StarCraft II Beta

[kidder]

I said that I'd be happier. E60 price tag here in Bulgaria is considerably different than a E60 price tag in germany and france. Which they seem to realise with Russia. It will make the game infintely more accessible, but nope, we're stuck with E60. Which is about 1/10th of a _very_ decent sallary, one that most people don't have.

You have me very curious.  Is that 1/10th of a decent weekly/ bi weekly/ monthly salary? 

[Ironwood]

That trailer is all in game cutscenes tho.

fail.

[Malakili]

That trailer is all in game cutscenes tho.

fail.

I saw a commercial on TV using that footage last night, I thought the same thing at the time.  On further reflection though, lets be realistic, RTS gameplay isn't actually going to make for great commercials/trailers.

[Ironwood]

Not really what I meant, but fair enough.

I was thinking maybe make something that's specifically FOR a trailer.  They did it for WoW.

[Wolf]

I said that I'd be happier. E60 price tag here in Bulgaria is considerably different than a E60 price tag in germany and france. Which they seem to realise with Russia. It will make the game infintely more accessible, but nope, we're stuck with E60. Which is about 1/10th of a _very_ decent sallary, one that most people don't have.

You have me very curious.  Is that 1/10th of a decent weekly/ bi weekly/ monthly salary? 

Monthly. I can give you some stats, but these are just not true, as any bussines that is not a big corporation pays a good portion of a worker's sallary "under the table", to avoid paying some of the taxes, it sucks but nothing is done about it as it keeps salaries higher. Generally having a 500 euro/month salary is considered good(ish) for Sofia (the capital). 750-1000 is a very high paid, management/expert position. 300-400 is more likely for someone doing an everyday job or low on the corporate ladder. These are all for Sofia, though - as you go out into the country they go lower and lower. Just for reference, our official minimal sallary is 120EU.

[Zetor]

I said that I'd be happier. E60 price tag here in Bulgaria is considerably different than a E60 price tag in germany and france. Which they seem to realise with Russia. It will make the game infintely more accessible, but nope, we're stuck with E60. Which is about 1/10th of a _very_ decent sallary, one that most people don't have.

You have me very curious.  Is that 1/10th of a decent weekly/ bi weekly/ monthly salary?  

I'm not Wolf, but as a fellow Eastern European, it's pretty accurate; the average hungarian wage is E480 per month, the minimum wage is pretty low as well [don't know it off-hand]. Well-paid jobs with MSC + other qualifications can get as high as E800.

... also a lot of the warez groups are from this region. Coincidence I'm sure.

[tazelbain]

I'll wait for the single player reviews to decide if I am going to buy this.  Being mostly Terran is a turn off.  Disconnecting SP from Competitive play gives gives me hope.

[Thrawn]

I'm just waiting for the announcement that you must be connected to Bnet to play single player now.....

[Malakili]

I'm just waiting for the announcement that you must be connected to Bnet to play single player now.....

I don't know about 'must' but they've already said you will "always" be connected to battle.net when playing SC2, single or multiplayer.  I don't now if you CAN play single player offline in the case that you are without a connection, but it wouldn't surprise me a all if they said otherwise.

In the past, Battle.net was presented as a multiplayer option off to the side, off of the main menu of Blizzard Entertainment titles. That is all changing. With the new Battle.net experience, the service and the game are now interwoven into one experience. Whether you are in single-player or multiplayer StarCraft II, you are always connected, and enjoy a bevy of new and enhanced functionality.

Battle.net and StarCraft II are designed to be seamlessly connected. That means even if you're playing solo you will still view the latest news, receive game and content updates, and be able to see your friends' status and chat with them. But this new interconnectivity between the game and the service goes even deeper than that. Now, each player will create a StarCraft II Battle.net character. This character serves as your single persistent identity across the service. Everything you do in the game -- win/loss record, achievements, unlockable rewards, friends list, and more -- will be saved to your character profile for you and your friends to see. Even your save game progress in the campaign can be synched to Battle.net. Say you upgrade your computer and re-install the game; once you connect to Battle.net, you can continue the campaign right where you left off. This is especially useful if you play on more than one computer, because all your data will be carried over for you via Battle.net.

source

[Rasix]

Not that I'd be able to find it anywhere, but I remember seeing something that if you cannot connect to battle.net, you can still play the single player game offline.

[Typhon]

Not that I'd be able to find it anywhere, but I remember seeing something that if you cannot connect to battle.net, you can still play the single player game offline.

I remember reading that as well

[LK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there less competition and quality games that could match up to Blizzard's efforts in the past? Diablo II, StarCraft, Warcraft 3 (and DotA), WoW... they all came off to me as definitive of the genre and the best that could be made of it. But now there's a lot more developers out there putting out quality titles on PC and consoles that hits up the major genres Blizzard was associated with dominating. 3rd-Person Isometric, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, Real-Time Strategy... they've all seen titles come out for them that advance the genre in difference ways or buck the Box Cost & That's It trend of old. MMOs are an exception, but that's because MMO developers are now looking at different models to earn their money instead of AAA Diku. I imagine WoW will be the last major MMO of its type for some time.

Blizzard releasing a game of the quality level they've done in the past seems like it would be less impressive in today's environment, whereas before people were so starved for quality experiences and Blizzard was the only one delivering that level of quality. I envision SC2's launch isn't going to be as impressive as previous Blizzard launches have been, though for any other company in the business it would be an exceptional launch.

[Demonix]

No way that release date in the trailer is correct.

[K9]

Six weeks? The game is in really good shape now. The only thing they really need to test is the capacity and functionality of B.net, which is what phase 2 of the beta will do I guess.

[Margalis]

Blizzard releasing a game of the quality level they've done in the past seems like it would be less impressive in today's environment, whereas before people were so starved for quality experiences and Blizzard was the only one delivering that level of quality. I envision SC2's launch isn't going to be as impressive as previous Blizzard launches have been, though for any other company in the business it would be an exceptional launch.

I'm not sure how big the launch for SC1 was, so it's hard to say.

However I would say that this game is not up to the quality of past Blizzard releases, at least based on the competition and the time period.

When Starcraft 1 was introduced having 3 separate races with completely distinct units and some different play mechanics was pretty amazing. Starcraft 2 has much more modest ambitions - ten years later and it has the same 3 races with the same mechanics. There is precious little in SC2 that is new and I can't think of any genuinely new feature of any importance. It's nowhere close to the revolution that SC1 was.

Also it's easy to forget that when it came out SC1 had awesome graphics. The graphics in SC2 are good but nothing amazing either technically or stylistically.

It's always interesting to see how fast a series falls into formula. Starcraft 2 seems entirely content to follow the formula of Starcraft 1 to the letter.

[Sheepherder]

I can still build marines, can't play as some crazy alien race that just showed up out of nowhere and facerapes everything, and this poor Bulgarian fucker won't need to take another job to build a rig to play this game.  Boy am I pissed, why can't Blizzard hate money like everyone else?

[Rasix]

I don't really get the rage either at least based purely on the game itself.  Starcraft with a shiny new coat of paint isn't really a bad thing.  What the hell else are you going to play for a competitive RTS?

Edit: I really am curious.  Is there another RTS (non Blizzard) that's going to offer me a comparable community and match making system?

[Mosesandstick]

If they keep b.net the same it's going to be hard to add your friends to your community (unless you use fb!) 

[Ironwood]

I'm on record, but I'll repeat ;  That Facebook friend finder stuff is beyond retarded and well into gratuitously offensive...

[Maledict]

Also it's easy to forget that when it came out SC1 had awesome graphics. The graphics in SC2 are good but nothing amazing either technically or stylistically.

Um, no. Definitely, definitely not - one of the things Starcraft was criticised for on release was the fact it was still a sprite based game, and not 3D like a lot of the competition (Total Annihilation etc). Heck, one of the "click many times" sound effects is a unit complaining about reviewers moaning about the lack of 3D. Heck, at the time a lot of PC magazines only gave Starcraft scores in the 80s to 90s in the UK at least, due to the low ambition, not amazing graphics, and because "it was just a better version of what has gone before".

It was only a couple of years later, with Brood Wars release, the insane sales, and the fact it was still going incredibly strongly whilst games released at the same time and post Starcraft had vanished did journalists seem to finally cotten on to what made Starcraft great and to why it was so good. But lets not rewrite history here - SC1 really did not have awesome graphics except for the cutscenes.

[Mosesandstick]

"This is not warcraft in space"
"I KNOW ITS NOT 3D"

Artanis 

[Margalis]

Clearly this is a matter of opinion but if you look at screenshots of Starcraft compared to TA to me Starcraft looks way way better.

Maybe people in the UK have vision problems.

[K9]

The reason Blizzard makes money is that they produce games that everyone can play, rather than just aspire to play. The graphics in SC2 are fine, the look is consistent and polished, the artwork is very good.

As far as new features go, from what little we have seen of single player it is worlds different from the first game. I've been seeing branching, mission structures, customisable army lists and a bunch of other fun features. With regards to the multiplayer, why fuck with a winning formula? Different isn't always better; SC2 multiplayer is an updated and polished version of an already great multiplayer game. These are things which a lot of players seem to want; consider how often the phrase "I'd love to play XXX but the poor graphical quality just makes it painful" crops up in relation to old games. Sometimes a revamp that doesn't fuck with the formula is the best thing.

But!

I'm on record, but I'll repeat ;  That Facebook friend finder stuff is beyond retarded and well into gratuitously offensive...

This

[Rendakor]

K9, the problem is that they DID fuck with the formula: lack of LAN support, no chat, etc.

[Margalis]

It's not clear that multiplayer SC2 is actually better than multiplayer SC1, or is better than if they had simply refreshed the graphics and left everything else the same.

Right now it's in a weird no-man's-land where it doesn't have enough differences to be a truly separate game but also is more than a simple refresh. Similar to something like Street Fighter 2: HD Remix. (Which I am not a big fan of)

I'm not trying to hate on it, I think it is a good game, but compared to SC1 it's super conservative in approach.

[trias_e]

Clearly this is a matter of opinion but if you look at screenshots of Starcraft compared to TA to me Starcraft looks way way better.

Maybe people in the UK have vision problems.

The same goes for any basically good 2d graphics when compared to early 3d graphics.  At the time, we as a collective gaming public were having some vision problems.  I mean, have you looked at FF7 recently?  Horrific.  Though it didn't seem so at the time.

[Rendakor]

It's not clear that multiplayer SC2 is actually better than multiplayer SC1, or is better than if they had simply refreshed the graphics and left everything else the same.

Right now it's in a weird no-man's-land where it doesn't have enough differences to be a truly separate game but also is more than a simple refresh. Similar to something like Street Fighter 2: HD Remix. (Which I am not a big fan of)

I'm not trying to hate on it, I think it is a good game, but compared to SC1 it's super conservative in approach.

This, pretty much. SC2 feels more like an expansion pack complete with a graphics overhaul than a "new" game. The catch is that it's only got 1 campaign, it's priced like a full game, and has less features than the original.

[Lantyssa]

I'm on record, but I'll repeat ;  That Facebook friend finder stuff is beyond retarded and well into gratuitously offensive...

Facebook should charge them for using their network and every time people who friended one another using their service play a game together.

[Mosesandstick]

I think you guys are a being a bit harsh about the SP. It seems iffy that Wings of Liberty is only going to be the first campaign, but at this point we have no idea about the quality of the campaign.

[Ingmar]

I think you guys are a being a bit harsh about the SP. It seems iffy that Wings of Liberty is only going to be the first campaign, but at this point we have no idea about the quality of the campaign.

Actually we have some idea, since two missions and the between-mission-hub stuff was playable at last Blizzcon. Short version: it is going to be awesome.

EDIT: I also had the impression that it was going to be about as long in total as the 3 campaigns together were in the original, but I am not sure where I heard that.

[Wolf]

They've said it - it'll be 30+ missions.

[Wolf]

An interesting bit of rumour/news from TL:

1. There will be an oncoming "Ongame Net Starcraft 2 League," or OSL2.
2. The sponsor of the first one will be Korean Air.
3. The first OS2L will have prelimnaries from all over the world, and then the players will be gathered in Seoul for the Ro16.
4. There will be a "Starcraft 2 Professional Edition" that will only be provided to tournament organizers, which will include LAN functionality. Only with a special account + password that gets activated will it work. Blizzard staff will be present at tournaments to assist. Apparently this news was first told to the organizers of the Stars War after the tournament ended.

[Mosesandstick]

Does this mean you must have Blizzard's permission to host a proper tournament? Wow.

[tgr]

Does this mean you must have Blizzard's permission to host a proper tournament? Wow.

See below. Enjoy.

Speaking of competitive playing, apparently it might not be as well thought out for gamers as initially thought:

http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence

“You agree that you will not, under any circumstances…use the Service for any “e-sports” or group competition sponsored, promoted or facilitated by any commercial or non-profit entity without Blizzard’s prior written consent;” – Starcraft II Battle.net Terms of Use, Current as of May 28th

Want to run a major Starcraft II tournament?  Hope you got money.  Blizzard wants a cut.  Yeah, Blizzard isn’t tossing lawyers at your college tournament.  And why bother?  Saw what happened at the University of Central Florida?  Where 100 gamers showed up for a tournament and found out Battle.net could only handle twelve university network users at once?  And then Battle.net crashed during the round of sixteen and threw the legitimacy of the event into question?  Blizzard isn’t worried.  The company set up the system so you can’t compete with them.  It just sells the message: “Thanks for making Starcraft a spectator sport, fans.  Now fuck off.“

[Paelos]

Does this mean you must have Blizzard's permission to host a proper tournament? Wow.

Only the professionals get the cool stuff now. Pay2play and all that.