Starcraft II Retail Version - RELEASED

[Berb]

No it can't. In order to play it properly you need a dual core processor with 2GB of RAM and a 512MB 8800 GTX Nvidia Geforce card. My laptop only has 1 GB of RAM and a 256MB graphics card (but it does have a dual core processor) and it can just barely run it. My desktop doesn't even run it (lags often) and it's got a GB of RAM, the 8800 GTX Geforce card, and a single core 64-bit processor.

Neither of my computers run it particularly well.

 

[TKF]

You must have one awful computer. The game can run on pretty low settings.

Also if your graphic card doesn't support shaders, you cannot even start the game. Many people don't have good enough graphic card to even start the game.

 

[Berb]

Yea not to mention a dual core processor; it's not like everybody bought a computer in the last 3-4 years, I don't recall any point in my life where I've had enough money to indulge in the purchase of a computer, usually I'm breaking budget - or borrowing money from my parents. I would probably have to buy a new computer before I think I'm going to be running Starcraft II.

 

[NearbyHermit]

Yay ... now pass me a beer !

I was totally dissapointed by some aspects, but there is definitely the spark, I can simply say this is the best RTS yet !

It just lacks the shine that Starcraft had.



But who knows, the campaigns might make me re-consider.

 

[elfian]

I agree with Zombie.'s first post. You're all making a big deal about this, with this much mass hype the fucking servers are going to explode. I'll just stick to modding WC3 for a while besides that's all SC2 really is an upgraded World Editor. Besides they stole most of the gameplay mechanics from this game> http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/agegate <If you look at the units and gameplay it begins to look like a bit of a bad Rip-Off.

I'll probably have the game within the next 6 months but that doesn't mean I'll have a computer that will run it xD.

WTF?! No. The gameplay of Starcraft II has absolutelly nothing to do with Dawn of War 2. DoW2 is a squad-based tactical game, while SC2 is an RTS on a much bigger scale. In DoW2 you control squads and you can change their weapons and armors. In SC2 you just control some small low-detailed marines. The physics in DoW2 have effect on the gameplay. The physics in SC2 do not. In multiplayer mode in DoW2 you do not construct buildings. You just go on capturing points for requisition. In SC2 you don't even capture points. You collect resources with builder units. The two gameplays are completely INCOMPARABLE. However I have to say that even DoW:SS had better and more fun gameplay than SC2. Hell, even the units were more detailed, you could see their eyes and mouths and mustaches. And the physics were pure awesome. DoW2 is even more detailed. Guess WAR3 and SC2 would be some of the dumbest games ever if it wasn't for their map editors. Tho DoW:SS can also have coded maps, custom models and all that stuff but it's 100 times harder to do it, cause you need various tools.

 

[Berb]

Hopefully Blizzard will flex a little bit to show the capabilities of their new "Starcraft II Engine" - if it was even worth the time they put into it. If it is as good as they say it is, then the game should develop quickly, otherwise we'll probably be playing Starcraft-with-better-graphics for quite awhile.

 

[En_Fuego]

They didn't put time into the engine. They put time into creating a story with good cinematics.

 

[Anti_Bodies]

They didn't put time into the engine. They put time into creating a story with good cinematics.

I assure you, they did not spend 7 years making cinematics and story. Maybe the writers spend 7 years on it, and the people working at whatever cinematics studio spent 7 years making that stuff. But you also have the game programmers, animators, musicians, audio technicians, designers and producers. I think enough time was put into each part of the game.

Actually, I think they put too much time into the game. Though I do find it weird that the majority of units ive played with have dull green icons. I mean, whats up with that? They can't make a good looking 2D icon? I guess it was a visual style choice? I don't prefer it.

 

[En_Fuego]

they recycled the old Starcraft ( they admitted this) and made improvements where it was definitely needed, like rally points for example.

for games like these, they don't spend a lot of time making them. They spend a lot of time testing them and making sure every little bit works properly for every scenario. sadly they usually wind up failing.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I'm back from a trip. I missed the hype around the release of the game but idc, nor do i care that I'm not among the first ones. I'm expecting to get the game next week since in America they have the strict law not to work on weekends..

Beta phase 2 on the same settings i.e high text&graphics caused lag during battles, while phase 1 did not. It seems phase 2 already increased the Specs and those who dont have a PC that exceeds the System specs times more will have to move the settings 1 option down.

 

[phoenixfire]

I'm expecting to get the game next week since in America they have the strict law not to work on weekends..

Lol? More like a strict rule to definately work on weekends, all the shops around me are always open...

 

[Berb]

America they have the strict law not to work on weekends..

Which is why I worked last weekend. Because I'm a CRIMINAL.

 

[Edhel-dur]

For people who think Blizzard spent 12/10/7 years on developing the game.

Actually. . .they maybe spent 4 years ? Even 3 perhaps. Because after they released SC:BW their team was focused on Wc3. . .than the company focused on WoW and some SC:BW project leaders also turned their attention to WoW.

The announce of SC2 was around 2 years ago. . .so we can safely assume that they started working on SC2 with around 2 years before.

Also people feel the game is too expensive. . .because the game has a lot of parts which people are not interested in. Some people want SC2 just for the campaign (like me). . .some people want it just for the ladder, other people for the Galaxy Editor, maybe some 2/3. . .hence the game does value 60$, it's just that in those 60$ there are numerous things you are not interested in having maybe.

 

[elfian]

For people who think Blizzard spent 12/10/7 years on developing the game.

Actually. . .they maybe spent 4 years ? Even 3 perhaps. Because after they released SC:BW their team was focused on Wc3. . .than the company focused on WoW and some SC:BW project leaders also turned their attention to WoW.

The announce of SC2 was around 2 years ago. . .so we can safely assume that they started working on SC2 with around 2 years before.

Also people feel the game is too expensive. . .because the game has a lot of parts which people are not interested in. Some people want SC2 just for the campaign (like me). . .some people want it just for the ladder, other people for the Galaxy Editor, maybe some 2/3. . .hence the game does value 60$, it's just that in those 60$ there are numerous things you are not interested in having maybe.

I'd be OK with all three parts costing 60$. But 60$ is the price only of the first part. Does that make the price of the full game 180$?

 

[En_Fuego]

We don't actually know how much $ the expansions will cost.

 

[Just_Spectating]

For people who think Blizzard spent 12/10/7 years on developing the game.

Actually. . .they maybe spent 4 years ? Even 3 perhaps. Because after they released SC:BW their team was focused on Wc3. . .than the company focused on WoW and some SC:BW project leaders also turned their attention to WoW.

The announce of SC2 was around 2 years ago. . .so we can safely assume that they started working on SC2 with around 2 years before.

Also people feel the game is too expensive. . .because the game has a lot of parts which people are not interested in. Some people want SC2 just for the campaign (like me). . .some people want it just for the ladder, other people for the Galaxy Editor, maybe some 2/3. . .hence the game does value 60$, it's just that in those 60$ there are numerous things you are not interested in having maybe.

well, unless you're not for the game for everything, (Campaign, editor, and ladder, like i am) then maybe it isn't for you

 

[Vengeancekael]

For people who think Blizzard spent 12/10/7 years on developing the game.

Actually. . .they maybe spent 4 years ? Even 3 perhaps. Because after they released SC:BW their team was focused on Wc3. . .than the company focused on WoW and some SC:BW project leaders also turned their attention to WoW.

The announce of SC2 was around 2 years ago. . .so we can safely assume that they started working on SC2 with around 2 years before.

Also people feel the game is too expensive. . .because the game has a lot of parts which people are not interested in. Some people want SC2 just for the campaign (like me). . .some people want it just for the ladder, other people for the Galaxy Editor, maybe some 2/3. . .hence the game does value 60$, it's just that in those 60$ there are numerous things you are not interested in having maybe.

I lol'd like hell.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

If you can get past the piece-of-shit dialog and the horribly cliched characters, the campaign is amazing. The gameplay is just fantastic. It's more or less the best RTS I've played yet.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

the campaigns is in exactly the same order as the original starcraft. i installed the starcraft 1 version from the memory stick found in the collectors edition. i even played the zerg campaign. starcraft 2 was announced 3 years ago in 2007.

 

[BlackKnight]

Oh in my country there are people that get 150-200 euros per month its macedonia what i can say ... sorry for bad english

 

[SilverSong]

We have it at our house, I haven't been able to try yet, we only got 2 copies, and they've been at it since they got it last night. I think one of them fell asleep in his chair, so maybe soon!

 

[Berb]

My friend's brother just recently installed Starcraft II on his laptop (MacBook Pro from '06) and that's got a 256MB nVidia graphics card, a dual-core 2.4GHz pentium processor, 1GB of RAM, and he can just barely run it on medium graphics. It lags, often, until he switches his settings from medium to low - in which case it only lags less often.

Sounds like in order to enjoy this game you need to pay $60 for the game, then $30 or whatever for each expansion, all on top of $1200 for a new computer that is capable of running the damn game.

 

[Kwah]

Sounds like in order to enjoy this game you need to pay $60 for the game, then $30 or whatever for each expansion, all on top of $1200 for a new computer that is capable of running the damn game.

Not like almost every other new game made in the past decade.

 

[Berb]

Sadly, I know

 

[Rui]

There are people who defend SC2 Beta's melee game alone was enough to make it Game of the Year. Well, I appreciate the aspect of SC2's melee of not being so centered on heroes. But I think the game loses a lot with the insane speed and the lack of micromanagement. In Warcraft III's melee game, the speed is decent, and units have enough hit-points to be properly «microed». Plus, you actually had something to do early game. In SC2, if someone decides to turtle, you're pretty much crippled until late game (except maybe against Terran with their tower-outranging tanks, but they are also pretty weak when aimed).
The campaign was the main reason I wanted to buy the game, as well as the editor, but I've been reading so many comments of disappointed people that I'm in a dilemma again; I do not want to spend 60€ on a game that I might not even like.

 

[Berb]

But I think the game loses a lot with the insane speed and the lack of micromanagement

Mostly I agree but I am not the biggest fan of wide-spread micro management, you can never really put as much focus and strategy into your plans when you've got to worry about controlling each individual unit in order to come out of battle victorious. It loses some of it's... realism, in combat at least.

Though I think that if Warcraft III's unit/structure game was more focused on macro management and heroes were more focused on micro management it would have made the gameplay a little more fun. To me that sounds like the perfect balance, and since heroes are naturally capable of doing incredible things, it wouldn't be too unrealistic that a well managed hero could do a lot to a macro managed team of units. It isn't very worthwhile talking about the game mechanics of Warcraft III though, Starcraft II being out and all.

The campaign was the main reason I wanted to buy the game, as well as the editor, but I've been reading so many comments of disappointed people that I'm in a dilemma again; I do not want to spend 60€ on a game that I might not even like.

I'm tied there with you; I really want to get the game because I think that the editor will be really fun to play around with and the actual game would provide some content for me to be satisfied with the gameplay and game as a "whole". The problem is they are releasing their content in 3 packets with an estimated total of $120. Now that is a lot of money to pay for a game that I'm just going to play around with - mind you I will probably be playing the game for quite awhile.

Tell me what you think... I am definitely not impressed with the game they've released - it is pretty much near par I think and it will probably develop as time passes, though it would really be promising to know whether or not they really plan to support their modding community.

 

[HINDYhat]

But I think the game loses a lot with the insane speed and the lack of micromanagement. In Warcraft III's melee game, the speed is decent, and units have enough hit-points to be properly «microed».

I don't see how SC2 lacks micromanagement. Players don't know how to micromanage. Players who can micromanage properly will win games. And the game is set up so that unit HP, damage, and upgrades are often incredibly critical in determining who wins a battle.

Plus, you actually had something to do early game.

It doesn't take very long after the game begins to be able to branch out and do crazy stuff.

In SC2, if someone decides to turtle, you're pretty much crippled until late game (except maybe against Terran with their tower-outranging tanks, but they are also pretty weak when aimed).

No.

 

[Rui]

My apologies; I meant relative lack of micromanagement. The later part of your sentence is a bit ambiguous.
I never said you can't do crazy stuff at the start, but if your enemy decides to turtle, any attempts to rush become futile.
«No» is not an argument. It does little (as in, nothing) to convince me (or anyone) of otherwise.

 

[HINDYhat]

My apologies; I meant relative lack of micromanagement. The later part of your sentence is a bit ambiguous.

Since you said that units have enough HP to be properly micro'd, I understood that battles aren't just giant mashes of units doing whatever they want, but that instead every attack has to be carefully planned because of the way damage and HP are designed in the game. Simple example of this is zealots kill zerglings in 3 hits with 0-0 upgrades. However, if the zealots get +1 attack upgrade, it takes only 2 hits to kill a zergling. This makes it one of the most important upgrades for a protoss player, and drastically changes the the way in which battles turn out.

If this isn't what you meant, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I never said you can't do crazy stuff at the start, but if your enemy decides to turtle, any attempts to rush become futile.

If your enemy decides to turtle, his economy will be crippled and you get the opportunity to expand a million times, since he's confined to his base. This way, you can get far better macro than him, and with a bit of cleverness can easily break his turtle. That's what I meant by "no." Turtling is often a disadvantage.

The game is very well balanced as of right now, and no one should be refusing to buy the game because they think a certain strategy is overpowered.

 

[En_Fuego]

Though I think that if Warcraft III's unit/structure game was more focused on macro management and heroes were more focused on micro management it would have made the gameplay a little more fun. To me that sounds like the perfect balance, and since heroes are naturally capable of doing incredible things, it wouldn't be too unrealistic that a well managed hero could do a lot to a macro managed team of units. It isn't very worthwhile talking about the game mechanics of Warcraft III though, Starcraft II being out and all.

Warcraft III had races that required a lot of macro if you played in solo queue (Humans and UD def). They also had a bunch of heroes that could carry a team without any units if crept properly. Let me tell you some:

Human
Mountain King - Paladin (imba)
Mountain King - Paladin - Blood Mage (impossible to lose to undead)
Mountain King - Blood Mage (int heroes go bb)
Blood Mage - Mountain King (mass mana on MK or mass dmg on focus fire)
Archmage - Mountain King - Paladin (extra units plus mana aura plus heals and stuns)
Archmage - Mountain King - Blood Mage (unlimited mana supply for MK, water elementals, and super powered nukes)
Archmage - Paladin - Blood Mage (never die + undead focus fire to the max)

Night Elf (Can't list every single combo because there are literally thousands of NE combos out there)
Demon Hunter - Panda (superman + aoe)
Demon Hunter - Dark Ranger (superman + silence)
Demon Hunter - Tinker (superman + exploding robots)
Demon Hunter - Beastmaster (superman + slow poison summons who can see invis BM)
Demon Hunter - Beastmaster - Tinker (superman + slow poison + exploding robots)
Warden (strongest ult, easy to level, best nukes in game)
Warden - Panda (strongest nukers in the game)
Kotg (with mass hunts if you can keep him from dying and keep a substantial mana pool you can end the game in 6 minutes)
Firelord (strongest hero early game only applicable to NE)

Orc
Blademaster - Shadow Hunter (best hero in game + a disable and a heal)
Blademaster - Tauren Chieftain (best hero in game + an aoe stun and a speed aura)
(that's all for Orc. Notice a recurring theme? if you can play your Blademaster well you automatically win all matchups)

Undead
Death Knight - Lich - Crypt Lord (best tri-hero in game. 300 dmg nuke + 300 dmg aoe nuke + 200 dmg line stun)
Death Knight - Lich - Drow Ranger (same as above but replace stun with silence)
Death Knight - Dreadlord - Lich (gosu surrounds)
Death Knight - Dreadlod - Drow Ranger (gosu surrounds + silence on Warden. haha that little scumbag dies)

These are all basically hero combinations that if you micro well enough you'll win. People who think that heroes can't be well played enough to carry a game generally play 3v3/4v4 RT and are used to massing a bunch of shitty tauren and knights to win.

 

[mrzwach]

The fast pace of the game in SC2 increases the importance of micromanaging.

In SC2, if someone decides to turtle, you're pretty much crippled until late game (except maybe against Terran with their tower-outranging tanks, but they are also pretty weak when aimed).

Siege Tanks. Colossi. Brood Lords. All 3 destroy turtles. Furthermore, if someone is turtling, you should out-expand them and have more units than them, allowing for you to easily defeat them. Obviously you do not want to rush someone who is turtling; but that is a part of adapting to your enemy. A single strategy will not work against every other strategy.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

War3 is a micro game and that was the cherry on the top of the ice-cream, which made war3 so exciting to play when you measure skills. Starcraft is a macro game, where you can still micro but it's just barely microable. Like you don't save units when SC is a game of bigger armies and several units die at a time. However, especially since in 1vs1 sometimes you start off with mini battles, micro is present but is the periphery of the game unlike in war3. In war3 you have heros and with micro you can win with fewer units, in SC it is about making bigger armies and expands. War3 in the last years was with more expand games but SC just cant without expanding, in war3 you can, although for Human, for example, fast expanding became part of Human game play.

So Im gonna miss the micro play in war3 but SC has this - positioning during battle is even more important. In war3, let's say some ballistas are waiting for you, they will kill 1-2 units due to their range, big deal, you can avoid blizzard and other AOE. In SC come to 3 sieged tanks and you may lose your army from their first shot and lose the game just for a single false move. This aspect of SC is very nice and it makes the game interesting the way micro made war3 interesting.

 

[PurplePoot]

Everyone who thinks that SC2 doesn't have much micro needs to watch Tester vs IntoTheRainbow game 2 in the King of the Beta tournament.

--

The campaign is amazing.

--

Micro is often far more important than army positioning; for example, in TvP with bio versus high templars.

 

[Just_Spectating]

sc2's micro is the same as sc1's except you have way more unit abilities,
so stop comparing it to warcraft as they arent' the same game

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Purplepoot, I think moving your army away from a Psi Storm is also positioning but it could be called micro, kind of mixed terms. Micro is the control of units in battles and overall control of units and buildings, hotkeys, not just saving the injured.

Im already starting to watch with mockery war3's editor, maps and resources and people still doing things there. I was gonna say Im almost even mocking at melee seeing some former clanmates of mine STILL playing but I'm not cause war3 1v1/2v2 will always remain a great game in my heart. Either way:

SC2 is the future! All hail the new game!

 

[PurplePoot]

If storm dodging isn't micro then I don't know what is.

 

[Just_Spectating]

focus firing is also an example of micro, which is probably the most important aspect in a battle.

 

[HFR]

This is a rant. If you don't like rants, do not read it.

Certainly I'll not buy this game.

First of all, the price is abusive, as here, with taxes and all, the cost almost doubles.

Second, this:

My friend's brother just recently installed Starcraft II on his laptop (MacBook Pro from '06) and that's got a 256MB nVidia graphics card, a dual-core 2.4GHz pentium processor, 1GB of RAM, and he can just barely run it on medium graphics. It lags, often, until he switches his settings from medium to low - in which case it only lags less often.

Exactly like my computer, and I hate lag, even a minor one.

And third, why I'll play this Warhammer 40.000 rip-off if the fabulous Dawn of War is still here?

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

And third, why I'll play this Warhammer 40.000 rip-off if the fabulous Dawn of War is still here?

At first I was gonna comment that but decided not.

 

[HFR]

So basically you're an *****.

Ok, got it.

At first I was gonna comment that but decided not.

I like rants and laughed at Disaster Movie, so, yes, I am.

 

[elfian]

And third, why I'll play this Warhammer 40.000 rip-off if the fabulous Dawn of War is still here?

Well... first of all, SC2's editor is more powerful and second... wait, there is no second. That's it.

Oh in my country there are people that get 150-200 euros per month its macedonia what i can say ... sorry for bad english

Поздрави от България (TRANSLATED: Greetings from Bulgaria)

 

[PurplePoot]

And second the melee is way better than DoW?

And third there is little justification that SC is a WH40K ripoff?

 

[Anti_Bodies]

Exactly like my computer, and I hate lag, even a minor one.

And third, why I'll play this Warhammer 40.000 rip-off if the fabulous Dawn of War is still here?

Ive played Dawn of War. It was alright. Not fantastic. Orig. Starcraft was out way before though. And 2.4 ghz/1 gig of ram is lacking in the computer world. I have 3 ghz and 4 gigs of ram, run the game on max graphics, their is no lag.

Sorry your friends computer sucks soo hard.

So basically you're an *****.

Ok, got it.

I love your posts.

 

[PurplePoot]

Honesty is the best policy.

 

[En_Fuego]

Kk, my dad's going to pick up SC2 tomorrow for me when he gets off of work so I'll probably game all night tomorrow. I'll give you guys a good review then.

 

[PurplePoot]

Accurate review:

If you like Starcraft, Starcraft II is amazing; different and yet similar, with a non-shitty engine, and with balance to rival the original (or so it seems to date). If you don't like Starcraft, why are you playing a nostalgic game again?

 

[En_Fuego]

Accurate review:

If you like Starcraft, Starcraft II is amazing; different and yet similar, with a non-shitty engine, and with balance to rival the original (or so it seems to date). If you don't like Starcraft, why are you playing a nostalgic game again?

Wasn't into gaming when Starcraft was popular. I got into PC gaming with RoC. I have Starcraft, but I never got into it because I found it to be primitive compared to TFT at the time.

 

[HFR]

Ive played Dawn of War. It was alright. Not fantastic. Orig. Starcraft was out way before though. And 2.4 ghz/1 gig of ram is lacking in the computer world. I have 3 ghz and 4 gigs of ram, run the game on max graphics, their is no lag.

Sorry your friends computer sucks soo hard.

But it's pretty good by 3th world standards! And it's 2.8 ghz Dual Core btw.

 

[Just_Spectating]

starcraft was my first favorite game.

 

[Berb]

It sounds like every second person has a computer with 4GB of RAM and a powerful dual/quad-core processor - where the hell does everybody get the money for this stuff? These computer parts aren't cheap, they run you a couple hundred dollars each; unless someone's parents are indulging in computers for them. Just going to school and working a summer job there's no way I could save enough cash for that type of thing unless I stayed in every night and didn't do anything : (