Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luk3us

Starcraft 2: A new Era

Recommended Posts

Ignoring all the fanboys and their fav tactics, and counter-tactics...

 

I just wanted to say...

.

.

.

I'm really loving the P.R. department of Blizzard right now. It's a slick site, with a fairly steady flow of information, and great detail.

 

Props to them.

 

-gben

Share this post


Link to post

Well, yes, they have kept everyone well informed of what to expect from Starcraft 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, yes, they have kept everyone well informed of what to expect from Starcraft 2.

So you think... they're really tightlipped when it comes to new features.

Share this post


Link to post

Or at least as good as CnC3 ;)

 

Btw, the human gameplay is up in HD on SC2s site now.

Share this post


Link to post
Or at least as good as CnC3 ;)

 

Btw, the human gameplay is up in HD on SC2s site now.

 

no..it must be better..

Share this post


Link to post

say what? how will blizzard fail us? they sure havent yet... you need to remember the unique differences between EA and blizzard. it will be better then C&C 3..... they have worked on sc2 longer then C&C3, also how are the updates been with C&C 3?? i havent had internet for weeks

Share this post


Link to post

Come on, Punwisp, stop with your radical, "Blizzard is the best, **** everything else" point of view. Damn it, EA has disappointed, but still, you can't count out the fact that C&C3 was good, and, thing is, you're even indicting yourself by saying that Blizzard spent more time on SC2 than EA ever did on C&C3! Obviously it would be good, since time is on Blizzard's ****ing side! For a game made with a bit of rush, C&C3 was excellent!

 

 

Anyway, back to the damn topic. Not much on Kane's Wrath at the moment. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Come on, Punwisp, stop with your radical, "Blizzard is the best, **** everything else" point of view. Damn it, EA has disappointed, but still, you can't count out the fact that C&C3 was good, and, thing is, you're even indicting yourself by saying that Blizzard spent more time on SC2 than EA ever did on C&C3! Obviously it would be good, since time is on Blizzard's ******* side! For a game made with a bit of rush, C&C3 was excellent!

 

 

Anyway, back to the damn topic. Not much on Kane's Wrath at the moment. :roll:

 

Um... this is a Blizzard fanboy thread, not a C&C3 fanboy thread...

 

-gben

Share this post


Link to post

i recall that luk3us said that SC:Ghost never make it...doest it bit disapointing?

 

 

well, we'll wait & see.

 

and LP...make sure you pay your overdue bills...

Share this post


Link to post

Ghost was placed on indefinite suspension, but the SC2 devs have talked about it at a few of those conventions, so they might kick start it at some point... So you never know. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, I ain't no C&C3 fanboy, but I ain't a Blizzard fanboy too, though. Anyway, what I meant was that Punwisp's point of view was something like a one sided point of view... Come on, Blizzard isn't a perfect game developer, but hell, EA isn't also. Nuff' said.

Share this post


Link to post
i havent had internet for weeks

Why can't it stay that way? :roll:

 

this world is far from perfect :roll:

Share this post


Link to post

? why are you comparing something that never even came out?

dissapointment as in there games were rushed and such, Not things that never even made in stores

 

Also if you read my post i never said blizzard was perfect..

 

Come on, Punwisp, stop with your radical, "Blizzard is the best, **** everything else" point of view. Damn it, EA has disappointed, but still, you can't count out the fact that C&C3 was good, and, thing is, you're even indicting yourself by saying that Blizzard spent more time on SC2 than EA ever did on C&C3! Obviously it would be good, since time is on Blizzard's ******* side! For a game made with a bit of rush, C&C3 was excellent!

 

um lol? so your saying ea didnt have enough time to make C&C 3? of course they had time... Also if C&C 3 was "actualy" in the works people wouldnt have said it was rushed..... some people think blizzard is rushing sc2 when really they arnt... they just didnt announce they were making it until like around 3-4 months ago.

 

Also im guessing your failing to realize this is a sc thread... and a good fraction of your post was meant to make a point, which it didnt, sense this is in fact a "blizzard" thread, sense it is about SC 2.

 

Ive Never heard any bitches or moans on blizzards games that are "out" in stores, that complain its been rushed and such. Damn Koreans would prob bitch slap you for talking bad about blizzard...

 

Sense C&C 3 wasnt really put together right, the expansion should repair what C&C 3 failed in thus, shouldnt be much of bitches and moans people have made towards C&C 3, Of course EA has other games to make, and more cash to put in there topics. I do like C&C 3, just not really addicting, i do however really like a few games EA makes, EA actually remade black&white really well, black & white 2 and expansion are very fun games.

Share this post


Link to post
Ive Never heard any bitches or moans on blizzards games that are "out" in stores, that complain its been rushed and such.

 

The issue is not that they are rushed games, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike blizzard games. Just because you work on a game for a long time isn't going to mean it will be a perfect game

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, C&C3 didn't FAIL, it disappointed in the sense that the story was in a way, cheesy. And hell, Blizzard has, like, at least 7 years to make SC2, while EA had, like, about 2 years (at most) to make C&C3, and did they deliver? Not totally, but yes, they delivered about 80%, which is pretty good already.

 

 

 

Why do you need to say that Blizzard isn't rushing SC2? It's already obvious. And I'm comparing, obviously, from the information everyone already knows! We saw some footage, etc., and from what I saw it is a nice game, but I wasn't comparing the games themselves, the timeframe the developers had to develop each game was my main concern there.

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, I loved id since I was... Well, since my dad started playing Quake (the first one, mind you) while I sat on his lap... That was about 12 or 13 years ago... :twisted:

 

 

 

But I have to say, Doom III disappointed me... Quake 4, though, rocked like hell!

Share this post


Link to post

i never said the word "perfect"

im saying C&C 3 failed because half of you C&C fans said it did, when i started playing it, i didnt have any probloms with the stroyline, i liked it. and No im not contridicting myself, a good % of the C&C dans that have came here said the stoy failed, i stopped bothing explaining that there is a giant time period between each games timeline.... Anyway, they havent worked on sc2 constantly... they had WoW to deal with for a while, and Sc2 for a few years was just making ideas etc, at the time didnt have a whole lot of time to work on it, and around when they started spending more time with it, after a while they announced it was in the works, and WOW: wrath of lich king was in the works few months later

 

my personal opinion on C&C 3 is, it didnt seem "rushed" to me, it just didnt seem they did a good job for me to be addicted to it for months at a time, it seems to me all EA games dont have that "addicted for months" thing.... B&B 2, sure loved the game, i played it alot for 3 days, then about a week. fallout tactics, it was a ok game, i barely played it though. Blizzard has always had that touch that keeps me going in my opinion..... and they did a very good job making it better then Most mmos, they observed them, and made WoW better, and gave it the addicted touch, well it seems like they put a little too much, because they have more then 8 million play.....when i bought wow(few years ago) only around 5 milion played(over really) and now thats doubled... not sure about expanion but im sure alot more play. Anyway, ive never thought EA had that touch, mostly it seems there mostly in it for the money, and some might not be.

 

Also it doesnt matter if blizzard had 7 years, and ea had 2 years, it just means blizzard is spending more times on there games.... im sure they dont want to dissapoint ther korean fans... blizzard is WAY WAY more popular there then it is here...

 

Azrel is that ur first user name or did you have a previous one?

Share this post


Link to post
i never said the word "perfect"

im saying C&C 3 failed because half of you C&C fans said it did, when i started playing it, i didnt have any probloms with the stroyline, i liked it. and No im not contridicting myself, a good % of the C&C dans that have came here said the stoy failed, i stopped bothing explaining that there is a giant time period between each games timeline.... Anyway, they havent worked on sc2 constantly... they had WoW to deal with for a while, and Sc2 for a few years was just making ideas etc, at the time didnt have a whole lot of time to work on it, and around when they started spending more time with it, after a while they announced it was in the works, and WOW: wrath of lich king was in the works few months later

 

C&C3 did not fail, it was a great success and approved by many.

 

[*] PC Gamer gave the game its "Editor's Choice" rating at 91%, stating that "One of the greatest RTS franchises of all time returns to glory".

[*] Gamespot gave the game a 9.0 out of 10 and the "Editor's Choice", referring to Tiberium Wars as "one of the finest real-time strategy games in years."

[*] 1UP.com/Games for Windows rated the game at 9/10.

[*] IGN labelled the game as "great", rating it at 8.5/10.

[*] GamePro gave Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars its "Editor's Choice" rating at 4.5 out of 5, designating it as "Game of the Month" in its June 2007 issue.

[*] Polish based CD-Action magazine has rated the game at 9/10.

[*] The Swedish PC Gamer gave it 81%, while the magazine's "UK Edition" awarded it 82% and credited the game as "a welcome, but limited, return".

[*] PC Zone rated Tiberium Wars at 86%.

[*] Dutch magazine Power Unlimited gave it an 88/100.

[*] UK based website Mansized scored the game a full 5/5 stars, stating that "chances are you’ve not had this much fun in a long, long time".

[*] UK magazine PCFormat gave the game an 81% rating and praised the "greased eel-slick presentation and explosive, ripping action" which makes Command and Conquer the "distillation of what RTS is all about", however it also criticized the lack of innovation present.

[*] Pelit and MikroBitti gave it 89/100 and 4/5, respectively. MikroBitti applauded the game's appearance and sounds, but criticized it for excessive loyalty to the early Command & Conquer game mechanics.

[*] UK Magazine Edge gave the game a rating of 7. Due to the intentionally faithful recreation of the original Command and Conquer experience, the magazine felt that the game's strategic formula was too dated in comparison to more strategic titles currently available in the RTS market.

[*] X-Play rated Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars 5/5.

 

my personal opinion on C&C 3 is, it didnt seem "rushed" to me, it just didnt seem they did a good job for me to be addicted to it for months at a time, it seems to me all EA games dont have that "addicted for months" thing.... B&B 2, sure loved the game, i played it alot for 3 days, then about a week. fallout tactics, it was a ok game, i barely played it though. Blizzard has always had that touch that keeps me going in my opinion..... and they did a very good job making it better then Most mmos, they observed them, and made WoW better, and gave it the addicted touch, well it seems like they put a little too much, because they have more then 8 million play.....when i bought wow(few years ago) only around 5 milion played(over really) and now thats doubled... not sure about expanion but im sure alot more play. Anyway, ive never thought EA had that touch, mostly it seems there mostly in it for the money, and some might not be.

 

You're right. C&C and SC both have addictive qualities.

 

Also it doesnt matter if blizzard had 7 years, and ea had 2 years, it just means blizzard is spending more times on there games.... im sure they dont want to dissapoint ther korean fans... blizzard is WAY WAY more popular there then it is here...

 

Starcraft 2 was really only being worked on up until a year ago. Sure there were concepts, but it was just all concepts, not much development of the actual game. They only announced it in May you know..

 

Azrel is that ur first user name or did you have a previous one?

 

Yes, he has had different names in the past. Maybe if you actually tried to comprehend what goes on around here sometimes you might not have to ask.

 

And work on your spelling/grammar please, it hurts my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post

TW is all about computer performance. its turn me down. i cant enjoy graphic quality like you all did. TW is not for everyone except for some who have better hardwares.

Share this post


Link to post
TW is all about computer performance. its turn me down. i cant enjoy graphic quality like you all did. TW is not for everyone except for some who have better hardwares.

I have plenty of hardware but I still play it on low.

Share this post


Link to post
TW is all about computer performance. its turn me down. i cant enjoy graphic quality like you all did. TW is not for everyone except for some who have better hardwares.

I have plenty of hardware but I still play it on low.

 

Yeah, it still lags on high res regardless.

Share this post


Link to post

me too..i still pay it on low. meh, after i add some ram 3 months ago. at least better than lowest..

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×