Aw, come on guys..! Norfindel come on!
Maybe Auir is a giant asteroid? Or, an asteroid fell into that part of the ocean?
Printable View
Aw, come on guys..! Norfindel come on!
Maybe Auir is a giant asteroid? Or, an asteroid fell into that part of the ocean?
Ye the colussus discussion seem stretching it little to ''what don't you like in sc2?''
still its a sign of lazyness to lore but lets not discuss this big here :P
But I really really do agree on the repeats,
remember wc3? archimonde didn't come with every wave, he came in the last smashing everything really showing his greatness but kerrigan basically got owned out her ass by some bunkers and tanks
Same with the hybrids, remember the secret mission in sc1? All the tension basically ruined by something who can get killed by just some photon cannons
Same with tassadar, no tension at all
I'm just kidding btw guys. But there are some obvious holes in the story. I wish they just added reavers or something else.
usn, I'm very curious to what you are trying to say here. I know there are ways to make good boss scenarios, but I'm honestly curious to hear what you have in mind.
Most of the complaints I see here would have been remedied by playing on Brutal.
But, Tych, brutal is just, well, brutal! :D
Ok, i played 20 missions, and the quality of the storyline keeps improving, but hell it could had begun a little better, and those ways of handling the climatic moments i mentioned before could have been a lot better. That's a real pity.
Some things break the suspension of disbelief, also. Like some things Raynor and Zeratul accomplished too easily (and i'm not talking about the in-game difficulty).
I'd say the biggest thing that irks me with SC2 is mainly internet connectivity and server based. I have had it happen multiple times where I'm going for achievements and my internet will drop me and reconnect but I will lose connection to battle.net and well. For instance with the dig on hard. Having killed roughly 45 toss buildings then my internet dies and I don't get the hard achievement or the do all objectives one. That and I don't have credit towards achievements for doing the mission in general.
So is MP but that's the fun :DQuote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
But isnt the feeling of "always being connected" awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by SaZun
Would it be better if they were less strict and the achievements became even more meaningless when hacks were produced day one?
Who the heck would hack for achievements?Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
And even if they did why would anyone care?
It's annoying at best. And I LOL hard when they say this too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Biggest complain is the lack of work on the single player only units. It seems like alot of them are un artworked (wraiths and science vessels), don't have any unique voice acting (mercs), or dont have any sound at all (aberrations). Also, Zeratul's voice is killer. Last thing I complain about is that single player seemed to go by too fast. One day Raynors in the bar, another day he bumps into Valerian, 3rd day he deinfests kerrigan. I know it wasnt this fast lorewise but it just felt like this.
Everyone would and yes people would care because ten achievements wouldn't mean anything. Just look at console services.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
If your complaint about "always being connected" is that you can't get achievements during down time then you obviously care about achievements which means you should be all for them making sure they continue to mean something. Otherwise, just play offline because it's no big deal.
@Brutaxilos: Yet another complaint that would've been remedied by playing on Brutal. I'm so glad I took the plunge on my first play through. The first playthrough is the most important and a lot of people cheapened it by going too easy.
What I really hate is Bnet. It's so fkn lonely; there's no sense of community. Sure, I can play with my friends, but that's about it. There's no way to interact with anyone else. All I do is play ranked matches because there's nothing else to do. It seems like that's what everyone else is doing.
I think we should wait for 12 years before we criticize the game to avoid any Brood War comparisons and to treat it like I imagine Brood War was treated.
Also, I really like flashy stuff and the fact Zerg can't hold areas a lot, since that actually annoyed me a lot in BW, so good job Blizzard!
12 Years?!?! What if we wait until our bones are dust? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegacyofTerra
We are allowed to say NICE things about the game now, though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
Screw waiting twelve years, we already waited that long for the game in the first place. If you have over a decade to make a game right and can't do it, you kinda suck.
Having finally gotten the game now, I can say I enjoy it but am still disappointed. It could have and should have been better in so many different ways (story, artwork, gameplay mechanics), but at the end of the day I still feeling it's not all that much more than Starcraft in 3D. This could have been another chance to shake up the RTS world with something new and exciting the way the original did (i.e. three balanced races), but they played it safe and appealed to the base. Ironically, we'll probably get that with custom games coming out thanks to the new world engine, and that's one of the things I'm looking forward to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupino
LOL
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...-Nukem-Forever
well that summs it all upQuote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
I just love him
The story is gawdaweful. Seriously you fight the Tal'Darim for FIVE MISSIONS and their was absolutely no development for the entirety of those five missions.
And b-net.
Huh Archer? The only way the "always connected" system negatively effects you if you CARE about achievements, because you can't get them offline.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
I think the biggest issue is that people are thinking that this is standing on its own.
this is ONE THIRD of the story. Seriously, a lot of this is going to be fleshed out more. Now we can't speak for people who liked Tosh or Ariel Hanson, but stuff like the Tal'Darim and what is happening is with Mengsk,
And new characters like Selendis. They are all going to be expanded upon in the next two games, which together really complete a whole story. It can't stand on its own because it is only the first third of a trilogy.
Think about it --
If you read JUST the Fellowship of the Ring and it ended, and there was NOTHING more. You would be like "Wtf?"
@Lupino: The game started development about 2003. It never got serious though until about 2005. The campaign started development Q2ish of 2008.
They took about two years to do the campaign and about five years for the MP.
That should help you understand a bit more.
reaper... two shot and pufff!!
and some sounds....
One, that still does not preclude them from brainstorming new ideas prior to 2003 and in the intervening years.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Two, five years is still a hell of a long time to work on something. The original took only three, and that was with starting over from scratch mid-way through. Most games have development cycles half the time of what it took SCII to come out.
Having just one production building for each unit is exactly what every other RTS does and the exact reason why people don't enjoy them as much. It doesn't put more focus on micro, it just evens the game out for no logical reason. I played Red Alert 3 online and becaues you can produce almost any unit as quickly as the opponent with just one building, you simply trade off countering each other's units. That is the least strategic, least fun thing ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by nobdoor
Also, if you aren't experiencing micro in 3v3, which I play a lot, then start microing more. If you play quickly enough and against skilled players, there's definitely harrassment and microing going on in addition to macro. Yes, larger games are more macro based, but I still find time to attack with small groups of units and harrass expansions.
And if you find bigger games to be less micro-intensive and think 1v1 isn't for you, then you can't really argue. It's not a flaw in the game that it's less micro-intensive when more players are involved. A 1v1 game of basketball will involve way more "micro" than a 5v5 game of basketball. It doesn't make standard b-ball (5v5) flawed.
Regarding the things I didn't like about WOL...
I think a lot of people agree that the campaign was too SHORT!!
It took me less than 8 hours to beat. I was really looking forward to an epic campaign with 40+ missions. It was disappointing. The story was also mediocre. They could have fleshed out all of the characters and the story if they had just incorporated more purposeful campaign missions with in-game scenes, don't even really need cinematics.
In light of Glynnis's "depature," I was going to try and give Tricia Helfer the benefit of the doubt considering her tenure on Battlestar and the amazing job she displayed on it.
Throughout SC2, Kerrigan's once empowering and malicious inflection is replaced by a bad knockoff attempt to sound like an evill badass, giving a once unique and convincing villian a generic and cheesy sci-fi voice.
It's especially hilarious when you consider that Talken sounded identical reprising the role and younger than Helfer.
ETA: Also, there's no excuse for the story. Early on Blizzard announced that a benefit with splitting up the games, meant that each episode would be the length of a fully fledged arc and contained as such.
delete
What don't I like? Really, just the inability to choose which region I want to play in.
The guys in SEA are fortunate that we can play on NA servers soon (although we won't have our achievements, including our Collectors Edition-only stuff), but people from Europe, NA, or Asia won't get a chance to switch at all! That's just horrible, IMO.
I just don't feel integrated at all. It's such an unpleasant feeling to log onto Bnet and see that there are only about 250 games of SC2 in my region =/.
At best, I've seen the SEA servers with about 2250 games at a given time, but that's the highest I've seen, personally. It's going to be a real ghost town once we get the ability to go to the NA servers. I hope that that doesn't change Blizzard's decision to allow us to swap =/.
grunt, I am honored that you are so invigorated to meet me again on the field of battle!
I would do the same!!!!!
It sounds kind of weird, I know, but I think the debriefing introductions to each mission were a better way to tell the story than this implementation of the story mode space. The debriefing room somehow made me care a least a little bit about each character no matter how minor. This, however, has yet to make me care about any new characters.
So ... I'll say .... I DON'T like that there are no debriefing rooms ....
... damn, that sounds weird to say ...
Brainstorming doesn't mean as much as you apparently think. Especially since they had to brainstorm WarCraft's lore during that time which, if you've played WoW, you'll know how effing massive it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupino
Five years for a 3D game with tons of in-engine cutscenes and cinematics versus three years for a simple 2D game? You're making StarCraft: Brood War look like the slow development cycle :D Besides, on the disc, the copyright hints that development started in 1994. That means that it mostly likely took four years instead of three.
But, like I said, they used probably less than two years to do the campaign missions. The MP took so long because it's an iterative process.
For the first week or so, I focused on playing online, and greatly enjoyed it. Shifting more towards single player now, and so far, this is one of the few games where emersion has completely taken over, and I've had no trouble being completely emerged in the gameplay. Duno what it is, but really loving the single player. Only thing I dislike about it, is that the mission difficulty curve seems a little wonky, at least for me. Been breezing through nearly all of the missions, except for a few "sticky situations" where I've been left thinking, "where did that come from?"
Also, the unit unlock mechanic has left me with a few facepalm situations. Seems like the nonlinear progression is the cause (I do really like it however, this just seems to be a side effect). For example, reapers would have been idea for the mission where I had to destroy zerg infested buildings during the day, and defend my base at night. However, I didn't end up getting them until several missions later, because I hadn't yet unlocked reapers.
I just want to point out the huge amounts of Cinematics they did for SC1. That also takes alot of time, but actually INVESTING in such a deep and varied storytelling, shows how much effort they put in production, compared to how all-round, yet superficial in most aspects their production of SCII has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
EDIT: I just came to think of another thing I don't like in WoL. The Goliath unit portrait. I know the SC1 Goliath UP was also modeled after the artist at blizz, but at least they put a mask over his face so you:
1) Couldn't see his nerdy face.
2) Felt a reason for the very distorted voice. I mean, how the hell can the SC2 fatty Goliath driver make such a voice when he looks like a happy fat geek?
Oh, and the same goes for the Merc version which we all know shows Dustin Browder, but he basically looks the same.