you used a fallacious justification for it in the post I responded to initially.

[kilakan]

argh can we end this already, sorry I said anything, now can someone WHO HAS ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME tell us what their thoughts are, and whether or not it was worth it?

[forsaken1111]

Your "entire point" was more than that; I was mostly referring to your first post, to which I initially replied, which was less "number of people pirating > lost sales from pirating" and more "it's only one person's money, what harm am I doing?". I'm aware that not everybody who pirates something would have bought it regardless. That's not what I'm disagreeing with, or ever did. I disagree with this I'm-a-special-island sort of "how much does it matter if they lose MY tiny amount of cash?" sort of sentiment that can't see the bigger picture. It's like when people say "one vote doesn't matter" as an excuse to not go to the polls.

I'm not saying this in defense of the game (I don't really care about Starcraft very much) or its price (too high) or its corporate sponsorship (what), or even as an attack against piracy itself. I'm saying this because you used a fallacious justification for it in the post I responded to initially.

You do realize that it wasn't me who said that right? If you're going to rage, at least rage against the right person.

(though I may very well pirate it (blizzard can stand the tiny amount of money loss))

[Zangi]

argh can we end this already, sorry I said anything, now can someone WHO HAS ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME tell us what their thoughts are, and whether or not it was worth it?

A few people have already.

[Chutney]

argh can we end this already, sorry I said anything, now can someone WHO HAS ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME tell us what their thoughts are, and whether or not it was worth it?

I've done it multiple times here but to recap:
pros
-single player is fun to play, even though the story is pretty dumb
-multiplayer matches are very strategical, if you're in a good match you'll rearrange your strategy several times before the end
-multiplayer puts you in a ranking according to how you do in placement matches, meaning you won't be matched up with 2,000win/2loss uberplayers (unless you are one yourself)
-custom games can be really cool
-map editor is SUPER SUPER powerful

cons
-story is pretty dumb
-campaign and multiplayer are two completely different things. only way to hone your skills is through multiplayer
-joining custom games is ruined. you don't host your own and it appears in a listing, it appears in a listing based on popularity so it's very hard for new maps to take off, meaning you see the same maps on the listing for days and days without changing because not many people scroll down to play newer maps. you actually have to find friends who like to play the same maps as you

[fenrif]

I just finished the campaign, and I'm pretty unimpressed. The individual missions were ok, each one has it's own little gimmick so YMMV. I really liked the day/night cycle one. None of them really play like a RTS in a traditional sense (at least that's not how i played them). I definatly liked the out of combat adventure mode bits the most. They do add a lot to the atmosphere, but it gets really repetetive after a while. Generally towards the end everyone who can say something will say the same thing everyone else does.

The plot is flat out ridiculous. First of all, there is definatly a HUGE cliffhanger. When they announced the game was being split into three Blizzard assured fans taht there wouldn't be any cliffhangers between the games. It only really resolves one part of the narrative, with everything else either being introduced and forgotten, or just ignored entirely. It also has a really poorly done moral choice mechanic where you can choose between two missions a few times. Overall it adds nothing to the plot really, and just slightly changes some ingame bonuses (do you get a ghost with a snipe attack or a "spectre" with a mindblast attack instead)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There's also a point where Raynor decides to join forces with his arch nemesis' son for really no good reason at all, engendering the hatred of everyone around him, and acting like a complete tit because plot dictates it be so for the big badass speech he gives later on. This isn't really explained at all, and is a real head-scratcher. Why this wasn't a moral choice is beyond me. It's probobly the single most important decision in the game and you have no say in it. 

I'd expect the next campaign to be the zerg, and to continue almost exactly where this one leaves off, because otherwise there are going to be MANY unanswered questions to explain.

It pulls a bit of a mass effect 2, in that you spend most of the game doing missions to unlock units, getting one per mission, untill you reach a point where you don't get anymore and it's the end battle. Nearly all the missions before the endgame bit can be beat by just building whatever that missions unit is and swarming around. If you're playing a mission taht gives you firebats, just build unlimited firebats and you'll win easily.

The terran "metagame" of upgrading your units is kinda cool. Though I very quickly became annoyed by it. See there's two ways of upgrading. Many units have 2 upgrades you buy for them, such as the battleships emergency shield and anti-air missle swarm, and you can also use protoss and zerg techpoints (which you get in missions) to research new tech. The problem I had was that "researching new tech" equates to picking from a set of two options at 5 or 6 milestones. It's really frustrating to get to the top of the tech tree and not be able to unlock any of the other ones (it lets you sell extra techpoints for money, but that's kinda meh). I guess if you really dig replaying the game you'd enjoy this, but as the missions are allready so gimmicky there's just no draw there for me.

Also as far as I can tell, while you can go back and replay missions you've allready beat, you can't do it with your current tech. So no going back and playing the day/night mission with ghosts. There might be a way to do it, but I couldn't find it.

Overall the singleplayer seems kinda unfinished. The plot definatly isn't, and lots of little touches in the rest of the game seem kidna half done. You can goto the armoury to see some of the units you've bought, and read a little piece of fluff about them... But only certain random ones. The game was apparently "too massive" to be shipped with the other two campaigns, yet it doesn't really convey that, at least not to me.

If it was a console game I'd say rent it, but as it stands I say borrow it from a friend or something. The plot is a forgettale mess, the missions are interesting but easy, and the upgrade system and "branching storyline" don't really add anything beyond some vestigial replayability for those that need to unlock everything.

[forsaken1111]

The day/night mission was the only one I really liked. If the game wasn't so expensive I would buy it just for the map editor so I could make a sort of 'fort zombie' survival mode based on that map.

[fenrif]

Yeah, the editor seems really powerfull, hopefully they'll fix battlenet so it's actually worthwhile.

One final point I just though of: there seems to be a wierd disconnect between the games plot and the missions. In that you very rarely get a hero unit, even though according to the plot the characters should all be involved in the battle. It's odd, theres even a mission where you get JUST hero units, and then they're all gone forever.

[Miggy]

It pulls a bit of a mass effect 2, in that you spend most of the game doing missions to unlock units, getting one per mission, untill you reach a point where you don't get anymore and it's the end battle. Nearly all the missions before the endgame bit can be beat by just building whatever that missions unit is and swarming around. If you're playing a mission taht gives you firebats, just build unlimited firebats and you'll win easily.

This is somewhat true, but imo not too much if you up the difficulty. I don't know which difficulty you played at, but on brutal (and in some missions, hard) many of the mission-given units are downright useless. For instance, in the final mission of the haven storyline introduces vikings, and in both missions the narrative recommends massing vikings for great justice. In all actuality though, vikings are fragile and expensive (despite having very decent firepower), and it's much faster and easier to make a massive Marine-medic ball. Marine-medic was a strategy I defaulted to in just about 75% of the missions (basically because I could).

Also as far as I can tell, while you can go back and replay missions you've allready beat, you can't do it with your current tech. So no going back and playing the day/night mission with ghosts. There might be a way to do it, but I couldn't find it.

This is most likely to prevent achievement "faking": If it says you've completed the entire campaign on brutal it's because you completed the entire campaign on brutal, not just completed it on easy then spent your 1337 upgraded units to complete the first 80% of the campaign with ease and roughing the final missions.

That said though, I observed that the orbital command upgrades do stay even though you replay earlier missions.  That's actually a really big one, as getting MULEs allows for much, much faster economy startup.

...It's really frustrating to get to the top of the tech tree and not be able to unlock any of the other ones (it lets you sell extra techpoints for money, but that's kinda meh). I guess if you really dig replaying the game you'd enjoy this, but as the missions are allready so gimmicky there's just no draw there for me...

Yeah, this is a subjective one, but for one I welcome the upgrading system. I like it that the choices I make are permanent and not just temporary: It adds weight to them and forces me to think them through. Instead of just going "Meh, it's not like it matters, in 3 missions I'll have both anyways".

Same thing with the armoury upgrades as well, as there is not enough credits to go around for upgrading the entire unitpool. You actually have to upgrade the things that matter and skimp on the upgrades that are "Just cool".

[fenrif]

Yeah I played on normal, 'cause i'm universally crap at all RTS games. Usually normal difficulty is just right for me, not too easy, not so hard that i get frustrated and quit the game entirely.

Yeah the achievement thing is probobly why you can't go back and replay missions, which is lame because achievements should add to a game, not detract from it. They should've given you an option to replay difficulties you've allready done with your current tech, but just turn off achievements.

Yeah, this is a subjective one, but for one I welcome the upgrading system. I like it that the choices I make are permanent and not just temporary: It adds weight to them and forces me to think them through. Instead of just going "Meh, it's not like it matters, in 3 missions I'll have both anyways".

Same thing with the armoury upgrades as well, as there is not enough credits to go around for upgrading the entire unitpool. You actually have to upgrade the things that matter and skimp on the upgrades that are "Just cool".

That's my entire problem with it. It penalizes you for taking the cool things, becuse they aren't as usefull. I'm all for having meaningfull choices, but in a game like this where you basically spend the entire game collecting things, then have 1 or 2 missions before the end it seems kinda silly. As you said, it's entirely subjective... I just prefer either being able to unlock everything, or maybe more choices between what I do unlock. Why can't I forgo getting the top tier protoss upgrade and instead get both the bottom tier ones? I

I think the main reason it annoyed me is because the in-game explanation for the research upgrades doesn't fit in with the choice system they implimented. You can earn more tech points than is necissary to fill the tree, and each level of unlocks the scientist guy says he can research both options from it... So why can't I invest some of those extra tech points into one of the other things he just completely abandoned?