StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Everyone is talking about how it's either going to be Starcraft 2 or a new IP.

Does ANYONE else even consider that Diablo 3 is a possibility?

Edward Yee wrote:Sounds like it's better for a casual player to just stay with non-TBC WoW? *Is considering*

You can play all the way up to 60 without worrying overmuch about TBC. But once you get there and find your level, gear, and skills capped while everyone else is far beyond it, you'll probably find yourself a little frustrated.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Everyone is talking about how it's either going to be Starcraft 2 or a new IP.

Does ANYONE else even consider that Diablo 3 is a possibility?

"The Sin War" trilogy has turned Diablo into a laughingstock of its former self. If they do release a third I hope to hades they clean it up. A lot.

Kuja wrote:

Edward Yee wrote:Sounds like it's better for a casual player to just stay with non-TBC WoW? *Is considering*

You can play all the way up to 60 without worrying overmuch about TBC. But once you get there and find your level, gear, and skills capped while everyone else is far beyond it, you'll probably find yourself a little frustrated.

As a casual, though, I don't suppose I may feel that...?

Edward Yee wrote:

Kuja wrote:

Edward Yee wrote:Sounds like it's better for a casual player to just stay with non-TBC WoW? *Is considering*

You can play all the way up to 60 without worrying overmuch about TBC. But once you get there and find your level, gear, and skills capped while everyone else is far beyond it, you'll probably find yourself a little frustrated.

As a casual, though, I don't suppose I may feel that...?

When you see a level 57-58 geared in ways you can never be...it's disgusting. Literally level 60 PvP is near impossible because people with TBC have access to 57-60 greens that are near BWL-AQ40 gear.

They completely changed the gear curve so much so that the gear a level 57-58(lowest TBC gear that changes to the new curve) will out do you in every way, and the saddest part? No reason to run old instances. People at 70 can solo all but UBRS(I've done it 3-manning because it's the minimum) and the 40 mans(You do that in 10-15 man groups). Literally there's no PvE in the old zones and when you see a warlock specced with near 8K HP at level 60 or worse yet a 6K mage at level 60....old world PvP is not an option either.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Edward Yee wrote:

Kuja wrote: You can play all the way up to 60 without worrying overmuch about TBC. But once you get there and find your level, gear, and skills capped while everyone else is far beyond it, you'll probably find yourself a little frustrated.

As a casual, though, I don't suppose I may feel that...?

When you see a level 57-58 geared in ways you can never be...it's disgusting. Literally level 60 PvP is near impossible because people with TBC have access to 57-60 greens that are near BWL-AQ40 gear.

They completely changed the gear curve so much so that the gear a level 57-58(lowest TBC gear that changes to the new curve) will out do you in every way, and the saddest part? No reason to run old instances. People at 70 can solo all but UBRS(I've done it 3-manning because it's the minimum) and the 40 mans(You do that in 10-15 man groups). Literally there's no PvE in the old zones and when you see a warlock specced with near 8K HP at level 60 or worse yet a 6K mage at level 60....old world PvP is not an option either.

Oy vey... Not that I planned to PvP ever...

Vympel wrote:Burning Crusade was a fiasco? Do tell. WoW amuses me these days.

The expansion itself? Not really...it did what it was supposed to do. New lands, new items, new dungeons, and raiding is nowhere near as good gear wise(course that doesn't make it obscene).

The problems are two fold. One, they pushed, and pushed the release date back. Two, when it came out...it didn't even come out with everything they said it would. There are dungeons missing, flying mounts that are not available until the upcoming patch, and literally the large showdown the opening offers? Not until patch 2.1.

So yes, in that respect it was and still is a fiasco. So if Blizz dare annouce "New Expansion!!!", even fanboys will scoff and go "Yeah, when the sun explodes."

Edward Yee wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Edward Yee wrote:As a casual, though, I don't suppose I may feel that...?

When you see a level 57-58 geared in ways you can never be...it's disgusting. Literally level 60 PvP is near impossible because people with TBC have access to 57-60 greens that are near BWL-AQ40 gear.

They completely changed the gear curve so much so that the gear a level 57-58(lowest TBC gear that changes to the new curve) will out do you in every way, and the saddest part? No reason to run old instances. People at 70 can solo all but UBRS(I've done it 3-manning because it's the minimum) and the 40 mans(You do that in 10-15 man groups). Literally there's no PvE in the old zones and when you see a warlock specced with near 8K HP at level 60 or worse yet a 6K mage at level 60....old world PvP is not an option either.

Oy vey... Not that I planned to PvP ever...

Even then. While you may never PvP, no one does any dungeons except to amuse themselves. And the economy? Completely whacky because the amount of money one can get from TBC. Literally Blizz has basically said "Buy TBC or leave.". Too much changed really.

Kuja wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Everyone is talking about how it's either going to be Starcraft 2 or a new IP.

Does ANYONE else even consider that Diablo 3 is a possibility?

"The Sin War" trilogy has turned Diablo into a laughingstock of its former self. If they do release a third I hope to hades they clean it up. A lot.

In what way?

I quickly found I couldn't stand the hero-system of WC3. For storyline-games, yeah, I rather liked it. But for simply build-up and thrash-em maps, I found it intolerable.

One of the things I enjoyed the most out of WC2 and SC was building up a well-balanced army, and seeing how I could send individual groups of units at the enemies weak-points...trying to get the upper-hand in the whole convoluted rock-paper-scissors relationships between the units.

With the hero-system, though, all of that, and thus a majority of my enjoyment, is fucked. You have half a dozen units designed to plow through their weakpoints? Too bad, they have a hero that will fuck all of your units over except...your hero! It switched from having a well-balanced force to having a leveled hero with a small swarm of underlings, and it honestly didn't matter too much what combination you used because the hero would do most of the dirty-work anyways.

I wanted to try to attack the enemy with a ghoul-swarm backed by necromancers, or see how well a mortar/steamtank seige protected by a half-dozen knights would work. But no, all that is secondary to having a viciously wanked-out hero to take care of half of it for you. I ended up cheating my way through just to see the storyline, then going back to Starcraft.

Aenigma wrote:

Kuja wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Everyone is talking about how it's either going to be Starcraft 2 or a new IP.

Does ANYONE else even consider that Diablo 3 is a possibility?

"The Sin War" trilogy has turned Diablo into a laughingstock of its former self. If they do release a third I hope to hades they clean it up. A lot.

In what way?

It's basically a saturday-morning cartoon serial of Diablo with a heavy dose of Luke Skywalker Syndrome and the most retarded universe backstory I've ever seen.

With the hero-system, though, all of that, and thus a majority of my enjoyment, is fucked. You have half a dozen units designed to plow through their weakpoints? Too bad, they have a hero that will fuck all of your units over except...your hero! It switched from having a well-balanced force to having a leveled hero with a small swarm of underlings, and it honestly didn't matter too much what combination you used because the hero would do most of the dirty-work anyways.

You must not have been very good at Warcraft 3. Anyone who played online in serious competition for long periods of time would tell you that unit selection and management is absolutely vital to success. If you were in a situation where your hero was doing most of your killing, then you were certainly not doing nearly enough killing.

Kuja wrote:

Aenigma wrote:

Kuja wrote: "The Sin War" trilogy has turned Diablo into a laughingstock of its former self. If they do release a third I hope to hades they clean it up. A lot.

In what way?

It's basically a saturday-morning cartoon serial of Diablo with a heavy dose of Luke Skywalker Syndrome and the most retarded universe backstory I've ever seen.

But nobody ever reads the Blizzard licensed novels because they are all known to be crap. Probably not even canon.

I've read the first two Starcraft ones, KJA writing about Kerrigan lovingly petting a zergling is just wrong.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Kuja wrote:

Aenigma wrote: In what way?

It's basically a saturday-morning cartoon serial of Diablo with a heavy dose of Luke Skywalker Syndrome and the most retarded universe backstory I've ever seen.

But nobody ever reads the Blizzard licensed novels because they are all known to be crap. Probably not even canon.

The War of the Ancients triology wasn't that bad.

Spyder wrote:I've read the first two Starcraft ones, KJA writing about Kerrigan lovingly petting a zergling is just wrong.

She what?!?

That's just horribly horribly wrong, Kerrigan wouldn't do that.

Aenigma wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Kuja wrote: It's basically a saturday-morning cartoon serial of Diablo with a heavy dose of Luke Skywalker Syndrome and the most retarded universe backstory I've ever seen.

But nobody ever reads the Blizzard licensed novels because they are all known to be crap. Probably not even canon.

The War of the Ancients triology wasn't that bad.

And some of the earlier WC books are pretty decent. But as a rule, the SC books are quite poor - Liberty's Crusade is the only half-decent one, and it's just a rehash of the Terran campaign with a few fluffy bits.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:

Spyder wrote:I've read the first two Starcraft ones, KJA writing about Kerrigan lovingly petting a zergling is just wrong.

She what?!?

That's just horribly horribly wrong, Kerrigan wouldn't do that.

Yeah it's in Shadow of the Xel'Naga, I'm trying to recall the exact passage, I think the word "motherly" made it in there.

Basically it reads like a fanfic based loosely off the instruction manual.

But even so, the instruction manual is such a wealth of backstory that it takes a hack like KJA to screw it up.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:But even so, the instruction manual is such a wealth of backstory that it takes a hack like KJA to screw it up.

I was about to say he probably skipped that part and just skimmed through the unit descriptions...even then he didn't get those entirely correct.

Shinova wrote:....it should be interesting to see how Blizzard does this one, whether they actually advance or whether they prove once again that Blizzard games always pander to the lowest common denominator and succeed in somehow being two generations behind everyone else graphically AND still sell tens of times more than anyone else.

I'm always amazed why the gamekids don't get it.

There are two types of gamers. One is very into it, and has to have the latest, greatest, most amazing of anything. Which is fine. But they are, and will always be, a minority.

The other group is casual gamers. They are easier to satisfy, as they only want entertainment and not an epiphany. "Shite graphics", as it is so often put here, is an advantage to people who aren't upgrading their graphics cards every 6 months because their older machines can actually cope with the graphics. They want some backstory, but not a lot. They want fairly straightforward gameplay that doesn't require 10 hours a day of playing. They want some strategy and thought required, but not too much because to them it's merely a game and not a second job.

Blizzard has figured this out and is doing well with that second group.

For the elite gamer there will always be elite games -- but they will not enjoy the same popularity as something like WoW, which appeals to a larger demographic of casual gamers.

God, that was fucking hilarious Broomstick. I've been thinking of how to crystalize my annoyance with the anti-Blizzard stuff going on but I need not bother now.

Let me just add, if you don't want to play Starcraft 2 or like what Blizzard does with their franchises ... don't buy their stuff.

For the record though, I doubt SC2 can match the success of it's predecessor, if that's what will be announced. Hell, I'm right back in it's clutches, but partly cause I took to modding it, that gave it a new life and saved me money that might have gone to uber graphics card upgrades or the latest and greatest FPS. Another old game I've played to death is Call of Duty: United Offensive expansion pack. Why? It's funner than most FPS's, even if it does look like shit. (which OTOH, means a really good system can record FMV of the game real-time at near 60fps)

Broomstick wrote:The other group is casual gamers. They are easier to satisfy, as they only want entertainment and not an epiphany. "Shite graphics", as it is so often put here, is an advantage to people who aren't upgrading their graphics cards every 6 months because their older machines can actually cope with the graphics. They want some backstory, but not a lot. They want fairly straightforward gameplay that doesn't require 10 hours a day of playing. They want some strategy and thought required, but not too much because to them it's merely a game and not a second job.

Do you have a sister who thinks exactly like you and is single?

Anyway, that's about it in a nutshell. The Starcraft graphics are not the latest and greatest, certainly, but they work damn well. Hell if they made SC2 with the same graphics but more units/factions/background maps/whatever I wouldn't mind, so long as it's still fun to play.

I don't need super-duper-uber-leet 3d rendering with advanced shading and more polygons than I can count, with ultra-realistic explosions and dust/shadow/light effects. I just need something that looks decent enough, runs well, and is fun to play.

Who wants to bet on whether or not they let you select more than 12 units at a time?


I think it's possible that SC2 could become a very successful game, but at the same time I am damn certain that it will split the current SC fanbase, much of which is quite convinced that SC is in fact the most perfect strategy game since chess.

Can Blizzard reproduce or even outshine its earlier success with Starcraft? I don't know. It'd be pretty cool to see, though.

But seriously I hope they introduce some interface refinements.

The funny thing is seeing people hate Blizzard or love Blizzard for totally different reasons.

Bill didn't care for Warcraft III because it was all about heroes. For people who don't care for WC3 because it's Blizzard, or "two generations behind everybody else" whatever that means, well they can piss off.

Laura likes Blizzard games because they're easy and fun. Like Starcraft is supposed to be easy and fun, rock paper sissor. But Starcraft fanboys would make her day a living hell, and unless you take to memorizing shortcuts and remapping keys and memorizing build order, you can't last 10 minutes on Battle.net these days.

It's like my physics teacher used to say. You can't say (3 + 3)/6 is 1 by crossing out a three and making 6 into 3. Right answer, still zero .