StarCraft II To Be Released On July 27 220
Blizzard announced today that StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, the first game in a series of three, will be released on July 27. The game will contain the Terran campaign (29 missions), the full multiplayer experience, and "several challenge-mode mini-games," with "focused goals designed to ease players into the basics of multiplayer strategies." It will launch alongside the revamped Battle.net, which we've previously discussed. Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime said, "We've been looking forward to revisiting the StarCraft universe for many years, and we're excited that the time for that is almost here. Thanks to our beta testers, we're making great progress on the final stages of development, and we'll be ready to welcome players all over the world to StarCraft II and the new Battle.net in just a few months."
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
I've been waiting for this half my life!
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
God that's scary.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking to some kid on steam about Starcraft, and he was telling me that the Zerg used to give him nightmares. He was 11 when it came out. I told him I had been 27. He was shocked that someone as old as I was would still play games. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be shocked if I don't play them at that age. Just today I saw a 40 year old woman playing with a PSP in the subway.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Is it bad that I want to troll my hypothetical grandkids?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it bad that I want to troll my hypothetical grandkids?
Since you're a member of Slashdot and therefore unlikely to ever procreate, therefore making the hypothetical sure to stay hypothetical, nope. Not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
He could adopt.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can't adopt if you're living in your mom's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to be pwning noobs until "pwning noobs" is a ridiculously outdated term and then I'll beat my grandkids at whatever game they're playing and I'll go "Yeah! I pwned you little noobs! Old school!" and they'll groan and go "graaaaandpaaaaaa". It'll be awesome.
Is it bad that I want to troll my hypothetical grandkids?
Based on the above, I wouldn't worry too much about it. They're likely to stay hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a line you should never cross.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Dang straight. Heck I've figured the nursing home scene will be the perfect time for gaming.
Think about it: limited mobility, limited income, probably not a lot of visitors, sex drive that has plummeted to near zero, and tons of time to pass by SOMEHOW.
I'd be in a WoW hardcore 25-man raiding group if I was old and in a retirement home. I got a ways to go, but I'm sure I'll be doing the equivalent when the time comes :D.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
I hope you kicked that little punk's ass for him.
>>"Gee, mister, I didn't know you forty-something senior citizens still liked to play games!"
>"Screw off, junior, I was playin' games with your slutty mama, and you know what? She likes to take it right in the Spawning Pool, if you get my drift. Now get outta here before I strangle you with this corded sixaxis."
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
God that's scary.
Newly hatched zerglings should not trouble a fully mature high templar.
Re: (Score:2)
God that's scary.
Newly hatched zerglings should not trouble a fully mature high templar.
As of the latest patch they do.
Re: (Score:2)
For a second I thought that this was hyperbole, but then I realized it's actually true. Seeing as the original starcraft was released in 1998, it'd make the parent 24 years old. God that's scary.
It's like waiting for Futurama to come back.
Wait a minute, 27 July? Isn't that when Comic-Con takes place? Coincidence?!
I still say it's too soon (Score:2)
All your base are belong to us (Score:4, Funny)
Nerds unite! Now you can logout of WoW for 30 minutes to get your ass handed to you by a Korean teenager again!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know its a joke, but the Korean server is completely separated and blizzard's matchmaking system usually puts you against someone of your exact skill level. It surprisingly works very well at the lower levels, high level players have a larger skill difference though and don't match up as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So, this is what I was told about the Koreans, which used to be everywhere: There used to be no servers on the Pacific Rim. Then they got them, they were running at capacity and Koreans would still connect to American servers. I personally saw tons of them, so I think it at least originated in fact. It was generally pretty easy to tell who the Koreans were, because their names looked like someone mashed the keyboard and they would swear at you while declaring the superiority of Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seems like as good a place as any to keep them.
Time to buy stock (Score:4, Funny)
Not excited (Score:3, Interesting)
So a friend got me in on the SC2 beta, and I've got to say, it really wasn't much fun. I loved the original SC, but when BroodWar came out, I felt like i had to coordinate too many units' special abilities during a battle, in a very small amount of wall-clock time. SC2 felt similar but perhaps even worse in that regard. Maybe some of that goes away after you've played for a while, but I'm just not in the mood to put in that time. Maybe it's just a stage-of-life difference, I dunno.
That being said, I *am* looking forward to Diablo 3 still.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i got to play the beta at blizcon and it seemed to be an updated version of Diablo II. It seemed to have the same mouse wearing out click fest as the first 2 had.
Which Race? (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree, but I wonder how much of my enjoyment (or lack thereof) comes from the fact that there's no single-player element as well as the fact that I don't know any of the people I'm playing (only one other friend of mine is on the beta).
Other random observations:
Re:Not excited (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't care to learn those abilities, you'll likely play other people who can't or can't be bothered to learn them either.The original Starcraft tended towards high micromanagement ability requirements at the highest levels of play, but it may just be that you never got that far or even thought about how to effectively micro the vanilla units. You should check out some of the video casts of the various SC tournaments if you're interested in seeing some great high-level play. It's absolutely crazy watching some of the best players.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, SC2 seems to be less micro-heavy. Which I like to a degree. SC1 had a bunch of micro features that even "average" players knew and that would let them wipe the floor with anyone who doesn't. Like moving shot (having units fire while continuing to move without any deceleration). It would let, for instance, Corsairs totally destroy Mutalisks. Starcraft 2 has smart casting, a better UI with much larger amounts of stuff being selectable at once, rally points you can set on resources and the li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So true. The amount of crying would fill an ocean if MW2 forced players of similar level to play together rather than providing a steady stream of n00bs to the elite players so they can use the Tactical Nuke 3 minutes in on every map.
Re: (Score:2)
So true. The amount of crying would fill an ocean if MW2 forced players of similar level to play together rather than providing a steady stream of n00bs to the elite players so they can use the Tactical Nuke 3 minutes in on every map.
And after that nuke takes out that one defensive tower you loose the game noob.
You need mutliple nukes to do any real damage now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, should have used the full CoD:MW2. Used to read it that way, too, before I started playing Modern Warfare 2 (god help me; it's not even a good multiplayer game but it gets its hooks in you and keeps you playing anyway with the promise of another unlock or another killstreak)
I'm hoping to play it out of my system in the beta (Score:2)
It has a lot more modern control things so you can shift click and queue up the activities, but it is absolutely true that the best players will always win by microing. A few hellions can destroy your zealot army no matter how huge it is if they are properly micro'ed. And reapers are untouchable still if the person controlling them has any good ability to micro. It has a lot more stuff to watch for via terrain and such now too. Reading Art of War is probably a pretty good idea with the way it's set up, and
Re: (Score:2)
"but when BroodWar came out, I felt like i had to coordinate too many units' special abilities during a battle,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any highly competitive situation where you're required to multitask in an environment you're not familiar with is likely to cause a small bit of anxiety; certainly enough to ruin the 'fun factor' in a game. With no manual, no tutorial, and no single player to familiarize yourself with the units and buildings you find yourself learning as you go, or sometimes learning as you get your ass kicked.
I was familiar with the original SC, but hadn't really played an RTS for a few years, and I found myself uncomforta
Re:Not excited (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually not that bad, and it doesn't take long to get into the understanding. SC2 goes a long way toward assisting with all the micro and macro elements of the old SC. Matchmaking is also pretty good. I'm horrible, and play in the Copper ladder, and I when about half my games. They are challenging and fun, and I'm slowly seeing improvement in my game. I don't feel like I'm getting rolled all the time. I can usually look back on games and say "Yup, I should have worked on building an army and not just more drones." or "I failed to properly keep tabs on my opponent and he kept tabs on me, and that let him trounce me."
At the same time, I've also learned how to keep fighting and still remember to build units back at the base.
The thing is, SC2 is gonna be around a while. So I know the number of hours I get from the game will be worth it from a dollar's spent pov. It's like TF2 in that regard. That game was well worth the price (even moreso because it was in the Orange box).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the total war is the
***waiting screen while we load battle***
amount of downtime while
***2 minute walk to the opposing army, even in 3x speed***
you try to get from one thing
***After 3 minutes of pitched battle we now have 5 of boring mop up, which you can't just ignore since you need to make sure your general doesn't die***
to another. I mean I could almost play a game of Civ while
***Loading campaign map again, 3 minute wait***
this stuff goes on
Not sure what to think. (Score:2)
At first, the decision to split the story arc into three games (terran, protoss, zerg campaigns) seemed to be an obvious money-grab. But 29 missions seems to be on par with what you got w/ SC1 (anyone remember how many missions were in it?).
That said, if they're pricing each campaign as a full-on game, are the 2nd and 3rd titles going to be as popular if the first gives you access to full multiplayer?
Finally, has anyone from Blizzard answered whether any form of LAN play will be supported? Is it going
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Removing LAN has the effect of forcing players to connect through Blizzard's servers, Battle.net, before playing multiplayer locally.
Better make that *any* game locally. So even you play against AI on your own computer it goes through battle.net. So if you have laggy connection your AI enemies would lag on your own computer. Even if you have 100ms to battle.net you still notice the lag to be honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm basing this on beta. This is in beta and I don't think its foolish to predict that it will be the same in release version. Or you assert that Blizzard likes to change fundamental parts of the games just before they release it? Not likely.
Concerning the AI difficulty. It makes no difference if the AI is very easy or very hard. And I just don't see a connection between AI levels and networking infrastructure. If you see it, please enlight me.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever downloaded fan-created mission content, I think you'll agree that 29 missions could well-be 'on par', or it could still be a 'money-grab'. Hard to say, and definitely in the 'wait and see' category for me. I need a series of solid reviews before I'd lay out this initial investment.
Most likely, I'll wait for the inevitable 'battle chest' version that contains all of the titles for one reasonable price.
Finally, has anyone from Blizzard answered whether any form of LAN play will be supported? Is it going to be authentication only, or will literally every byte of data between players be sent to/from battle.net, even if the competitors are 5 feet away from each other?
I'm confident the answer on this has always been 'no support'. There's really no reason wh
Re: (Score:2)
That has never happened. In SC1, games were always P2P, with the "hoster" serving as the server. That's why you had to NAT your router: http://world-editor-tutorials.thehelper.net/firewall.php [thehelper.net]
Battle.net was only an indexing server.
I still have bugs that make the game unplayable. (Score:2)
Heres one you "LAN Lovers" will get a kick out of. If I play 1vcpu, I still get dropped against the computer! Yes, if you lose Battle.net connection during LAN or fighting a computer, you get disconnected from your game.
Re:I still have bugs that make the game unplayable (Score:5, Insightful)
The beta sometimes crashes? The horror!
Clearly they won't fix those for the final version.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Exactly. GP, have you been submitting good thorough bug reports? Sometimes the automated report doesn't give them enough info, perhaps you should be on their forums or whatever helping them out.
If you have, then I'm sure it'll likely be resolved by release date.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you running on? You've Piqued my interest
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to investigate your ISP for the connection problems, unless you don't have problems with any other persistent connection applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and can be wiped out by a toddler mashing the keyboard
Woot! A skill level that is finally right for me! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does support 1vCPU. Only with Easy AI though, so it's not really all that great. Create a custom game, and there's a button +AI on the screen where you see who's in the game.
I've never seen the OP's issues myself, though... maybe my computer is more stable (chose stable components when I built it in '03, maintained it properly, and am not maxing it out) or my connection is more stable (paid the extra $$ for a good router)... No idea why his would be so terrible.
LAN? (Score:2)
Is lan support in the final version? If not, they will not see a dime from me or my friends.
It's alright (Score:4, Informative)
I've been in the beta for a week and it's alright but I liked warcraft 1/2 and starcraft 1 more. BW and WC3 required too much micro so I didn't like them. Currently some SC2 units seem useless and some of the new ones are OP.
The matchmaking system in SC2 is working rather well and matches you against similar skilled players. There are some concerns over it because it's loosely based on the Elo rating system used for chess and other competitions, but some people argue that they've destroyed everything good that the Elo system does. Elo gives people a starting pool of points and then trades points between the winner and loser of a match and the amount traded depends on the difference between the numbers. This makes it so that a good player beating a poorly rated player will gain hardly any points whereas if they lose then they lose a lot of points because they're good but lost to someone bad, and if they're evenly skilled then a moderate number of points will be traded. Eventually you top out and reach a number that corresponds with your skill and will stay roughly the same unless skill changes. With the SC2 rating system there are 5 leagues that separate skill levels, and within each league are divisions consisting of 100 players. Each division has its own Elo ratings and if you change leagues because your skill is out of place then your rating resets and you start a new Elo rating all over again in the new league/division. There are also 'bonus' points that accumulate while you're not playing that you can then gain once you do gain, much like WoW's rested xp system. These bonus points cause inflation within each division. For these reasons you can't compare the Elo style rating between divisions or leagues, your rating only shows how good you are within your division.
Playing the Beta (Score:2)
And I'm ultimately unimpressed. Here's Blizzard's history:
Warcraft -- First RTS
Warcraft 2 -- Added sea/air units, multiplayer
Starcraft -- Asymetric factions, battle.net
Warcraft 3 -- Hero units, 3D
Starcraft 2 -- I can select 255 units at once now?
Is there anything I'm missing other than a conspicuous lack of risk or innovation?
Re:Playing the Beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard never innovates. They just do what everybody else does without the suck. I LOVE THEM!!!
Re:Playing the Beta (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'm ultimately unimpressed. Here's Blizzard's history:
I honestly cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not. In the event that you are not being sarcastic, allow me to elaborate on your points.
Warcraft -- First RTS
It was not. Usually Dune 2 by Westwood Studios gets credit for this. Warcraft 1 did have some innovations, but both of those games are really horrible if you try to play them now.
Warcraft 2 -- Added sea/air units, multiplayer
Thats innovation isn't it?
Starcraft -- Asymetric factions, battle.net
Ok, now here is one where the innovation, or at least the execution, cannot be overstated enough. There weren't just three factions each basically the same with slightly different units and maybe a faction specific unit and building or two. Starcraft had three entirely different factions, with almost entirely different build mechanics, and definitely with entirely different feels and strategies that work. They also managed to balance the factions fairly well, after many balance patches (they never quit making balance changes until it got to be just right). People are still playing it now, 10 years later. In Korea it has become something of a sport (leagues, teams, televised games, etc) and over here it is gaining momentum, and has been since I got into it two years ago. Oh, and the best players in the world don't play on the Battle.net server, they play on a server called ICUP
Warcraft 3 -- Hero units, 3D
Maybe not as much innovation. It took balls though to not just rehash SC or Warcraft 2. Blizzard's main competition was the Command and Conquer series of rts games, and those got rehashed and made into so many sequels that I didn't even know C&C 4 came out a week or a month or something ago, and didn't care either. Also, WC3's map editor is quite robust and has spawned many interesting games, including something called DoTA, which in itself is becoming a new genre of competitive multiplayer gaming
Starcraft 2 -- I can select 255 units at once now?
Is there anything I'm missing other than a conspicuous lack of risk or innovation?
Probably, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I posted Blizzard's history;) Yeah, I know Westwood was first.
I actually thought WC3 was every bit as innovative as Starcraft. Whereas most RTSs to date where about control of resources, the hero structure of WC3 lent itself to building armies and fighting with them (unable to build additional bases without an army, etc). Sure there were people who harassed, but anyone who spent more than a day with the game figured out the counters.
Totally agree with C&C though -- I couldn't care less an
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, SC2 is way closer to it's predecessor than any previously released blizzard title has been.
D3 is the same.
Yes, they have focused on trying to replicate the same experience which made SC great, just as they are doing with D3.
SC2 has focused on correcting the things which where wrong with starcraft, things such as hard to find appropriate matches online, speeding up the start of the game and, well, the rest is primarily that they increased focus on giving more map control and harass options.
Most of
Innovation (Score:2)
Storyline?
Art design?
I believe Starcraft 2 does have some gameplay mechanics changes like variable mission order and being able to unlock various units depending on which missions you've done or how many resources you have.
But in general once a game franchise is established there's not much innovation being done, it's mostly polishing and evolutionary improvement. (at this point I feel compelled to mention the abomination that is C&C 4)
Personally I'm most interested in the narrative in a game and innova
Re: (Score:2)
Since you're counting 3D as one of two achievements for War3 then you should certainly be able to add the graphical improvements of SC2 to the list, and it is my personal belief that you can add 'removal of hero units' to the list of improvements as well.
There are tons of subtle game mechanics that do wonders for the game play which include, but are not limited to: selecting multiple buildings for unit construction queuing, smart casting, being able to waypoint buildings to a movable unit (opposed to static
Re: (Score:2)
it is my personal belief that you can add 'removal of hero units' to the list of improvements as well.
I'll take that as a compliment since it's obvious you've never played Warcraft 3...as evidenced by:
selecting multiple buildings for unit construction queuing, smart casting, being able to waypoint buildings to a movable unit (opposed to static waypoint on the ground), waypointing minerals so that freshly created drones start harvesting right away, in-game voice chat, the ladder system, resource requesting i
Re: (Score:2)
Hero units, 3D
Total Annihilation was already doing 3D when Star Craft came out.
What I'd like to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
The trouble with multiplayer RTS games is that, after a while, they appeal largely to the type of folks who want to learn the recipe for success on a given map and then practice until they're able to apply it faster than the other loser they're playing against.
What I'd like to see in the next wave of RTS games, then, is a method by which they screw with the various units just enough from game to game that simply being able to do the same thing over and over again as quickly as possible does not equal success in multiplayer -- somehow introduce a measure of creativity and quick-thinking rather than just "zergling rush the bitches until Blizzard patches us"-style tactics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At any decently high level, RTS games are a reactive series of attacks and counterattacks. Starcraft: Brood War in particular became popular in large part to how dynamic strategies became, and how much properly managing
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's like saying chess appeals to folks who like memorizing openings and practicing until they're able to apply it better than the other loser they're playing up against. I'm sorry it takes practice and "skill" to not get stomped, but surely you wouldn't want to play with losers anyway eh?
Except, many people do believe that is a significant problem with the game of chess. One particularly famous player invented an alternative game called Fischer Random Chess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Starcraft sold huge numbers of copies and is still widely played in Korea at a very high level. Chess is a game known across the world and played by a vast number of people from e
Re: (Score:2)
Though no modern RTS game exists which is more "strategy" than "realtime" I would like to point out the excellent DoTA as an example of a game where you can't just repeat the same recipe over and over again. It absolutely requires adaptability and good teamwork. I know there are probably other games like this but this is the one I know, and one most people can play since most people have war3 already. I bought war3 for DoTA and it was worth every penny.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd like to see in the next wave of RTS games, then, is a method by which they screw with the various units just enough from game to game that simply being able to do the same thing over and over again as quickly as possible does not equal success in multiplayer -- somehow introduce a measure of creativity and quick-thinking rather than just "zergling rush the bitches until Blizzard patches us"-style tactics.
Play Company of Heroes. Unlike Starcraft, which is still an old-gen RTS, despite the new graphics, COH has things such as popcap, map control, directional cover, suppression, retreating, reinforcing, etc. Sure, there's a lot of luck involved, and it's not perfectly balanced, but in many aspects it makes SCII look like a kid's toy (and dare I say it looks prettier to, even though it was released a long time ago). Furthermore, it's not a clickfest nor a spamfest, so even people out of their teens are able to
Re: (Score:2)
Basically you are saying you want a game where the people who learn the strategies and practice a lot isn't an
Duke Nukem Forever (Score:2, Funny)
Not a Series (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they stated anywhere that they'll be pricing them all at the same?
I imagine the complaints wouldn't be as big if the first game was $50 and the second two were $20 or $30.
But frankly, being Blizzard games, $150 for the lot would be worth it for all the dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of hours of play you'll get out of it.
But I haven't even gotten my Mac Beta to work yet! (Score:3, Interesting)
Somehow I doubt that general release will meet that schedule. There are still widespread installer issues with the Mac beta, and reading the beta forums one is left with impression that there are still severe balance issues between races.
So I expect they'll delay release. Or -- worse -- they'll delay the Mac release until sometime after the PC release.
Remember the original StarCraft? The Mac Release was more than a year after the Windows release. Few people seem to remember it, but I do; I was pissed. Blizzard pledged "never again" but somehow I doubt that they'll stick to that pledge if it threatens them with any real opportunity costs.
Most of my friends are already playing the Windows version on PCs or using BootCamp. But if that becomes a requirement, why even bother pretending to cater to Mac users?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, why bother.
I once asked Blizard this very question but the only response I received was "who are you", "where did you get this number" and "never call here again".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry - the Windows version is having a lot of problems too - search for 'black screen' on their forums. I'm one of the (seemingly many) users afflicted with this - the game simply refuses to start maybe 80% of the time, dumping me at a black screen. I read some comments on the forum saying to just try and reload it over and over and thought "yeh, right, SURE", but I tried it and lo and behold, it works - I just have to keep starting the game, and if it doesn't load I pskill sc2.exe, then try again un
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
" Blizzard pledged "never again" but somehow I doubt that they'll stick to that pledge if it threatens them with any real opportunity costs."
You're overreacting. Blizz did stick to this pledge and there is nothing to point to the fact that they won't here. My Mac client patched just fine, so did a friend's. Do they have bugs to iron out in the mac client? Sure, but patching issues aren't a huge deal. They have 3 months to fix them. There were patching issues in the Windows client earlier as well, thes
Sounds good but can I actually play it? (Score:2)
I've had the beta for a month now, haven't played it once. Not that I haven't tried I just haven't been able to get the game to work. First I had an issue where I couldn't login to the server (it kept telling me I wasn't authorized to play) then the game just told me it wasn't up to date, I couldn't get any patches ANYWHERE (except of course cracked versions of the beta) and the support wasn't helpful at all. It doesn't help that I work a lot and just don't have the time to sit around just trying to get a g
Re:bout time (Score:5, Funny)
They required more vespene gas.
Re: (Score:2)
We Require More Vespene Gas [ytmnd.com].
Office prank: when co-worker forgets to lock PC (big no-no!), turn on their speakers and go to that website. Everyone will know what they did
Re: (Score:2)
I would have had first post, But i was too busy playing the beta.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the official line is
"Hell, it's about time."
Re:bout time (Score:4, Insightful)
I do hate it when people neglect to cite their sources, but most journalists probably received this as an email.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is Blizzard's site [blizzard.com] a fake?
I think I can safely say that Blizzard said it will be released on July 27, 2010.
For completeness, here is the press release [blizzard.com] on blizzard.com.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's WoT (Wheel of Time) and I don't think there's a RTS game in the works for that franchise, only a piss-poor MMO that'll never get off the ground, what with all the braid-pulling and emoization of the main characters and all.
Re: (Score:2)
Pload'er? I 'ardly know 'er!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a big fan of the micro-fest that has evolved from these RTS games. Back when starcraft was new, people would have great time building up huge economies and tossing huge armies at their opponents without a thought to the actual rate of success of such attacks. Then a sudden paradigm shift happened, and all the game focused on micro. Winning early was no longer rushing, and frowned upon. And a casual player had no hope of success against a much more experienced, and twitchy, player.
Ah, but you see it all balances out in the end, if your defences were up to the task, then the early rush leaves the attacker crippled for a long game, and thus you gain an advantage. However, if you aren't able to fend off an attacker, you probably aren't going to do very well in the long run anyway.
Re: (Score:2)