Today Is Starcraft 2 Day, I Think

Or maybe that’s tomorrow? I mean, it’ll be in the next 24-hours that you can get the game and start playing, so that has a todayish quality to it. But then there’s going to be midnight opening stuff for the launch tonight so technically it’s tomorrow. Anyway, whatever happens we’ll soon be installing Starcraft II, toying with our Terrans and playing with out Protoss… and whatever it is you do with Zerg. Blizzard have, of course, knocked out a posh trailer for the single player campaign, which I’ve posted below. I mean, all those flash cinematics are great and everything, but the route to a PC gamer’s heart lies in sending hundreds of tiny men to their deaths, and SC2 will be chock full of that.


  1. Leperous says:

    They could have written a better script for that guy. “Impressive cinematics!”

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      “Gameplay mechanics” doesn’t sit all that well with gravel voice, either.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      Ye gods that was cringe-worthy. I wonder what went through the voice actor’s head as he read through the script the first time.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      Did anyone else think that voice was not fitting at all, and rather cringe-worthy?

      I could barely stand it.

    • Simon says:

      Wasn’t that the voice actor who played Arcturus Mengsk? He sounds quite similar.

    • Nick says:

      ‘Heart poundin’ combat’

      Cue the most boring looking battle I have ever seen with ships just hoving there.

      Still, probably going to end up getting this for the single player.

    • Collic says:

      That’s the most hilarious voice-over I’ve head in a while. I’ll be honest, i’m a little shocked given the level of polish Blizzard pour on their cinematics. Great trailers are sort of their thing, aren’t they ?

  2. JackShandy says:

    Urgh. I guess I have to go buy this thing now, or something.


    • Sam says:

      My sentiments exactly. I’m not sure if I want it, but I guess I’ll have to get it anyway.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      same as :/

    • geldonyetich says:

      It’s probably be a pretty darn excellent RTS with a number of memorable cinematic experiences. Aside from that…? Well, it’s more Starcraft, right?

  3. DJ Phantoon says:

    “Sending hundreds of tiny men to their deaths”

    I think it’s just “killing hundreds of dudes of any size in one way or another”

    • Malagate says:

      Ohh I think I’ve noticed a new niche there, sending hundreds of giant men to their deaths. There’s really a large difference in the number of games where giant mans die compared to tiny men…

      For the best of both there could be a RTS of the Titans against the Ice Giants but set in modern day cities. Huge hoards of massive icy bastards beating the tar out of really big god-like beings whilst trampling a city full of terrified people…all it needs is a dancing giant Stalin to be near perfection.

    • jsdn says:

      But to be able to see hundreds of giant men battle each other, you’d have to zoom way out, thus making them tiny again.

  4. Saul says:

    I was pre-loading it through Blizzard’s site, but I couldn’t find any info on how much they’ll actually charge for the thing to unlock it. Should I be going out to a shop and buying an actual physical copy? I dunno, that’s something I haven’t done for years. It’s very annoying when games aren’t on Steam.

    • Rich says:

      Probably. It seems to be around the £35 mark anyway in the UK. Don’t know about the US.

    • Rinox says:

      The ‘standard’ price is following the CoD trend and is 45 quid. And 60 dollars, And 55 €. :-(

      I actually preordered it over amazon because it was one of the few places offering a substantial preorder discount. If it wasn’t Blizzard and SC it probably would have been enough to say ‘no thanks’ for me.

    • Colthor says:

      @Saul etc.

      It can (apparently, I’ve not tested this) be had from Tesco Entertainment for £30 with the 15% off code “FTSL15-1”.

      But still, *thirty* pounds? Get stuffed! Even before the lack of reviews and mandatory Blizzard registration rubbish.

      And C&C was always better anyway.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “The ‘standard’ price is following the CoD trend and is 45 quid. And 60 dollars, And 55 €. :-(”

      I’d say CoD is following the Warcraft 3 trend >_>

    • Diziet says:

      Preload it, I contacted blizzard support with a few choice questions. They had this to say about whether or not you could use one digital copy on two platforms:

      “When pre-downloading the Starcraft II client you will find that both the PC client and the MAC client are located in the folder should you be installing from within your home page. If you activate the game on your MAC computer, you will later be able to install the PC client also through your home page and it is possible to access the same account from both locations, independently but not simultaneously.

      We hope this clarifies the situation for you, should you have any other queries please do not hesitate to ask. ”

      Also as far as I understand it you can preload the digital copy and use the licence key from any purchase to activate your digital copy.

    • Saul says:

      @Diziet: My understanding from trawling through forums is that you can’t activate the download with a hard-copy key.

      @Everyone: I’m in Australia. Don’t suppose anyone has the official Aussie price?

    • Nick says:

      Probably even more expensive, sadly.

  5. The Dark One says:

    At this point all my righteous indignation has drained away. I neither interested in playing or am annoyed by hearing about it. You’ve deadened me on the inside, ActiBlizzard. :(

  6. kikito says:

    The zerg verb is “obliterating”.

  7. Daniel Rivas says:

    Right, so it’s out both today and tomorrow.

    It’s a Starcraft 2 long weekend! Hurray!

  8. rocketman71 says:


    Oh, yeah, that game that took them 10 years removing features to release a third of the sequel… pass.

    • alseT says:

      Troll moar please.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      He’s not trolling. You are.

      I too couldn’t care less about this game. That type of gameplay became an old hat years ago. And that game became so over-hyped that it broke most people’s “hype bone”. Besides: I prefer playing something new. Not the xth incarnation of the same old money milking machine.

    • subedii says:

      Two titles in 10 years is money milking?

      Also, different RTS’s work by different mechanics. There’s no point in changing Starcraft into something it isn’t purely for the sake of being different. They’ve made changes and streamlined the formula whilst attempting to keep the core gameplay intact, the reason being that’s what their fanbase wants: More of the same, but reworked for the modern age.

      I mean you may as well complain that Halo 3 had a recharging shield and featured shooting aliens, just like Halo 1 and Halo 2.

    • Rich says:

      “third of the sequel”

      You mean one huge sequel divided into three parts.
      In this release you get all the multiplayer stuff, skirmish, editors and a full campaign that is (reportedly) about the size of the original three put together.

    • subedii says:

      Yeah I’ll complain about “size” of the campaign if what they offer out of the box isn’t worth the money I’m paying for it. As it currently stands, it looks to be as big as the original game )if not slightly larger), but with a tonne more stuff added on besides.

      If the Zerg and Protoss campaigns offer just as much for my money and I feel it’s still interesting enough, I’ll get those too. If I’m bored with Starcraft 2 by then, then I won’t. But yeah, bringing out how the game being released is 1/3rd the size is more than a little disingenuous.

    • Robert says:

      It all depends on whether or not you are ‘forced’ – by means of dividing the multiplayer community in versions – to buy the other for the same price. And in what timespan.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “He’s not trolling. You are.”

      Stopped reading there.

    • alseT says:

      Subedii I wouldn’t bother making a well thought out response in this thread. There are a lot of clueless people here who act as though they played and finished all 3 “thirds” of starcraft 2.

      Me, I won’t buy this on release because I can’t afford full price games, but if I did, Blizzard are first in line for my money.They haven’t made a less-than-excellent game yet . I’ll wait for the map making community to become fleshed out and the price to drop, now the hardest thing is avoiding spoilers on the campaign.

    • subedii says:

      You mean like how you were ‘forced’ to buy BroodWar if you wanted access to the new units?

      It’s not exactly a new model there, they did the same with Starcraft 1. The key difference is that there’s going to be 3 releases instead of two. Well, that and likely the pricing, but like I said, if I feel it’s worth it, then I’ll get it.

    • FieryBalrog says:

      That’s a false notion of progress. To me and many others, the gameplay of the late 90s was quite a bit superior to a lot of the simplified dreck that gets churned out for consoles these days. Among RTS games I can’t stand Dawn of War 2 for its awfully tedious campaign and boring multiplayer (whatever “innovation” bullet points it has on the back of the box don’t make me all sweaty).

      Starcraft earned its hype. I was still playing it in 2009 because I was still enjoying the gameplay and discovering new things. In a 11 year old game, mind. Supposedly “innovative” games are often much shallower and won’t last 2 months let alone 11 years.

      And milking it? The franchise isn’t mario party (or Zelda… or Wii “X”… or Mario Kart… or etc.). We’ve waited 12 years for a sequel. That’s milking it? Really stretching for a thing to criticize at that point, aren’t we?

  9. Internet guy says:

    More like StarCRAP, am I right???

    Thank you, I’ll be here all week.

  10. Konky Dong says:

    It’s strange to be on the eve of a Blizzard event like this and not care anymore. I was in the SC2 beta and I was completely underwhelmed. It’s a sad sign of the situation at Blizzard that it took them ten years to come up with what they did, which wasn’t much.

    • Inno says:

      Glad to see i’m not the only one with this sentiment. Strange too considering i’ve been looking forward to it for what seems like forever. The price, trilogy split, Real ID, etc certainly didn’t help.

  11. Kira says:


    “ghosts of his past”

    heh heh

  12. CaLe says:

    I’m really not an RTS guy but watching the trailers and cinematics for this game is making it really hard to ignore.. Too much quality to simply pass let it pass by.

  13. J. Prevost says:

    Clearly: “Toying with our Terrans and playing with our Protoss and zerging with our Zerg.”

  14. ChaK_ says:

    I don’t like starcraft, so to me it’s just a fucking monday

    I hate monday

  15. wazups2x says:

    As much as I loved the original I wont be buying StarCraft 2.

    Some of the reasons I wont be buying:
    1. Activision runs Blizzard now, which is a big negative for me.
    2. The beta wasn’t as good as I hoped. I just didn’t really enjoy it.
    3. BattleNet 2.0 is missing many features that the original had. And they put useless things that no one asked for, i.e., Facebook, and real ID.
    4. They are releasing it as 3 different games. It will probably end up costing 180 dollars if you want all of them.
    5. They are charging 60 dollars for first version of StarCraft 2.
    6. I have plenty of other games to keep me busy. I have about 20 single player games that I need to finish and plenty multiplayer games to play.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see them charging money for BNet later on. BNet is the perfect Xbox Live for Activision, which is exactly what they want. Activision will definitely find a way to leech as much money as possible from SC2.

    • Rich says:

      1. Activision runs Blizzard now
      I think Activision are in partnership with Blizzard, as Blizzard have maintained their autonomy.
      Though I certainly hate Activision.

      2. The beta wasn’t as good as I hoped. I just didn’t really enjoy it.
      Didn’t try it. I’m only interested in the single-player and maybe mods anyway.

      As for the rest, well I agree it’s going to be expensive to buy all three games. I might wait for some sort of battlechest.

      Also, I’ve loads to play too. Hardly dented my Steam library, and I’m spending a fair amount of time on Alien Swarm.

    • ChaosSmurf says:

      1) no they don’t
      2) okay
      3) the failings of are massively over-represented and have also been promised to be fixed
      4) no they aren’t, it’s one game and two expansion packs for that game, pricing is completely unconfirmed and totally speculation
      5) I’m pretty sure that’s standard pricing in the US for a AAA title?
      6) well, okay then. Perhaps you could pick it up on budget when you’re done with all those?

      Premium features are of course a possibility, but suggesting they’ll start charging wholesale for it seems a little premature to me.

    • jalf says:

      3) the failings of are massively over-represented and have also been promised to be fixed

      And that’s helpful how?
      Remember certain “promises” Valve made about L4D?
      Until said failings are actually fixed, all we know is that they are in an unfixed state.

      If it is missing features it used to have, I don’t really see how a “promise to fix it” changes anything *today*.
      Ah well, fanboys will be fanboys. And you sure are in a hurry to brush *all* charges off the table.

    • ChaosSmurf says:

      Okay, ignore my other valid points and bring out an ad hominem, it’s cool

      If your argument against them saying they want to change stuff is “well they could be lying”, then there isn’t much I can say to that. I think it’s a very stupid argument, in that it could be applied across every argument ever made “The witness said this!” “Well he could be lying!” “Oh … well … I suppose you’re free to go then…”

      All I was saying was, if you really want chat channels, then you can wait for them to be released. If you think you can manage without them, then the matchmaking, map distribution (though admittedly, that has its own teething issues) and so forth new features might be enough to win you over. Or you could buy it for the, lets be honest, inevitably at least passable single-player experience.

    • Nick says:

      “Remember certain “promises” Valve made about L4D?”

      Yeah, and I never did get that fellatio from Doug Lombardi, damn liars and scoundrels the lot of them. Boycott!

  16. DazzeL says:

    Blizzard, what the hell.

    No matter how much I try to convince myself that I haven’t got time for Starcraft 2, all it takes is one trailer and I’m suckered right in. I do agree with CaLe, there is simply too much quality oozing from this to ignore it.

  17. sigma83 says:

    Dear lord, what is with the people who cannot seem to pass up the opportunity to knock this game in as idiotic a manner as possible whenever it’s mentioned?

    At least have an opinion instead of repeating spew.

    ‘I dislike how they’re handling BNet 2’
    ‘My distaste for Activision is hurting my ability to want this game’
    ‘My inner cynic is wondering just how much has changed. Note I haven’t been in beta.’

    Maybe we should create a Daily Star badge that we hand out to people who toss off crap with no cause in order to create sensationalistic comments.

    • Skinlo says:


      Just like some people pre-order games without knowing if they’re good or not (I don’t understand those people), others knock games without even looking at them ( I don’t understand those people).

      Haters will be haters, fanbois will be fanbois.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      He’s a Wikipedia admin. He has no concept of “opinion”. Either it’s his way and he’s the expert, or it does not exist.
      Now that I think of it…he could also be a physician though… ^^

    • sigma83 says:

      Don’t forget Republican.

    • subedii says:

      Perhaps you should look up the wikipedia entry on “ad-hominem” sometime.

    • aerozol says:

      Everybody has different, valid opinions… Unless they type them in CAPS.

  18. bookwormat says:

    It’s been 7 years and fifteen days

    Since you first announced this game

    I’m on every night and whine all day

    Since you took my beta key away

    Since then I can play whatever I want

    I can even play DoW Soulstorm if I choose to

    I can get my ass kicked in Starcraft 1

    But nothing …

    I said nothing can take away these blues,

    ‘Cause nothing compares …

    Nothing compares to Starcraft 2

    • ChaK_ says:

      I damn disagree but that lyrics deserve a bottle of champagne

      A virtual one that is.

  19. cliffski says:

    There is no demo.
    So I won’t even bother watching the trailer. I don’t buy games based on hype and marketing budgets. Been burned too many times…
    No demo, and a review embargo just spells out ‘do not buy’.

    • bookwormat says:

      @cliffski fair enough, I’m all for not buying into trailers and PR alone. But for those interested in the multiplayer part, I think there has never been a game release where you could find more material about the actual game before release.

    • Rinox says:

      I’m buying it based on Blizzard’s rep and history. I haven’t seen many trailers or game info and didn’t participate in the beta (and personally don’t know anyone who did). Maybe a bit foolish, but hey. I’d do the same thing for any Valve game really, as long as it would be something that seems like it something I could like.

      Those are probably the only two publisher I’d ‘trust’ enough to buy blind, though.

    • Dean says:

      It’s a weird one isn’t it? It’s not technically an embargo, they’re just not sending out review copies until release day.

      Kind of makes sense though, as does the lack of a demo. Blizzard basically work on a different model to every other games developer. Notably, they’re not obsessed with first week/month sales. Warcraft 3 has still been poking its nose in to the PC Top 10 sales charts over the past twelve months. It’s a much longer game for them.

      And given the fact that you need to be online, they may well be trying to play down demand a little as there’s bound to be server queues and such on release day. It’ll sell more than enough without need for a load of marketing. I’d actually expect a bigger marketing push around the holiday/christmas etc, perhaps with a demo out then.

    • Carra says:

      No demo and a review ban does seem like a red flag.

      But it’s Blizzard. I’ve loved their starcraft, diablo 2, warcraft 3, wow and every expansion. Based on that history it’s an instant buy. Both starcraft 2 & diablo 3 have been preordered over a year ago.

    • Rich says:

      I’ve very little doubt that I’d love the single-player campaign, but I won’t be buying it at release.
      I’ll be waiting to read a few reviews and the demo that should (hopefully) follow at some point.

      If I had more money, a better PC, more money, more time and more money, I probably would’ve pre-ordered.

    • Psychopomp says:

      It’s not an emargo. No one is able to play the game, period. The server’s aren’t up.

    • ChaosSmurf says:

      There was a three month long demo?

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      Oh look, Cliffski is being contrary for the sake of publicity again.

      It’s a good strategy, works very well but really, they had a 3 month beta that pretty much anyone could get into, so it’s not like your argument is grounded in reality.

      Blizzard, known for making bad games, right?

    • bildo says:

      That’s a little sensationalist knowing Blizzards history. However, I am getting into the fray the second it comes out. It will be good.

    • Garg says:

      There was a massive “open” beta for it though. All you had to do was preorder from Amazon, get beta key emailed, and then cancel your preorder. As demos go it was fairly generous, although a bit more of a rigmarole then normal.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      There may be no demo, but every copy of SC2 comes with 2 guest passes for the game. Not sure what the time limit on them is, though.

    • Jad says:

      Blizzard basically work on a different model to every other games developer. Notably, they’re not obsessed with first week/month sales.

      This, and thank god for it. Starcraft II, of all games, does not seem to be a game that you need to get on the first day, in the first week, or even the first year. The original game still has an enormous number of players over ten years from its release. Starcraft II will still be there when all the reviews come out and a general consensus about the game has formed.

    • randomnine says:

      @cliffski “There is no demo”

      This is lies.

      My normal boxed copy, which I just got, has two Guest Passes in it. Each one lets someone download the full game from and play it for 7 hours.

      This is a brilliant system. It means when you buy the game, you’re doing your friends a favour. It means that when you try the demo, you have the full thing installed already, so you’re probably going to just activate it straight from Blizzard rather than going to get a boxed copy. It’s also the hugest demo I can remember of any non-MMO in recent times.

      My Guest Passes are taken already, but if you know someone who’s bought SC2, get in there and bug them :)

  20. NikRichards says:

    Personally… Yea I want to play this, but I’m not all that excited about it, and I’ve got load of games to work through.

    I’ll wait till its gone down in price then maybe look again.

  21. sigma83 says:

    Is there historically a demo for blizzard games? They haven’t made one in ages.

    • Xocrates says:

      Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Warcraft 3 all had demos, and WoW has a trial. Although I know that at least in some cases the demos weren’t available at launch.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      Maybe because they haven’t made a game for ages… ;)

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Starcraft’s demo was a shareware mini-campaign that acted as a prologue for the main game, with specially recorded dialogue and everything.

  22. sigma83 says:

    made a game, I mean

  23. Schaulustiger says:

    My boxed copy is at home while I’m on vacation right now, so I’ll watch the release with mild amusement from afar.

    It’s interesting to see how many people judge the game pre-release without knowing anything about it. Sure, it does look like a Starcraft 1 with shinier graphics, but there’s not much information about the single-player campaign which might prove to be well worth its money. Multi-player is similar to the first SC, but with lots of detail changes.

    The thing I’m most looking forward to, however, is the splendid editor. Normally, the RPS crowd should be on fire when a triple-A title with such broad modding possibilities is released. It’s the only reason I pre-ordered this game, because I know that there will be a ton of great mods and maps shortly after release. I mean, I probably spent most of my time in Warcraft 3 with tower-defense maps and I’ll most likely do the same with Starcraft 2.

  24. Batolemaeus says:

    Fun fact:
    In two months Civ V will come out.

  25. VonFIDDE says:

    Well i did play the SC2 beta some but i really didnt like the fanatic and hardcore’ish gameplay. However i have no doubts that the Singleplayer campaign will make up for it, in fact ithink this will be the best freaking RTS-storty/campaign :O. Also with such a huge community i bet there will be tons of awsome maps out soon, like the TowerDefense and perhaps even a new sci-fi dota :).

  26. KillahMate says:

    I have nothing bad to say about this game – except perhaps the greatest insult of them all: I just don’t care about it, one way or the other. It doesn’t interest me much. Maybe I’ll check out the demo one day.

    I think Blizzard made a key mistake in assuming that, just because it’s them, and just because it’s Starcraft, we would all automatically be interested. But I’m not. They should win me over with cool game features, not pound me with sequel hype until I no longer care.

    • Maxheadroom says:

      I totally agree

      Having said that I did rush out and buy Fallout 3 for exactly that reason.

      what can I say, I’m an enigma

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      They’ve shown off a fair amount of stuff from the single-player side of things, and there’s obviously the beta that lets you check out the multiplayer in full.

  27. Tei says:

    1) The Xellnaga are kittens. We all know the 3 games with end with you killing kittens.
    2) When Jim Raynor drinks, you know shit’s going down
    3) Kerrigan use to be a bit more dark skin. What happened?

  28. sigma83 says:

    Tei: Anti-tanning.

    Or whitewashing of her ethnic origins, depending on which kind of fanatic you ask.

  29. Mitza says:

    That voice sounds like Bender from Futurama :)

    • BAReFOOt says:

      But as that typical Uncle-Tom-like black guy that we know from movies.
      And drunk. ;)

  30. ceb says:

    I’m sort of a new fan to the site, and impressed by both the articles and the comments. Rare to see so many informed, funny, clever and ‘non flaming retardness’ (I lack a word, anyone have one that’s appropriate?).

    But this asskissing is just to soften the coming blow. Hey you are entitled to your own opinion. Some people don’t like beer, some chocolate, hell i bet there even is one of you who don’t like sex. Some of you are bound to not like SC2. BUT its two ‘things?’ (Games seemed to stale) Its the campaign with the cinematic and the storyline and the more or less clever challenges AND its the multiplayer. Its like two separate things yea? SC multiplayer spawned one of the (the most?) vivid competitive gaming arena of all time. You may not like, but you trying to slam … Premier league or… NBA .. whatever is the best metaphor for you. Stop, you look silly.

    The “Activision ate Blizzard” sounds a bit like kinder garden “buu huu huu”. But i don’t have the big corporate conspiracy gene firing to much. Yes they like to make money, but to do that they have to make stuff people want…that’s a good thing right? They make stuff i want, but don’t hold a gun to my head to buy it. Besides, its BLIZZARD. The day they release something that is not well made and entertaining ill start wearing my suspicious t-shirt. Fool me once… i say.

    Price? Shrug. The game is as good as it is, and the price will fall in a few months. But then I will have the mad skillz to p@wn y00 in multiplayer, but you didn’t see the point of that so no loss right?

    Its SC2!! Rejoice!!

    • Rich says:

      p@wn y00?

      Not interested in the multi-player, so you won’t p-at-wern me any time soon.

    • ChaK_ says:

      I stopped ready at you thinking some people don’t like beer.

      How unbelievable, and how dare you.

    • dbdkmezz says:

      I wholeheartedly agree! I’m stunned by the level of moaning here, SC1 is for good reason the most seriously played RTS (possibly even game), and, given my wonderful experience of the beta, SC2 could easily blow it away :)
      After having really got into Warcraft 3 multilayer I just can’t play other RTSs because they feel so shallow (and it’s not like I was even that good! at WC3), but now with SC2 it looks like there could finally be another RTS which I’d actually want to play.
      As for single player, it is indeed a totally separate game — it’s even got a load of different units which they couldn’t balance into the multiplayer. I’m intrigued and would like it to be good, but at the moment I’m merely hopeful. If it ended up being yet another boring RTS then I wouldn’t really mind, as the multiplayer will be well worth the price of entry, hell, I’d happily pay double, if not triple the RRP if I this is as good as I hope!

  31. Sagan says:

    I’m still really excited for this. Amazon sent me the disk on Saturday, but I can’t install it yet.

    A comment on the comments here: People have really stupid reasons for disliking this game.

  32. Mark says:

    It’s amazing how Blizzard keeps making really great games that I just can’t stand to play.

  33. Incognito says:

    Well, I for one will pass on this game. I´m really not more into this kind of Dune 2 game then I was back in 1997 when SC1 was released. Actually I like them even less. I´m still waiting on good RTS games that let´s you be the commander instead of the squad leader for every freaking squad. :)

    I want a new Mega Lo Mania.

    • neems says:


      Oh, I would happily sell your granny for a Megalomania 2. What a game that was.

    • Lobotomist says:

      Megalomania ! Loved that :)

      Do you remember : Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator

      Now that was another real strategy game

  34. Razz says:

    I think it’s particularly interesting that this is released NOW. Seems pretty smart to release a game in this time slot, when everyone else is fighting over the holidays (and beyond, in the case of 2009). I’ve always been annoyed that there rarely seem to be any good new games out during the summer, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Maybe I just like staying indoors slightly too much.

  35. Psychopomp says:

    Starcraft 2 threads

    The new Valve thread?

  36. Grunt says:

    When all this hype for SC2 started I recalled having an awesome time with the original game, really loving the campaign, so looked to get myself another copy for old time’s sake. Then I noticed the demo online, downloaded that…

    …and found myself actually quite bored by it. So now I’ve given up on this and the new one. It HAS been ten years: I reckon my gaming tastes have changed. Sorry, Starcraft, but you’re not for me any more. Perhaps in a year or two when you’re a complete pack in a sale somewhere.

    • Grunt says:

      Having said that…I’m still regularly playing Star Trek: Armada 2 ( in it’s beautifully modded Fleet Operations form), and count the original Dawn of War (including the many expansions of joy) as one of my favourite games, so am now wondering just why Starcraft is leaving me cold. Is it the relatively weak strength of the brand, perhaps? Curious.

    • Psychopomp says:

      Starcraft 1’s single player hasn’t held up well, and I’d imagine its demo held up even worse.

  37. drewski says:

    I’d be interested in this for a tenner. So, er, bring on 2015.

    • cyrenic says:

      My thoughts exactly. Although it’ll probably be the 3 pack for $60 then :).

  38. GHudston says:

    I’m seeing a lot of rage here of the “it’s-popular-so-I-must-hate-it” variety.

    It’s a quality game. You could do much, much worse than SC2.

    • Dood says:

      A lot of rage? Where are you seeing that? I read through all of the comments, and I found 2-3 which sounded overtly negative. Maybe our RPS overlords are busy deleting hundreds of them every few minutes, but I doubt it. It’s worlds apart from the XCOM comments (Oh God, the horror!).
      There are some people saying that they are not very interested in SC2. Not because they hate popular games, but because they don’t care about traditional RTSes, or tthe SC setting or whatever.
      Peggle is also a quality game, yet there are people who don’t like it. There are enough who do, so where’s the problem? Not agreeing with you is not the same as “rage”.

  39. frags says:

    I’m not buying. They are making South East Asians pay close to USD$77 for the standard edition. Which makes it the most expensive version. Sucks if you live in SEA or Australia.(But OZ’s always had to pay this amount for all their games).

    Besides, I can live with Civ 5 thank you very much.

    • frags says:

      In case you’re wondering…No…I’m not going to pirate it either.

    • drewski says:

      I can’t even find it online, either.

      I did find a Diablo III pre-order for A$47 which seems ridiculous, though.

    • frags says:

      drewski: You can preload it from over here:
      link to

      But I’m afraid they are not going to sell it cheaper online than the retail version. It’s going to go for the same price. And no, you can’t purchase a version from a different region since the game is region locked(except the SEA version).

    • drewski says:

      I don’t actually want to buy it, I was just curious to see if the usual practice of online retailers undercutting stores was occurring. As I said, I can easily find D3 (and various other titles) online for around a A$50, but nobody at all is selling SC2 to Australia for anything other than retail +/- $10.

  40. Out Reach says:

    My birthday is on the 29th, so I must wait. CURSES.

    • Grunt says:

      Nice pic, but you could have at least tried more of a grimace.

  41. jalf says:

    So, last I heard multiplayer games are regionally locked, so you won’t be able to play against people in other parts of the world. Is that still the case?

    Add in the absence of LAN support and the “SC1 with shinier graphics” factor, and I’m not really sure why I’d want to buy it.

    I guess there’s always the nice CG cutscenes, but do I really want to pay $60 for that? (And incidentally funding the Activision war machine)

    Am I the only one who’s a bit turned off by Blizzard’s total refusal to acknowledge the advances made in the RTS genre since SC1 came out?

    I’m sure someone will accuse me of trolling, or hating the game because it’s popular, but the thing is, I don’t hate it. I don’t love it. I really really don’t feel anything much about it, other than “meh”. SC1 was enjoyable in its way, but I already played it, so it really feels like there’s not much value in buying a polished rehash of the same, with core features removed.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “So, last I heard multiplayer games are regionally locked, so you won’t be able to play against people in other parts of the world. Is that still the case?”

      Yeah. That would have to do with being divided by region, rather than global accounts. It’s unfortunate :\

      “Am I the only one who’s a bit turned off by Blizzard’s total refusal to acknowledge the advances made in the RTS genre since SC1 came out?”

      They did acknowledge them. Many of them were in the game at some point in development.

      Shit didn’t work out well.

    • alseT says:

      I don’t think there are any “advances” in this particular style of RTS. Relic’s games, WiC, MoW, etc. have a completely different pace and strive for different things. SC2 is as old-school as it gets, it’s the true sequel the like of which people wanted the new X-Com to be. Starcraft is the absolute best in competitive RTS, so whay fix that isn’t broken.

    • alseT says:

      Excuse my lack of proofreading.

    • ChaosSmurf says:

      Yeah accounts are regionally locked, though I believe that South East Asia accounts are going to be able to play on the US servers. It’s also being “looked into” to play on other regions, though I wouldn’t bet on it being soon.

    • Mac says:

      “Am I the only one who’s a bit turned off by Blizzard’s total refusal to acknowledge the advances made in the RTS genre since SC1 came out?”

      Advances like what recent RTS’ have done? Squad-based? Cover-system? Removal of resources completely? Removal of tech-trees? Removal of buildings? None of those are advancements in the RTS genre. If anything Blizzard has actually advanced the RTS genre by adding more things instead of removing mechanics.

      I for one am really glad that Starcraft 2 is sticking to the true RTS formula that I used to love back in the days of SC1, C&C1, Age of Empires, etc, not like the shit thats been churned out lately that removes more mechanics to make it accessible and workable with a console controller, such as C&C4.

  42. coldwave says:

    I’m not interested in buying or pirating this game.

    Reasons are simple, I’m not a fan of hardcore competitive multiplayer, I hate modern Blizzard’s cartoonish design and I dislike build-base-rush-tanks RTS concept since Tiberian Sun.

    Why can’t we have another Ground Contol One?

    • Psychopomp says:

      “I dislike build-base-rush-tanks RTS concept since Tiberian Sun.”

      Starcraft is only a turtle-rush-mass fest at the lowest levels of play.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      What, Ground Control 1 wasn’t hardcore enough? I definitely remember that being the case for the single-player, anyway. If you made a single mistake, back to the start of the mission you went.

      That’s why I liked it, though.

    • Adam Whitehead says:

      As usual, not enough people bought it. Vivendi gave them another chance with GC2, but only by dumbing down some elements and making it more accessible. The loss of some of the GC1 elements was unfortunate, but I still rate GC2 as a very good, very solid RTS game (I much prefer it to DAWN OF WAR 1 which came out around the same time). Unfortunately, that bombed too. The same team eventually gave us WORLD IN CONFLICT which was middling at best.

      Then of course there’s HOMEWORLD. Relic’s comments a few years back that they could only make HW3 by ‘simplifying’ the controls (which were pretty damn simple anyway) I think are pretty telling and then only being able to do DAWN OF WAR 2 by turning it into DIABLO-but-in-space (albeit a good one) is a sign that big RTS companies no longer have faith in the audience to actually play their games properly. Lots of people are still asking them to do COMPANY OF HEROES 2 but I now live in fear that if they did, the game would only allow you to build 3 units at a time and the game engine would be un-zoomable, un-rotatable 2D so as not to apparently bamboolze poor players with too much complexity.

      Whilst STARCRAFT 2’s design is incredibly conservative, I suppose we’re lucky at all to be getting a strategy game that actually trusts you enough to control resouces, base management, constructing buildings and deploying armies by yourself.

  43. blargh says:

    Interesting to see how many people are indifferent to the game through these comments. I’m one of the people who was pretty indifferent to the first, even though I did play it a bit online, but it was all meh since I’m pretty sure I sucked. I didn’t care for the single player either, and the awful cinematics and storytelling (I thought, even for 1998) just didn’t help to make me take it seriously. Diablo was much better back then, and I think I still do prefer it over SC and would have wanted today to be the release for D3 instead.

    However, SC2 is now grabbing my interest quite a bit, and more-so every time I see it. Which surprises me, as two months ago I didn’t even give a crap. I am especially interested now in the single player campaign, given how this time I just might be able to enjoy it. And of course, I’ll be playing multiplayer with friends, so it’s bound to be fun even if I do fail at it.

    So yeah, I’m kind of getting a bit excited for this. I’ll probably end up getting it sooner or later.

  44. Radiant says:

    In honour of this day I have been playing Dawn Of War 2.
    This involves rolling up, invisible, to packs of fellas and planting explosives, cackling and of course warring.

    I am warring the fuck out of this day.

    • Radiant says:

      I’m doing this in the game too.

    • neems says:

      All these years, and that joke still never gets old.

      Unlike the ten minutes I’ve just spent clicking refresh to get get a captcha I can actually read.

  45. Diziet says:

    Also… I think it’s tomorrow. It’s nice to know I can play on the laptop and the main desktop though. :P

  46. Aldehyde says:

    @wazups2x: I am having trouble finding the link but it has been said by Bachiok (a Blizzard forum admin) that the expansions will have the regular expansion pack cost (20-30 dollars)?

    About the pricing of Wings of Liberty, here in Sweden I can get it for around 30-40 dollars, that’s not bad at all.

  47. Freud says:

    I’ll pass on this. I’m not really into multi player RTS games and I can wait for the price to drop to a third just to play the single player campaign. I have plenty of games to play through as it is.

  48. Xurathar says:

    Not too many people seem to read the eurogamer articles entirely, don’t you?

    I would remember for everyone here what they said: They sent us a review copy. Simply, we can’t play it until the server opens. Which means: Everyone plays at the same time. Period. No embargo, if a reviewer plays the game in full in one night, tomorrow should be full of reviews, So, what’s the problem?

    P.S: The fanboy in me rages with wrath. I FUCKING NEED THAT GAME NOW!.( “Juffo-Wup fills me with rage. Violent action ensues”)

    P.S.S: The beta multiplayer was one of the most addictive and intense games I’ve ever played, excluding, of course, Left 4 Dead in expert :P

  49. Batolemaeus says:

    Wait, SC2 has regional restrictions? Not like I had any intention of buying it, but regional restrictions would practically kill any multiplayer enjoyment for me, since i do play with buddies from different continents in games like L4D/2 all the time.

    • subedii says:

      Basically the multiplayer matchmaking system is region based because that’s how the servers were divided up. They’re working on getting cross-region matchmaking enabled, but that may take a few months if I understand things right.

      From what I understand, you can still play with friends from different regions, they need to be on your friends list to join them and you just join on them directly.

      So essentially you won’t be matchmade with people from other regions for the time being, but you can still play with friends from other regions.

    • Psychopomp says:

      No, you can’t.

      The problem is, you’re on a different database than them.

    • Inno says:

      I’m in the same situation as you Batolemaeus. I like Blizzard for their dedication to quality and all that but their insistence on regional locking in today’s globalized and interconnected world is a real mark of shame. We’re also not talking about FPS games here, i’ve played MMO & RTS games (original SC even) across continents just fine without any noticeable lag whatsoever. So I can’t agree with that being brought up as an argument. Yeah I know it has to do with 2.0 in all likelihood but still..