Nameless Voice on 2/8/2010 at 23:10
They're seriously starting to turn into... I don't know. Some evil, faceless corporation.
The game itself is great, but it's stuffed with so much pretentious junk they're trying to force down everyone's throat that, despite being a huge fan of Starcraft, I'm beginning to question whether I really want to give them more of my money in the future.
june gloom on 3/8/2010 at 07:39
Jesus fucking Christ that guy's articles are depressing because I AGREE WITH A LOT OF IT.
Well, okay, his review of Cave Story is bullshit.
Sulphur on 3/8/2010 at 07:49
And he gave Mirror's Edge ONE STAR and set up the entire review with an ill-advised back-and-forth comparison with Dragon's Lair? I KILL YOU!!!!
His BNet 2.0 article on the other hand, while I see a lot of arm flailing around chat rooms and related stuff, actually makes a lot of sense.
Nameless Voice on 3/8/2010 at 07:53
That pretty much sums it up, though it doesn't go into enough detail on some of the issues.
Assidragon on 3/8/2010 at 17:37
An interesting read for people wishing to know why BNet 2.0 looks as it does:
(
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252#)
A few quotes:
Quote Posted by "Activision CEO"
We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
Quote:
It gets confirmed, that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will not support Dedicated Servers or Mods anymore, and that it will require Steam. The most likely reason for this is for Activision to be able to have total control over content (like Blizzard is trying to do with the Map Publishing System) sell their internal map packs instead of having people play maps made by Modders for free
Koki on 4/8/2010 at 08:52
So what is everyone's opinion about the game? Other than Battle.net 2 woes it's awfully quiet here.
Briareos H on 4/8/2010 at 10:00
I won't play it online so no opinion about the real game.
Anyhow, cheesy and cinematic as it may be(1), I like the SP campaign which can boast interesting missions with good level design. The game has a post-Warcraft III feel with its merc units, heroes, lobby and minigame missions, those being rather entertaining.
The rest is really the same old Starcraft with more varied units(2) and upgrades, to the point that it sometimes feels like a big expansion with modern graphics.
I'm not sure I can say much more about it, for me Starcraft has always been kind of a casual game which I've never played on Hard(3). I enjoy it and will come back to it once finished, but I'm not able to say anything about the balance.
Current verdict : Starcraft.
(1) and I can guarantee it is indeed
(2) some of them interesting, like the reaper which can be used for new attack-and-retreat tactics
(3) unlike TA for instance
Eldron on 4/8/2010 at 10:42
Wasn't a part of the merger deal that blizzard was to be able to run independantly though?
CCCToad on 4/8/2010 at 12:55
Yes, Activision isn't the one to blame here.
I think the most accurate opinion was the one found in the most previous link: Blizzard has a lot to gain by controlling the competitive scene. Everyone else loses. Its a pity: when control of the game is decentralized, players can find ways to make just about any cool thing they want to happen take place (ie, Thief and Oblivion). When somebody pulls a Blizzard and the operation of a game (or anything else in society for that matter, but that topic doesn't belong in this forum) is centralized, nothing is going to happen unless the people in charge already have an established procedure for that to happen.
Case in point: tournaments larger than Blizzard's server can handle.
