Starcraft II release date announced....

[MobBoss]

Looks like we are just 2 months out from Starcraft II 'Wings of Liberty' release date as it was recently announced it will be coming out 27 July 2010.

And according to a review I read on Toms Hardware about the graphics of the game, it seems that Blizzard has done its usual.....made a really nice looking game that will still play very well on some older video cards. Blizzard has also apparently changed things around a bit....strats that were a given in the original Starcraft will have to be drastically altered due to new and different units.

And although the original Starcraft is a decade old, it still goes down in my memory as having some of the most compelling and cool cutscenes between missions in the single player storyline. I am really looking forward to experiencing the continuation of the Kerrigan storyline and also to see how things have changed for the Terrans, Protoss and Zerg.

So, lets discuss the following:

Are you going to buy and play Starcraft II? I sure as hell am.

What are your expectations? Nothing short of brilliance, and what we expect from a Blizzard game. Perhaps the only other game I am waiting for with greater anticipation would be Diablo III.

Do you prefer only single player or will you compete online as well? I will definitely play through the single player campaign first, but will indeed be playing online too. I wasnt too bad in my day playing Starcraft, typically opting to counter the zerg rush with terran bunkers or protoss flamers. If you learn to beat the early cheese you can actually amass a pretty respectable win/loss ratio online. And I expect starcraft II to be flexible enough to reward different play types and strats if done well.

Discuss.

 

[Krill]

Depends on the DRM.

 

[Maniacal]

Excellent! I will but cut off from the outside world during that time and won't have to wade through the dozens of articles on it when reading kotaku. Sweet. (I really don't care about starcraft, never played and I have no interest in that kind of rts, its not fun).

 

[MobBoss]

Depends on the DRM.

Good question. I am sure having a battlenet account will be required for online play, but I have no idea what the plan is if all you want the game for is the single player game.

Anyone have any information in regards to this?

 

[Krill]

I googled but could find much, but then, I didn't really look hard. If they go the Ubisoft route and require a constant on line connect, no chance I'll buy it. If they require an online account FoC to play, no real problem with that.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Personally, I am inclined to not buy the game immediately just to protest against the ******** development cycle and their system of announcing a game sixty years in advance.

Diablo 3 sometimes this century please. I care a lot more about D3 than SC2.

 

[Esckey]

I might wait a bit. I'm a bit hesitant to buy it cause of the DRM(what kind) and just how long the game actually is. Its said to be as long as SC1 but I might get bored of playing the Terrans for some 30 missions straight.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I might wait a bit. I'm a bit hesitant to buy it cause of the DRM(what kind) and just how long the game actually is. Its said to be as long as SC1 but I might get bored of playing the Terrans for some 30 missions straight.

This would be like not buying shoes because they come in an ugly box. The single player and the campaign is not what Starcraft is about.

Actually, I could say that of most real time strategy games. I've played all the classics for hours, Age of Empires (all of them), Starcraft, Warcraft, etc etc. Hours and hours. Never played a campaign through though. Even in turn-based like Civ, I never played a single scenario.

They always make me feel like I'm playing a restrained or artificially contracted version of the full game.

 

[Maniacal]

I'm the opposite, I don't like playing strategy games against other people (at least ones like AoE, CoH, and probably starcraft) because I don't find it fun at all. I play battle games to enjoy the battle and watch the destruction, if I paused for a moment to do so against a human opponent than I've pretty much lost already.

Turn based and total war style I would play against someone though, but I generally prefer singleplayer.

 

[Thrawn]

Good question. I am sure having a battlenet account will be required for online play, but I have no idea what the plan is if all you want the game for is the single player game.

Anyone have any information in regards to this?

From what I can tell in the multiplayer beta, you will require a battle.net account to login and be able to play the game at all. If your internet dropped out you'd only lose whatever was in that current game, if it hadn't been saved (for singleplayer. ie: You'd have to start that mission again or simply from your last saved game). For multiplayer it gets recorded as a loss. I'm basing this on the fact that their appear to be achievements for singleplayer, as well as recording a bunch of stats. Obviously to save all this you'd need to be logged in. Whether or not the SP can be played offline once you've logged in I have no idea.

This shouldn't be as bad as it sounds for those worried about drm, and what ubisoft did with their requiring constant internet connection etc, as the new b.net system is more like a social networking thing, as well as acting as unobtrusive DRM. I'm expecting that Diablo 3 will require a b.net account also, as well as any future blizzard games, given what they've announced. (Friends lists viewable in all b.net games, being able to talk to people across games/wow servers, apparently it'll be facebook compatible on release too.)

I was kind of iffy about buying it, but now that I've been playing in the beta and enjoying it immensely, I most certainly will. I'm pretty bad, but the built in leagues system is actually matching me with similarly skilled people, so I'm winning some games instead of losing all the time. The few videos and previews of the singleplayer have me looking forward to it as well.

Even considering picking up the Collectors Edition, but it's really expensive at $NZ199.

 

[Maniacal]

It sounds EXACTLY the same as the ubicrapdrm. Worse actually, if it combines facebook.

WHY THE ING HELL IS EVERYONE INCLUDING A WAY TO ADD YOUR FACEBOOK TO EVERY GOD DAMN WEBSITE AND SERVICE?

 

[Rub'Rum]

I'm the opposite, I don't like playing strategy games against other people (at least ones like AoE, CoH, and probably starcraft) because I don't find it fun at all. I play battle games to enjoy the battle and watch the destruction, if I paused for a moment to do so against a human opponent than I've pretty much lost already.

Turn based and total war style I would play against someone though, but I generally prefer singleplayer.

I'm also like that actually, I don't play them in multiplayer usually. But I don't play the campaign either. I just play the custom maps against the AI. Or the random maps as in Age of Empires 2.

 

[MobBoss]

This would be like not buying shoes because they come in an ugly box. The single player and the campaign is not what Starcraft is about.

Actually, I could say that of most real time strategy games. I've played all the classics for hours, Age of Empires (all of them), Starcraft, Warcraft, etc etc. Hours and hours. Never played a campaign through though. Even in turn-based like Civ, I never played a single scenario.

They always make me feel like I'm playing a restrained or artificially contracted version of the full game.

Well, then your paying for a shoe box with only one shoe in it if you totally ignore the single player experience.

Starcraft itself had one of the best storylines and missions in a single player RTS campaign I have ever seen. The story actually drew me in, and the cutscenes between missions were hugely entertaining. The whole experience was akin to visually experiencing a very well written sci-fi novel.

The way I have always viewed RTS games is the single player game is worth my money to buy it....the online multi-player is just the tasty gravy that keeps me coming back for more.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I agree that the story was great, but I ended up not finishing it because I hated to play the actual missions in between the storytelling that, as I said, for me, just felt like frustratingly limited versions of the full game, with scripted events, units I couldn't buy, or random tactical levels where you explore space ships or I don't know what, which are more fun with other games anyway.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

The likely good balance, support and playerbase make it tempting from a multiplayer perspective. I never got into the original Starcraft, though, due to Total Annihilation being approximately a million times better. What I did play of Starcraft (not much) I always found much too bland, particularly compared to the sprawling ballet of simulated 3D destruction that was TA, and the signals are that Starcraft 2 is more or less a remake. Don't know if I'll be getting it, probably not.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Someone linked me to a YouTube video of the Starcraft 2 beta and it took me like a minute to fully realize that it wasn't just Starcraft 1. I'm guessing it'd be a lot more obvious in full screen, but the units and the style from that far wasn't very different.

 

[azzaman333]

I'd rather play HoN.

 

[PhroX]

Expectations? Another generic, mediocre Dune 2 clone with WH40K rip-off units in it....

 

[MrPopov]

I'm probably not going to buy this. I am sure it will sell more copies than The Bible and make Blizzard employees including janitors drive Ferraris!