Forums - Gaming Discussion - Vgchartz ranking game--Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty

Soleron said:

Lack of LAN has screwed up a lot of live tournaments. Bnet has gone down at some point for most of the GSLs, and issues have plagued MLG and IEM.


Now that seems odd to me. There was a promise from Blizzard to set-up hardware on site of big tournaments to be able to avoid any internet connection. Has that not happened, or did they change their mind?



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
Gnizmo said:
...


Now that seems odd to me. There was a promise from Blizzard to set-up hardware on site of big tournaments to be able to avoid any internet connection. Has that not happened, or did they change their mind?

Just never happened. Tournament officials have been saying they're not getting much of a response from Blizzard at all.

I speculate that Blizz are worried that a 'LAN build' of SC2 would leak - and it would only have to happen once for pirated multiplayer to be accessible.



7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:

7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).


Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

10/10

Everything about the game is top notch, starting from the presentation to the post game patches. The single campaign was easily the best I'd played in any RTS game - it never felt old or repetitive, which is fairly unique to the genre.

The multiplayer was a blast. I can understand some being upset with the changes with B.net 2.0, but for me it was a non-issue and I actually preffered it. Best of all, the matchmaking is great.



Around the Network
zarx said:
vlad321 said:

7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).


Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.

Yeah the single-player has more content. It is also worthless content. They could have completely removed the entire colonials and specter mission chains and not have had any reprecussions. Remove the Protoss one, and they could have had a perfectly fine single-player sappning all 3 races. They didn't.

Also $60, now game is worth $60.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:
zarx said:
vlad321 said:

7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).


Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.

Yeah the single-player has more content. It is also worthless content. They could have completely removed the entire colonials and specter mission chains and not have had any reprecussions. Remove the Protoss one, and they could have had a perfectly fine single-player sappning all 3 races. They didn't.

Also $60, now game is worth $60.

SC1 had it's share of copy and past pointless content...

I got my copy at a hefty discount so the price doesn't really bother me that much 

Plus this way they can make the Protoss campaign the most epic thing ever... In 2016...



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

zarx said:
vlad321 said:
zarx said:
vlad321 said:

7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).


Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.

Yeah the single-player has more content. It is also worthless content. They could have completely removed the entire colonials and specter mission chains and not have had any reprecussions. Remove the Protoss one, and they could have had a perfectly fine single-player sappning all 3 races. They didn't.

Also $60, now game is worth $60.

SC1 had it's share of copy and past pointless content...

I got my copy at a hefty discount so the price doesn't really bother me that much 

Plus this way they can make the Protoss campaign the most epic thing ever... In 2016...


Yes SC1 did. However SC1 is 12 years old amd was awesoome for the games for its time. Compare newer RTS to SC2. Compare Frozen Throne to SC2. It managed to get all races in there, one way or another.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:
zarx said:
vlad321 said:
zarx said:
vlad321 said:

7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).


Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.

Yeah the single-player has more content. It is also worthless content. They could have completely removed the entire colonials and specter mission chains and not have had any reprecussions. Remove the Protoss one, and they could have had a perfectly fine single-player sappning all 3 races. They didn't.

Also $60, now game is worth $60.

SC1 had it's share of copy and past pointless content...

I got my copy at a hefty discount so the price doesn't really bother me that much 

Plus this way they can make the Protoss campaign the most epic thing ever... In 2016...


Yes SC1 did. However SC1 is 12 years old amd was awesoome for the games for its time. Compare newer RTS to SC2. Compare Frozen Throne to SC2. It managed to get all races in there, one way or another.

What new RTS's? Every other recent RTS game are more real time tactics or in Dawn of War 2's case a RTT multiplayer with a bad real time SRPG campaign. SC2 is the only competent traditional RTS in years and I would say it's the best RTS since TFT which had it's own flaws. 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

zarx said:
vlad321 said:
zarx said:

SC1 had it's share of copy and past pointless content...

I got my copy at a hefty discount so the price doesn't really bother me that much 

Plus this way they can make the Protoss campaign the most epic thing ever... In 2016...


Yes SC1 did. However SC1 is 12 years old amd was awesoome for the games for its time. Compare newer RTS to SC2. Compare Frozen Throne to SC2. It managed to get all races in there, one way or another.

What new RTS's? Every other recent RTS game are more real time tactics or in Dawn of War 2's case a RTT multiplayer with a bad real time SRPG campaign. SC2 is the only competent traditional RTS in years and I would say it's the best RTS since TFT which had it's own flaws. 


As I said, compare it to Blizzar'ds own TFT and WC3. THe single-player capiagn managed to tell the story without adding filler shit like the colonials and specters.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835