StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It isn't 30 days yet. So I do not know.

However, note that you can still play Single Player without it.


In other news:

WOOOT. All singleplayer achievements.

Also:


To all of you who complain PC gaming is dead: Starcraft 2 sold 1.5 million copies in the first 48 hours. And these are hard sales, not counting downloads. Digital downloads numbered 570.000 in the first 24 hours alone.


Starcraft therefore is the fastest-selling video game of 2010 and already has beaten numerous console games such as Gears of War 1/2.

Watched the rest of my collector's edition DVD. Tosh (Breakout) and Hanson (Safe Haven) are the canon choices.

Huh. So I went anti-canon every time there was a choice.

Thanas wrote:Also:


To all of you who complain PC gaming is dead: Starcraft 2 sold 1.5 million copies in the first 48 hours. And these are hard sales, not counting downloads. Digital downloads numbered 570.000 in the first 24 hours alone.


Starcraft therefore is the fastest-selling video game of 2010 and already has beaten numerous console games such as Gears of War 1/2.

I don't see stating facts as 'complaining', and SC2's sales are hardly a reasonable datapoint. It's probably going to be the fastest selling game for years, just on Korean sales alone.

I guess I just don't see it as my team 'beating' the other team.

My starcraft II review:

I finished the game today. So, it is good? Well, if you liked the first, you will like the second. The main improvements of SCII over the first are the improved graphics and improved interface (much needed).

Graphics:

Blizzard games always have good and detailed graphics, with doesn't mean that their games have cutting edge graphics. Usually, Blizzard games have dated graphics, with is good for casual gamers without cutting edge machines. Starcraft II graphics are comparable to C&C3 and better than SupCom.

Interface:

In my opinion, Starcraft II greatest improvements over it's predecessor are the much improved interface, with decreased the need for micromanagement. In SC1, after producing workers you had to manually clic on the worker and order it to collect resources. Also, you weren't able to queue buildings and technologies. In SC2 you can enjoy the improvements dated from AoK with means that you can queue buildings and research, and you don't need to manually order your workers around.

Also, medics and science vessels now heal units automatically, sadly they are not available in multiplayer.

Single player campaign and skirmish:

With nearly 30 missions the campaign is of decent size, though they could have added a few extra missions. Also, with the exception of around 2, all missions don't involve the classic: Build army and crush AI. Is this a good thing? I would like to have around 4-5 extra missions with the classic objective of destroying ai. But overall, the campaign is pretty good, the best single player campaign of RTS games for a long time.

The skirmish mode is very good, superior to SC1's because now you chose the difficulty level of your opponent out of 5 (6?) difficulty levels.

Multiplayer:

The multiplayer mode is very good. The problem is mostly related to the league system, where players are allocated to each league based on a sample of 5 games. The problem with this system is that players are allocated relative to their abilities. That means that you don't play with people whose skills are much lower or higher than your's. Taking out all the fun of liquidating noobs.

Since I am not classified on the 2x2 mode, I will lose every game in the classifying phase and hope to be allocated to the newbie leagues.

If I was to review SC2 I'd call it the perfect game for Starcraft fans. Its primitive, click-heavy, and built for multi and the league shit is waaaaaay overdue for competitive multi across all genres. It looks kinda like poop (which is standard for both Blizzard and RTS in general) and I don't think much of the UI in a modern context.

Discerning RTS players won't be too impressed beyond possible emotional attachment to the 'story', but people who love (and still play) Starcraft will obviously think its the holy grail and play it for another decade, thus setting back the genre again.

Stark wrote:

Thanas wrote:Also:


To all of you who complain PC gaming is dead: Starcraft 2 sold 1.5 million copies in the first 48 hours. And these are hard sales, not counting downloads. Digital downloads numbered 570.000 in the first 24 hours alone.


Starcraft therefore is the fastest-selling video game of 2010 and already has beaten numerous console games such as Gears of War 1/2.

I don't see stating facts as 'complaining', and SC2's sales are hardly a reasonable datapoint. It's probably going to be the fastest selling game for years, just on Korean sales alone.=

Pretty much. In Korea it was considered a "major patch", where everybody had to update their game to the new version.

Sales will drop but I think it will sell over 10 million copies in the next years (like the original).

The market has grown, and this is a stepping-on point for new players (unlike SC1, since it's so fuckign shit and old). I wouldn't be surprised if SC2 very quickly reached and exceeded SC1's sales.

Stark wrote:If I was to review SC2 I'd call it the perfect game for Starcraft fans.

It is ideal for everyone that likes the classic RTS experience.

Its primitive, click-heavy

Compared to SC1 is not clic heavy: The average number of actions per minute that a top player needs to have is about 100-150, compared to 300 in SC1. Warcraft III had already reduced the APMs of the top players if compared to SC1.

Primitive? I would call it classic.

Modern rts are so different from classic rts that they shouldn't be included in the same genre.

Discerning RTS players won't be too impressed beyond possible emotional attachment to the 'story', but people who love (and still play) Starcraft will obviously think its the holy grail and play it for another decade, thus setting back the genre again.

The best rts games are from the 1995-1999 period.

Stark wrote:The market has grown, and this is a stepping-on point for new players (unlike SC1, since it's so fuckign shit and old). I wouldn't be surprised if SC2 very quickly reached and exceeded SC1's sales.

Grown?

US PC Game Software Sales
1998 - $1.8 billion
1999 - $1.9 billion
2000 - $1.78 billion (84.9 million units)
2001 - $1.75 billion (83.6 million units)
2002 - $1.4 billion (61.5 million units)
2003 - $1.2 billion (52.8 million units)
2004 - $1.1 billion (47 million units)
2005 - $953 million (38 million units)
2006 - $970 million

Source: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=15831

Considering the prices in 1999 and 1998, sales must have been of nearly 100 million units, while in 2005 they were of 38 million. That's mainly the effect of piracy and migration to consoles.

I mean the installed base. Everyone who plays RTS games is likely to buy SC2, and there are more of those people now than before.

I guess you're right, many of these people will just steal it. Sucks to be PC.

And sorry, no, old RTSs are shit. The genre only recently dragged itself out of the hole dug in the 90s, and it's likely to go right back. That you're even talking about APM demonstrates how horrible the UI is. 'Primitive' is indeed the word, and 'click heavy' is relative to games with actual modern interfaces and sensibilities.

In a way you're correct; Conquest:Frontier Wars, Homeworld and Kohan are from the late 90s.

OK, just played the other branch of the spectre/ghost choice, and I have to say that Nova's mission is a lot more fun, and the cinematic you get is so much better.

Thanas wrote:To all of you who complain PC gaming is dead: Starcraft 2 sold 1.5 million copies in the first 48 hours. And these are hard sales, not counting downloads. Digital downloads numbered 570.000 in the first 24 hours alone.

Starcraft therefore is the fastest-selling video game of 2010 and already has beaten numerous console games such as Gears of War 1/2.

And Halo 3 pre-sold 4 million copies, with a million people online within 24 hours. Both of these are unusually popular franchises with massive installed customer bases. Just because StarCraft II has done well and will continue to do well doesn't actually say anything about the performance of PC gaming as a whole. I mean, Gears of War 2 shifted about two million copies in one weekend, so it's not exactly far behind StarCraft II in that respect. One or two games doing well doesn't necessarily mean the entire medium is kicking ass.

Incidentally, does anyone else have problems with the EULA on SCII? I was very tenuously considering purchasing it, but there's no way I'd pay money for something which doesn't become my property. That's somewhat missing the point of 'buying and selling'.

I really don't understand why everyone so insists that "PC GAMING IS DEAD!". Yeah, the market has shrinked compared to what it was beforehand and consoles have become more dominant, but that doesn't mean that PC is no longer a viable or economic platform to play and make games on.

The bigger question, if we want to talk about economics, is whether the game braked-even for Blizzard.

Zixinus wrote:I really don't understand why everyone so insists that "PC GAMING IS DEAD!". Yeah, the market has shrinked compared to what it was beforehand and consoles have become more dominant, but that doesn't mean that PC is no longer a viable or economic platform to play and make games on.

The bigger question, if we want to talk about economics, is whether the game braked-even for Blizzard.

Whether it broke even, you mean.

If this game didn't break even on launch day, I would be extremely shocked.

Haven't read most of the thread, just going to say is it just me or until the Char missions, does it feels like a long tutorial? Very standard experience nothing pops out as why it's 59.99, not evolutionary or revolutionary just a safe polished 1/3 of a game. Was never into RTS multi, but from top player replays it seems meh, doesn't seem to be balanced builds at all, just spam 1-2 units types.

Stark wrote:I don't see stating facts as 'complaining', and SC2's sales are hardly a reasonable datapoint. It's probably going to be the fastest selling game for years, just on Korean sales alone.

What is your data for saying that Korean sales are the reason for it? AFAIK it is also the fastest selling game in Germany. And what is even more impressive - even in University, people who I never would have associated with gaming are talking about it. It seems to be immensely popular with casual gamers as well.

I guess I just don't see it as my team 'beating' the other team.

Where the heck does this come from?

Out of curiosity, is it a better idea to destroy the worms in the second last mission, or the air units?

Having seen the psionic inhibiter at work, coupled with decent defences, it seems that it's possible to fend off ground units, while relying on air units like the Battlecruiser to slag the enemy?

Get rid of the air units, as you thought, the Inhibitor works wonders against ground forces, and a few well places seige tanks behind your bunkers and you're set. Just build like 5-6 banshees, and anytime you see a worm pop out, race out and destroy it.

Minischoles wrote:Get rid of the air units, as you thought, the Inhibitor works wonders against ground forces, and a few well places seige tanks behind your bunkers and you're set. Just build like 5-6 banshees, and anytime you see a worm pop out, race out and destroy it.

Make that eight banshees for the harder levels. Also, get the Psi Disruptor (not sure if you meant that one, Minischoles). Have perdition turrets build in front of the bunker (who also should have gotten the neosteel and the carapace upgrade/research).

It is crucial you get at least two siege tanks each on the upper ground facing the entrances. THough do not use the extremely valuable merc siege tanks for that, Kerrigan will destroy those - place them behind the bunkers. (Also, more banshees are a must on brutal or hard to better take down Kerrigan).

That said, the air units are a lot more hassle than the ground troops, so destroy them instead of the nydus worms.

Hmm, I destroyed the Nydus worms. Fun mission. Anyways, I did the bunker/siege tank thing of course, with perdition turrets. I had a squad of wraiths around to deal with flyers, and 6 battlecruisers to Yamato Kerrigan to death. You need to occupy Kerrigan with expendable units before rolling the battlecruisers in. Bunkers work nicely for this, as do masses of marines.

Stark wrote:And sorry, no, old RTSs are shit. The genre only recently dragged itself out of the hole dug in the 90s, and it's likely to go right back. That you're even talking about APM demonstrates how horrible the UI is. 'Primitive' is indeed the word, and 'click heavy' is relative to games with actual modern interfaces and sensibilities.

I see, games where you do not need to make soldiers or workers, but where you make squads and resources extract themselves out or aren't extracted, like world in conflict.

I don't like to have the needs of high apm, but I like to be able to individually select units and make production decisions. Modern rts that avoid these aspects of the genre, like WoC, and manage to avoid apm, thrown the baby out with the bath water.

In a way you're correct; Conquest:Frontier Wars, Homeworld and Kohan are from the late 90s.

Since I slowed down the number of RTS that I played in the last 5 years, I didn't have much contact with modern RTS's these are the ones that I played from 2001 onwards:

Age of Mythology (2002)
Age of Empires 3 (2005)
Rise of Nations (2003)
Rise of Legends (2006)
Sins of a Solar Empire (2008)
C&C Generals (2003)
C&C 3 (2007)
Red Alert 3 (2008)
Dawn of War (2004)
Dawn of War 2 (2009?)
World in Conflict (2007)
Warcraft III (2002)
Supreme Commander (2007)
Homeworld 2 (2003)
(these are the ones that I remember right now)

The classics Red Alert 2 (2000), Starcraft (1998) and AoK (1999) are better than these ones. And Starcraft II is better than Starcraft.

adam_grif wrote:

Zixinus wrote:I really don't understand why everyone so insists that "PC GAMING IS DEAD!". Yeah, the market has shrinked compared to what it was beforehand and consoles have become more dominant, but that doesn't mean that PC is no longer a viable or economic platform to play and make games on.

The bigger question, if we want to talk about economics, is whether the game braked-even for Blizzard.

Whether it broke even, you mean.

If this game didn't break even on launch day, I would be extremely shocked.

Indeed. Considering that 2 million copies sold are equivalent to 120 million dollars, and the most expensive game ever made cost 100 million to develop.

Iosef Cross wrote:I see, games where you do not need to make soldiers or workers, but where you make squads and resources extract themselves out or aren't extracted, like world in conflict.

Huh? Just because you're addicted to micro doesn't mean its good or necessary. Turns out there's more to RTS than Age of Starcraft? Some even have 'strategy' that isn't a build order!

Iosef Cross wrote:I don't like to have the needs of high apm, but I like to be able to individually select units and make production decisions. Modern rts that avoid these aspects of the genre, like WoC, and manage to avoid apm, thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Except WiC combat is actually extremely player interaction/skill based. Did you even play it beyond 'uh oh no build tree I quit'? High APM and high player interaction are not the same thing.

The classics Red Alert 2 (2000), Starcraft (1998) and AoK (1999) are better than these ones. And Starcraft II is better than Starcraft.

Oh dear. You are, indeed, obsessed with micro.