Comments on: A Blizzard Of Blizzard-Fact

By: We Fly Spitfires - MMORPG Blog

We Fly Spitfires - MMORPG Blog — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:58:17 +0000

SC2 will likely be awesome. If it ever comes out :)

By: Biz

Biz — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:21:27 +0000

“Needless to say, we get to learn quite how Starcraft II causes other games to seem like nothing in comparison”

so where’s that part of the article

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:44:04 +0000

Yeah, that was kinda strange Kester. He was talking about it with no emotion then said “AWESOME!!,” which is kinda confusing all around.

By: Psychopomp

Psychopomp — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:39:06 +0000

@JKjoker

The tin foil hat

You should put it away

By: Kester

Kester — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:34:32 +0000

Re the single player demo, the chap reviewing sounds actually rather bored most of the way through, then says “Wow, it’s amazing!” I guess that means we’ll get what everyone was expecting, for better or worse: the same old SC with fantastic presentation. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is up to you (I lean toward the former).

By: Alaric

Alaric — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:25:56 +0000

LOL! Yes, they would. The thing is, though, people will always bitch regardless of what is happening. So I say ignore them.

By: Serondal

Serondal — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:12:52 +0000

I wonder if people would complain if they waited until 2012 to release the game and it did have a 120 hour campaign and blizzard charged 100 – 120 dollars for it.

By: Jad

Jad — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:08:50 +0000

I think Starky’s comparison of having three SC2 games to Lord of the Rings or Kill Bill is pretty apt.

(Ignoring for a moment the publishing history of the LoTR books) Peter Jackson could have made the story shorter and released just one movie. Or he could have released a 9 hour long movie in the theaters. But instead he told us, up front, that there would be three movies, that the story would not be complete for three years, and that we would have to buy three movie tickets to see the whole story.

If you liked the movies, I doubt you complained too much about this. I doubt you came out of Fellowship of the Ring saying that there “wasn’t enough movie”, or that it was “too short” or that Jackson was just “milking the franchise”.

I don’t know if SC2 will be as good as LoTR (don’t know if you really can even compare them), but seriously: what Blizzard is doing here isn’t really all that odd. Its been done before.

By: Archonsod

Archonsod — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:53:16 +0000

So, another generic RTS with a linear single player campaign they want to extend over three games?

They’ll be partying like it’s 1999 next …

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:18:37 +0000

I’m not saying they didn’t get together and talk about it, but I’m sure they didn’t talk about it just to figure out a way to screw the consumer, that’s the conspiracy aspect of it. It was probably more of a question on how to fit it all into one game, and make it accessible to the most people. The other truth (at least for me) is, I don’t want to play a 120 hour campaign, and for Blizzard, that wouldn’t be a game that is accessible to most people. Breaking it up allows it to be fresh again after a 9 – 12 month cycle for the average RTS gamer, and those who are obsessed with SC have BNet to play on.

As for LAN, I’m not too concerned, you can still play with people in the same room if you really want to, and broadband isn’t going to slow people down the way that dial-up did 10 years ago.

By: JKjoker

JKjoker — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:00:27 +0000

@Jeremy: conspiracy theories ? ha, its just common sense, DLC is all the rage right now, you really think publishers and devs never get together and talk about what to hold back for DLC ?, they are not doing it because they are “evil” they are doing it because, like any business, they are trying to maximize their profits, its us, gamers, that let them get away with it.

@pkt-zer0: i said they are an unknown quantity, meaning im neutral about them, so im just assuming they are going to do what every other company does, and the LAN thing doesnt give the “they are still the same company” feeling

By: Alaric

Alaric — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:55:30 +0000

@JKjoker,

I am not against a SC2 supporting LAN as a concept. It’s just not really that important, and as such I am not inclined to shed a tear if the feature is dropped.

Also, I am not against social events. Personally I can’t imagine carrying my computer and monitor to a friend’s house so we can play in the same room, but if that’s what you enjoy, more power to you. The thing is… as far as I am concerned connecting to the Internet from the same room works just as well as connecting to a router.

But if this is a question of life and death… I’m sure you could fake Battle.net inside your own house. Same way people put up private WoW servers.