Starcraft 2
-
I have played StarCraft for about 3 years now (on and off). I have been looking forward to the sequel for a while now and it will be coming out in December! I'm so excited! Is anyone else looking forward to this game? Also, does anyone still play Starcraft? If you do, you should post you Battle.Net account here...
-
If anyone wants to start a little-league for SC2 players who haven't been playing it for years I'll give it a try.
-
I've never played Starcraft I but I've always wanted too. Maybe I could play Starcraft II instead.Omnutia said:If anyone wants to start a little-league for SC2 players who haven't been playing it for years I'll give it a try.
-
OH my.. don't tempt me with this... I love me some starcraft, I haven't played in years, but I'll wait till 2 comes out before picking up the habit again.
-
Starcraft 2 will never be released.
-
Wow, really? This kind of hyperbole is really annoying.Sail said:Starcraft 2 will never be released.
-
Dude, chill. Saying that Starcraft 2 will never come out is practically a meme.Andrew said:
Wow, really? This kind of hyperbole is really annoying.Sail said:Starcraft 2 will never be released.
Also, Methos, remember to use the search function. -
Starcraft 2 is coming out, Sail. Blizzard said that the estimated release date is December 3, 2009.
-
Omnutia said:
If anyone wants to start a little-league for SC2 players who haven't been playing it for years I'll give it a try.
That would be great! We can make our own channel on Battle.Net and have bots that would moderate it and keep it running 24/7. We can have our own matches within the channel and everyone can add each others b.net name as well. -
Ah, Methos, you're new here, I take it.
Use the edit button to change a post (find it in the top right of your post) and you can find a search page by going to the link "Search" just under the big "Front Row Crew Forum" at the top of any page.
Nice to see you picked up on the spelling and punctuation thing though. Welcome to the forum. -
Thanks, man. And yes I am new to the forum, although I have been listening to three of the Geeknights Podcasts for nearly two years now. It's a lot better than most other forums that I've registered on.
-
I'd play in an FRC Channel, provided the more seasoned players among us don't spend hours stuffing zergling rushes and carrier fleets down my throat. We'd have to organize matches by skill.
-
I am almost completely indifferent to this game. I played Starcraft and enjoyed it, but I never picked it up ever again after I beat the story mode.
-
WindUpBird said:
I'd play in an FRC Channel, provided the more seasoned players among us don't spend hours stuffing zergling rushes and carrier fleets down my throat. We'd have to organize matches by skill.
Good point, we would have to set up the skill ranges somehow and make sure that seasoned players play against other seasoned players and the newbies play against the other newbies... -
I'm willing to give it a try.
-
I might get Starcraft 2 at some point after it comes out. I have played some amount of first one and enjoyed it somewhat. Funny thing is that I was a lot more interested of this game before Blizzard announced that they are going to do three games instead of one. That killed my interested for that game almost completely, but maybe I'll still get my hands on it.
-
I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy Starcraft 2 regardless of how much I end up playing it long-run, simply because of the nostalgia associated with the remaking of a game I played throughout my childhood. I'm definitely willing to give the game a try with FRC people; I was never hardcore into the game, which is what it seems like the trend here is, and so I think we could get some good games going on.
-
The one game I might be willing to buy.
-
Wait...
Star..Craft? Like, crafting stars? I don't want to play some kind of space-based resource management sim, thanks. -
Korea killed SC multiplayer for me. :\
-
Apsup said:
I might get Starcraft 2 at some point after it comes out. I have played some amount of first one and enjoyed it somewhat. Funny thing is that I was a lot more interested of this game before Blizzard announced that they are going to do three games instead of one. That killed my interested for that game almost completely, but maybe I'll still get my hands on it.
They are going to spread out the trilogy over a period of three years. It's a good thing! This means that the life of StarCraft 2 will last even longer. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this. So what if you're going to be paying close to $180 over a period of three years. People pay more for WoW, so why not for StarCraft? -
You should see it more as three games. Each contains a lengthy single player campaign that will justify it's price. I also heard it won't be a full 60 dollar game from launch, but I can't conform that Besides, you only need to buy one copy to play online (with all the factions/races).Methos-XIII said:They are going to spread out the trilogy over a period of three years. It's a good thing! This means that the life of StarCraft 2 will last even longer. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this. So what if you're going to be paying close to $180 over a period of three years. People pay more for WoW, so why not for StarCraft?
-
That's all marketing-speak for "We're going to sell you this game THREE TIMES! And you're going to buy every single one!" Really, the problem people have with this is that it's a completely lame, selfish move that Blizzard is trying to justify with lots of hype and smoothtalking. Starcraft had 3 lengthy campaigns, and then Blizzard added 3 more lengthy campaigns the next year.Methos-XIII said:They are going to spread out the trilogy over a period of three years. It's a good thing! This means that the life of StarCraft 2 will last even longer. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.
People pay for WoW because it's a subscription based game, and Blizzard charges a subscription fee for stuff like patch development, server space/uptime/maintenance, grind tax, Blizzcon, etc. Justifying close to $200 for half the content offered by the previous games is ridiculous, especially for a single-player, non-subscription based game.Methos-XIII said:So what if you're going to be paying close to $180 over a period of three years. People pay more for WoW, so why not for StarCraft?
-
I think someone missed the sarcasm...
-
Does anybody know the story behind why StarCraft became such a huge phenomenon in Korea? Do you think StarCraft II will have the same impact in Korea as the first?
-
I probably won't even buy the other two games anyway. I just want to be able to be involved in the competitive multiplayer. I never really get into RTS Single player stuff. Sure, I've beaten the original Starcraft/Brood War campaigns quite a few times, but multiplayer is what the game lasts for...
-
I remember when Starcraft 2 was announced. I was terribly excited and harping about how I'd buy a new computer just to play it (the current one is 5ish+ years old at this point...). I kept up with every piece and bit of a news the first few weeks.
Now, I only see the Battle Report videos when they're put right in front of me on YouTube and I only glance at the new news in large chunks randomly.
I doubt I'll be buying a new computer to play it, rather it'll be out of necessity. I'm not even entirely sure I'll buy it at all, I haven't played an actual game on the computer that required installation/software in years.
I am still enamored by the idea of a new Starcraft game, considering the good, nostalgic memories I have of the first... But, I'd rather watch video of someone playing than actually play myself 9 times out of 10. -
In a dick move by Blizzard, it seems that Starcraft 2 probably won't have LAN support.
As far as the networking is concerned, I guess it shouldn't make much difference, since one would expect games of Starcraft 2 to be peer-to-peer networked.
However, you'll probably have to connect to the Internet to be able to play multiplayer.
Your thoughts, people? -
The more and more I hear about Starcraft II, the more and more I begin to dislike Blizzard and Starcraft II. Before I even heard anything about it, it would have to have been amazingly awesome for me to consider it worth playing. However, with the whole 3 disks thing and lack of LAN, Blizzard better pull off a miracle for me to even consider buying it. What happened to the Blizzard I knew, the one that took care of their customers and treated them well, never putting out a game unless it was of a high caliber?
But then, after playing Men of War, I doubt anything can satiate my standards for RTS. -
Unfortunately 90% of the hours I've logged in Blizzard games is over the LAN. I love the experience of the LAN. While technically we could still probably all get into my basement and log into battle.net together, I think it'll cause more issues than it'll solve. I understand the requirement for 'consistent gameplay' but it seems to be more obviously due to pirates. Do you think this is due to the Activision merger? Think there will be a hack to allow for LAN? How many people are like me and only play the game on LANs? I never even played Warcraft 3 all the way through on single player but play the shit out of that game to this day.lackofcheese said:Starcraft 2 probably won't have LAN support
Are there other RTS games like this? Is this a new trend? -
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of PC gamers have no interest in LAN play. They play primarily with geographically distant friends.cosmicenema said:How many people are like me and only play the game on LANs?
Furthermore, technology-wise, the distinction is basically meaningless. There is absolutely no reason to support LAN play separately from simple network play. You're conflating piracy-prevention mechanisms with connectivity modes. The only reason to use "LAN" mode would be to avoid having to contact their authentication server. They could trivially make some sort of "no-auth/local play" mode independent of the networking, but it's not actually a related issue anymore. The relevant network issues really only involve NAT-busting.
Complain about the DRM, but don't complain about the lack of a meaningless and archaic "feature." -
Maybe I misunderstood the press announcement. Will the only interaction with the internet be the authorization? If the actual game play is over the network and not to the battle.net servers and back, I don't have an issue with that. My only concern is having 4+ people on my poor internet connection.Rym said:Complain about the DRM, but don't complain about the lack of a meaningless and archaic "feature."
-
The big problem people really need to figure out is how to deal with NAT routers. Everyone needs, and should use, NAT routers in their house for security purposes, to save IP addresses, and just to get more than one computer in your house online. However, NAT routers make it difficult, if not impossible, to host video game servers on the equipment in your home.
The result is that we often rely on dedicated servers to play our games online. Either we pay the game publisher to host server, like with World of Warcraft, or we host our own, like with Counter-Strike. The thing is, there is absolutely no reason that we should have to do this. There are some very well known methods of "busting" NAT. Skype does it. Hamachi does it. Multiplayer games should just have this technology built in. Creating and joining games, going around routers, and finding other player's IP addresses should be completely transparent to the game player. -
Can someone tell me whether Skype actually benefits from port forwarding? Someone said on one of the Geekchats that port forwarding will improve upon Skype's built in NAT busting abilities but Google isn't finding much on the subject.
This podcast seems interesting. They are covering Skype 2.5 though, not Skype 4 or 2.0 *Damn you Skype!* for Linux.
Well anyway, I've port forwarded my Skype client but is it worth asking others to do the same? -
Cosmic, it's just that you don't understand the networking. RTS games are p2p or hosted by one of the players. It would be to no-one's advantage to route the traffic through the battle.net servers - latency would increase severely, and Blizzard would be paying for bandwidth they don't need to pay for. Traffic to a local destination would obviously be routed locally.cosmicenema said:
Maybe I misunderstood the press announcement. Will the only interaction with the internet be the authorization? If the actual game play is over the network and not to the battle.net servers and back, I don't have an issue with that. My only concern is having 4+ people on my poor internet connection.Rym said:Complain about the DRM, but don't complain about the lack of a meaningless and archaic "feature."
Bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth, is a significant issue for most people. Dedicated servers have their place.Apreche said:The result is that we often rely on dedicated servers to play our games online. Either we pay the game publisher to host server, like with World of Warcraft, or we host our own, like with Counter-Strike. The thing is, there is absolutely no reason that we should have to do this.
-
Bumping an old thread.... I *may*, may, may, may be able to get cheap'ish copies but I have no official word yet. I'd be willing to help people out for no price. If I'm limited to a quantity, I'll post as soon as I know. Anyone who hasn't pre-ordered yet who would be interested in that?
*EDIT* Do not forget that SC2 will be regionalized. If you would like a key outside of the US, I *might* not be able to accommodate you but I'll do my best! -
I would be happy to buy a key from you, if you can hook me up.
-
At $10, I'd be willing to overlook the issues with Battle.NET 2.0.
-
To the FRCers: Isn't Starcraft the game that Darryl played to the exclusion of all else, even his girlfriends (of which I was shortly one)?
-
You mean RIT Darryl and not Daryl Surat. I think that game was Jumpgate.Kate Monster said:To the FRCers: Isn't Starcraft the game that Darryl played to the exclusion of all else, even his girlfriends (of which I was shortly one)?
-
Ah, you are correct, Sir. It was Jumpgate. It has been over 8 years now, so I forgot.Apreche said:
You mean RIT Darryl and not Daryl Surat. I think that game was Jumpgate.Kate Monster said:To the FRCers: Isn't Starcraft the game that Darryl played to the exclusion of all else, even his girlfriends (of which I was shortly one)?
-
Poor Darrel. He had 24 hours worth of awesome each year, and he'd usually blow it in a single day.Kate Monster said:Ah, you are correct, Sir. It was Jumpgate. It has been over 8 years now, so I forgot.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions8,431
- Anime378
- Art!137
- Board Games134
- Contests10
- Conventions200
- Everything Else3,434
- Flamewars209
- Forum Game59
- Forum Stuff88
- GeekNights670
- Manga/Comics189
- Movies174
- News141
- Politics302
- Role Playing Games78
- Science36
- Suggestions72
- Technology1,122
- Video Games998