PDA

View Full Version : StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty



void
Thursday, 18th February 2010, 13:34
just saw that the sc2 beta have started any renegade that got a invite and can give some info about the gameplay?

Guy
Thursday, 18th February 2010, 14:04
It's awesome. I will wtfpwn j00.

void
Thursday, 18th February 2010, 14:08
It's awesome. I will wtfpwn j00.

havent gotten an invite yet :(

Tapja
Thursday, 18th February 2010, 17:10
It's awesome. I will wtfpwn j00.

Is that your professional opinion? :shinner:

Guy
Thursday, 18th February 2010, 18:51
I'm not sure I could ever be counted as professional to be honest :D

Volw
Thursday, 18th February 2010, 21:14
You could get us some keys! *hint* *hint* *wink* *wink*

Guerra12
Sunday, 21st February 2010, 17:26
Getting a key isn't that easy actually, I've been trying for days

WiGgLr
Sunday, 21st February 2010, 17:33
there is always e-bay
http://shop.ebay.de/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=starcraft+2+beta&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Guy
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 01:58
So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to have a couple (literally a couple) of spare keys for the SCII Beta, what makes me think that you deserve them? Answers on a postcard below please, and we'll see what happens...

I am not open to bribery. Or blackmail. Or nekkid dancing girls. Even Liz. And drugs are right out. Don't try drugs kids, they're bad.

Khammar
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 02:21
I deserve because I even geeks tremble at my vast knowledge of gaming.

What else is there to say?

(That and I have plenty of time to properly test.)

Hovis
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 03:10
Hook a Bread up, j0. C'moooooooooooon.

OniKiy
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 03:20
That I have been sitting most nights watching my friends broadcast of him 1 v 1 in Starcraft 2 beta (he's in the us). That I'm intrested but probably the shittiest RTS player, that I just usually click units and never remember unit cost nor have decent micro skills. :)

I wouldn't mind the chance to play it. But if someone else deserves it more, then I won't mind too much missing out this opportunity. :P

Sibben
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 11:30
So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to have a couple (literally a couple) of spare keys for the SCII Beta, what makes me think that you deserve them? Answers on a postcard below please, and we'll see what happens...

I am not open to bribery. Or blackmail. Or nekkid dancing girls. Even Liz. And drugs are right out. Don't try drugs kids, they're bad.

I thought giving one of you unfaithful b-boyz a key to BF:BC2 beta would do the trick. But oh noes! No key. Scurlock! Cough it up!!! :shinner:

Peete
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 11:31
I deserve it because you live in my country ! :shinner:
We're like bros ;)

Ironman
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 11:34
I deserve it because you live in my country ! :shinner:
We're like bros ;)
4rJAw-fuYHk

Ironman
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 11:36
Oh man and on top of that I just found Guy Incognito. :D :D :D
eZ3P8KTz8KI

Peete
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 11:38
4rJAw-fuYHk

Has Ludi been simpsonized ? ;)

spikeychris
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 14:10
So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to have a couple (literally a couple) of spare keys for the SCII Beta, what makes me think that you deserve them? Answers on a postcard below please, and we'll see what happens...

I am not open to bribery. Or blackmail. Or nekkid dancing girls. Even Liz. And drugs are right out. Don't try drugs kids, they're bad.

Because I was a SC1 addict and loved playing battle.net! simple as that :D

Jega
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 14:16
I don't...

Maurgrim
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 15:14
I want one so I can give it to my little brother since he absolutely loves StarCraft :D

Meuh
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 15:44
Ive just ordered a massive gaming rig and need things to test it on when it arrives in 2 weeks! Also <3 sc

GuardianAnge1
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 17:02
if the beta is on Mac as well, I could provide a fair bit of testing :)

JojoTheSlayer
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 18:46
I think comedy should win.

So far, Ironman is leading in my book.
Guy Incognito LoL! :D



if the beta is on Mac as well, I could provide a fair bit of testing :)


Maybe its an attempt at comedy, but you will probably not win a beta key for a hardcore PC game by saying your a Mac user. Was a little funny though :p

MiMaRz
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 19:44
if the beta is on Mac as well, I could provide a fair bit of testing :)

its out for mac as well. I would say you have a lot higher chance on getting in, since most people play with windows.

Daymare
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 19:47
I would like one to give to a friend of mine who is the biggest SC fanboy I know and has probably spent more time watching the videos than the people who made them have palyed the game :D

James24
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 19:54
I think it would create an interesting diversion to statistical quantum mechanics :shinner:

That and I love you.

GuardianAnge1
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 22:45
Maybe its an attempt at comedy, but you will probably not win a beta key for a hardcore PC game by saying your a Mac user. Was a little funny though :p

it's a hardcore Mac game too..


..or maybe the only mac game?

Khammar
Thursday, 25th February 2010, 23:42
One of the few anyway.

Would be awesome to lay hands on a key, since Kilnara uses a Mac. Test both platforms. :P

Volw
Friday, 26th February 2010, 01:01
SupCom2 turned out to be shit and I need an RTS to play :o

Hincey
Friday, 26th February 2010, 04:36
Yea know i'm a bit late but throw one my way if poss please mate

Ironman
Friday, 26th February 2010, 08:47
Yea know i'm a bit late but throw one my way if poss please mate
HINCEY!!!!!!! <3

(Guy only give Hincey a key if he comes back to the community and stops being only a monthly visitor!!)

Hincey
Friday, 26th February 2010, 14:10
I've actually checked the forums every day in the last few days! I've been a good boy. On steam most of the time Iron if u fancy a chat.

Gunhead
Friday, 26th February 2010, 14:15
Hnicy liek mnokies1!

Ludicrouse
Friday, 26th February 2010, 14:26
Hincey you fucking prat. You do not spend enough time on here. I miss you :o

Peete
Friday, 26th February 2010, 14:27
Hincey's always up for a cyber !

Hincey
Friday, 26th February 2010, 14:36
I'll log on more to bore u all with my useless tripe then <3

Think i shall be buying the new DoW and maybe give SC2 a go. Cba with WoW.

MNOKEYS!

Ludicrouse
Friday, 26th February 2010, 14:45
I'll log on more to bore u all with my useless tripe then <3

Think i shall be buying the new DoW and maybe give SC2 a go. Cba with WoW.

MNOKEYS!

Bad Company 2.

Hincey
Friday, 26th February 2010, 15:27
Bleh looked at it a little. Doesnt look amazing if u ask me. Just looks like its trying to be another CoD really. I really enjoyed 1942 so i'm looking forward to 1943. Think the whole Battlefeild game idea works alot better with WWII for some reason.

Ludicrouse
Friday, 26th February 2010, 15:34
Bleh looked at it a little. Doesnt look amazing if u ask me. Just looks like its trying to be another CoD really. I really enjoyed 1942 so i'm looking forward to 1943. Think the whole Battlefeild game idea works alot better with WWII for some reason.

Nowhere near close. It is essentially BF2 where you can flatten all the buildings. Rumour has it even the Karky and Wake maps will be making an appearance! :D

Hincey
Friday, 26th February 2010, 15:40
Yea i thought BF2 was shite also. Its just a kids version of ArmA.

Dojun
Sunday, 28th February 2010, 00:02
Did not play a whole lot of SC I back in the days so cant compare really.
But compared WC III that I did play a lot the battles are a lot faster paced. Units die really really fast no matter if they are battlecruisers or marines.
Resource gathering is fast aswell so loosing a army may not be the end of the game, in quite a few games now when battles are done early I have won the first battle and tried to push on into the enemys camp just to find a new army waiting that takes my army out, and the other way around when I loose the first battle.
Makes some games flow back and forth really well

Hovis
Sunday, 28th February 2010, 00:56
It's Starcraft with pretty graphics. Like most normal people it's been several years since I played the original so I'm not up to speed with the precise nature of the changes, but it all feels very much like the first game, which it is obviously meant to. Anybody who, like me, has memories of the first game but not specific expertise is very probably going to struggle to really spot the differences. Being a Blizzard game it'll arrive to a greater fanfare and waves of adulation from the faithful than the second coming of Jesus but I think principally the changes are mostly cosmetic and past that are subtle.

End of the day though it had to be at most only subtle changes, Starcraft is effectively a sport played by millions of people. You can't fuck with that any more than you can decide that football must henceforth be played on spacehoppers. If SC2 had been a substantial departure from the original it would have cannibalised its own player base and you'd risk splitting the fans. Worst case you get a situation similar to Counter Strike, where CSS was never really embraced by purists as the competition version.

Mero
Sunday, 28th February 2010, 01:56
since leo has me on ignore list in wow (lol) i will beg for key here!!!!

Guy
Tuesday, 2nd March 2010, 00:31
To be honest, calling me a "fuck" isn't really going to endear you to me Mero...

Maurgrim
Tuesday, 2nd March 2010, 00:35
Haha :shinner:

Khammar
Tuesday, 2nd March 2010, 07:06
To be honest, calling me a "fuck" isn't really going to endear you to me Mero...

Damn, gonna have to take that tactic off my list . . .

Athelas
Thursday, 4th March 2010, 22:35
Anyone got any spare keys for this? ive been waiting like a mad korean but it looks like im out of luck!

Had it on order from play.com for like FOREVER :)

Athelas
Saturday, 20th March 2010, 19:47
Got a key! after i got the jacked version with a shite AI :P

Sauron.athelas :)

void
Thursday, 25th March 2010, 16:01
so sc + bw done, now i just have to w8 for one of those beta keys to drop :(

GuardianAnge1
Friday, 23rd April 2010, 13:58
so... I hear the Mac Beta is opening up next week.

*looks at Guy*

/beg

:)

Khammar
Thursday, 29th April 2010, 22:14
My lady has a mac . . .

GuardianAnge1
Friday, 30th April 2010, 21:11
the mac beta came out this week...

if you're still looking at this thread leo, please note that I have a mac :)

Khammar
Sunday, 9th May 2010, 03:50
How's this for harsh: Kilnara got an email saying she's in the beta, but her battle.net account doesn't have access.

She was all excited to play (and be in beta when I am not) and then she had hopes crushed when blizz failed to activate her account.

Ouch.

Khammar
Tuesday, 11th May 2010, 06:24
Apparently it took an entire weekend of waiting to finally have it activated. She's over there playing right now. (I'll get my turn later. :) )

Khammar
Wednesday, 12th May 2010, 10:45
So I preordered. Have played through the "free" matches (that don't count against your rank) and done my placements. Ended up 3-2 and landing in a Silver League. Played a couple of league matches, went 1-1, but my win was a disconnect, so that doesn't really count.

I'm only playing Terran right now. I'll figure the others out at some point, but I want to try and figure the game out from a single perspective first. (I was much more a WC2 player than SC, and I'm not really very good at RTS games in general.)

It's looking good though. Nice visuals, sfx, music. Gameplay is fast-paced. If you move slowly you die horribly.

Honestly I am looking forward to release after having played it. If for no other reason than I suspect the SP mode is fun. ;)

Guy
Wednesday, 12th May 2010, 13:13
I suspect the SP mode is fun.

You have no idea... ;)

Hovis
Thursday, 13th May 2010, 14:44
It's certainly going to be interesting to see how it fares. I mean clearly it's going to get the highest review scores ever and the hype will be massive and there will be armies of fanboys. But there's also going to be the old school who dislike it (just like some of the CS1.6 players didn't like CSS, you will never please these players) and then there's the question of whether it will grab a new audience the same way that the original did. I mean it'll obviously sell a billion copies and so on, but will it really be such a big game beyond the sales as the first game was? No way to know til it happens.

Doc
Thursday, 13th May 2010, 18:34
Actually there is.
There are already "pro" tournaments happening with SC2, think it's fairly safe to say there *will* be a following :P

Hovis
Thursday, 13th May 2010, 19:21
Actually there is.
There are already "pro" tournaments happening with SC2, think it's fairly safe to say there *will* be a following :P

There's followings and then there's becoming the national sport of Korea. It's got to do a LOT to live up to the impact of the original.

Khammar
Friday, 14th May 2010, 08:04
CS vs. CSS both games have had impact, so it's certainly not unheard of for a sequel to be important to the gaming (esport) community.

I suspect it will win a lot of people over because while it's not identical by any stretch of the imagination, it's good.

Hovis
Friday, 14th May 2010, 15:58
Not identical sure, but it's still very close and it has to be. Starcraft is almost a sport more than it is a video game and so big changes are not really a good idea. The sort of fundamental change that occurred for instance between Dawn of War and Dawn of War 2 would be out of the question.

The groupthink opinion is already set so this is all academic anyway. Everybody is going to buy it, it will be one of the highest rated games of all time and Korea will take a month off to play it. Those are all a given.

I do wonder though about the multiplayer side of it though, I mean will it win a new wave of fans, will it bring back the old ones, or will the masses be bored of it in a month or too leaving the hard core and Koreans alone. Personally I've not played much of it because while I recognise the quality of it I prefer my RTS games to have more immersion, more spectacle, and be less gamey.

Khammar
Saturday, 15th May 2010, 13:49
I think you won't be able to judge that until you can play the game. Right ow all you can do is play the esport part, which is inarguably solid . . . but NOT the sole reason the original was such a big hit.

You're going to need to play the SP version to find out just how immersive and spectacular it really is.

Hovis
Saturday, 15th May 2010, 17:58
I think you won't be able to judge that until you can play the game. Right ow all you can do is play the esport part, which is inarguably solid . . . but NOT the sole reason the original was such a big hit.

You're going to need to play the SP version to find out just how immersive and spectacular it really is.

I'm not saying I won't give it a look, but I don't imagine they'll be able to do very much with it given the limitations of the game. Back in the way back when the SP element of Starcraft was as sophisticated as anything else and was pretty damn good. But times have changed, games are more sophisticated, and what makes for great tournament MP might not translate to single player.

Tapja
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 08:05
Aaand we have a release date, gentlemen!

o7HOn96muDs

Khammar
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 08:15
We've had a release date for a while now. Now we just have a sweet commercial showing us bits of what we can expect to see in game. :)

We've got two copies pre-ordered. I'll have to see how much I can pull myself away from APB by that time. :)

Tapja
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 08:18
We've had a release date for a while now. Now we just have a sweet commercial showing us bits of what we can expect to see in game. :)

We've got two copies pre-ordered. I'll have to see how much I can pull myself away from APB by that time. :)

I has been living under APB rock so I had no release date thus far :shinner:

Khammar
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 08:35
I think the release date was announced beginning of May.

Hovis
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 14:06
Brace yourselves ladies and gents, there's a hype tsunami on the way.

I'm interested to see if a PC based RTS title can actually breach the mainstream in the same way that Call of Duty MW2 did. Will it be strictly a PC gamer nerd hype wave, or will it get mentioned on the news?

Guy
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 15:03
I will not wtfpwn j00 at SCII.

WiGgLr
Tuesday, 22nd June 2010, 23:56
I think RTS is very niche

Koreans, nerds and middle aged men

Echor
Wednesday, 23rd June 2010, 08:03
I think RTS is very niche

Koreans, nerds and middle aged menmajority of people then?

Doc
Wednesday, 23rd June 2010, 08:04
Yup, all housewives and professionals play FPS, it's not like strategy games have any kind of history...

Tapja
Wednesday, 23rd June 2010, 09:54
Yup, all housewives ...

... are too busy with Sims.

WiGgLr
Wednesday, 23rd June 2010, 19:47
mine plays racing games, like GRID, NFS and DIRT

Stokvis
Thursday, 24th June 2010, 09:09
Mine plays WoW..... :shinner:

Fusion
Thursday, 24th June 2010, 14:35
I have already ordered the Collector's Edition, despite not being a big fan of RTS games.

Fusion
Friday, 23rd July 2010, 22:24
So who is getting it? My copy is in the post.

Hovis
Friday, 23rd July 2010, 23:15
Giving it a miss.

Athelas
Saturday, 24th July 2010, 08:19
mines in the post :)

OniKiy
Saturday, 24th July 2010, 12:59
In the post, prob be here monday or so.

Dojun
Tuesday, 27th July 2010, 00:21
So what will the game cost?
I have seen both 600 sek (~60 euros) aswell as 400 sek (~40 euros).

If they do plan to take 60 euros for each of the 3 games I might end up pirating it something I never thought I would do with a blizzard game

Khammar
Tuesday, 27th July 2010, 00:25
So what will the game cost?
I have seen both 600 sek (~60 euros) aswell as 400 sek (~40 euros).

If they do plan to take 60 euros for each of the 3 games I might end up pirating it something I never thought I would do with a blizzard game

I had heard that the second two will be priced lower.

I'm still not paying Blizzard for anything ever again though.

Fusion
Tuesday, 27th July 2010, 14:47
I had heard that the second two will be priced lower.

I'm still not paying Blizzard for anything ever again though.

Out of interest, can I ask why?

Marmars
Tuesday, 27th July 2010, 22:38
Out of interest, can I ask why?

Second that.

Fusion
Tuesday, 27th July 2010, 22:51
Stupidly it got sent by a courier so I had to take a 30 mile round trip to pick it up tonight.

My profile name is Fusion with the character code 579.

Athelas
Tuesday, 27th July 2010, 23:37
got it today, not installed it yet though as im still addicted to world of tanks beta :P

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 00:39
When my account was hacked, they were slow in resolving my issues and I found the condition I got my account back in to be poor when compared to past instances in which I suffered difficulties in other games.

It is my personal estimation that for a paltry price tag Blizzard's technical capacity for doing reimbursements/restores could be improved drastically.

In addition, I believe that Blizzard's stance on security is inadequate considering how much of a temptation their product is. They parrot things about security and authenticators, but the authenticators are sold out more than half the time, and the mobile authentication software is unavailable in many instances: such as mine, both my carrier - the nation's leader - and specific mobile are unsupported. My system is clean, which leaves only external breaches. The fact that Blizzard holds me responsible for breaches of security that happen outside of my own PC (p.s. wow Blizz are bright, having email addresses access accounts . . . I mean NOBODY could ever get ahold of that info . . .) is rather ridiculous. After all, I cannot make sure that every single wow-related site (and I only use major ones) is secure. It's not my job.

In addition, their inability to deal with RMT is at the core of the hacking issue. Bagpuss and I have been through this from a technical standpoint, and Blizzard's decision to not "play to crush" is at least in large part responsible for how horrendous the situation is. It's not that they CAN'T deal with RMT, it's that they DON'T.

In short: I'd rather give my money to companies that are less vulnerable. If you're the big boy on the scene, you need to be able to defend yourself. Blizz can't, plain and simple.

As a final note: their CS staff failed miserably at reading my actual support tickets. They sent form letters. They did the bare minimum they needed to in order to get their paychecks. I voted with my wallet. To the tune of buying a second PC for our hose so that Kilnara can play more games than she used to on her Mac. Not to mention dropping pre-orders on SC2 and canceling both WoW accounts.

There are too many good offerings in gaming to spend money on companies whose service is nowhere near what it should be given the profit margins they run at.

Was that sufficient? :)

(Oh yeah, I'm seeding the torrent for people who want to download SC2 as well. Fuck Blizzard. Seriously. No offense to the guys in R-L who I know and love who happen to work for them: it's not your fault the company is my new arch enemy. ;) )

Fusion
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 09:53
That is fair enough. I have a physical authenticator and have so far had no problems with my account security (touch wood). It would definitely be good for Blizzard to deal more with RMT, but I hear of players all the time getting banned for buying gold (they need to be more active at blocking the IPs of the farmers).

Ludicrouse
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 11:31
I agree for the most part Mat! Blizzard pinned the same "YOUR responsible for your account security!" on me - even though my account password was "Brute-forced".

As for SC2, bleh. It is toss.

There is the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" school of thought but this takes the piss. There is no evolution in the game.

It is just... plain. :/

Stokvis
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 12:06
IS it very much like C&C?

Guy
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 13:13
It is just... plain. :/

Wow. Disagree strongly.

OniKiy
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 14:41
Erm, they have evolved the 3 races from Starcraft to Starcraft 2.

They have removed some units from the game, they even renamed and changed some of the already established units. In the original Starcraft for example the only Terran building that could fly was the Terrans Starbase. In the new game, most of the Terran main buildings can fly. Enabling whole bases to be moved. This is totally new and in line with the Terran race, showing how they have evolved since the story covered in the original game and expansion.

They improved apon the races, both in terms of unit/structure and tech trees. Allowing a smoother transition when playing. The units are well thought out, balanced and adaptive enough to fit within their races and not make it feel too removed from the original game.

They also changed most key binds, improved AI and unit control to make it more adaptive when playing with or against AI. Added a large base on which players could compete and increase their skill level as a player. They even added a lot of payment options for some markets. Notably of which was the Korean market, as they prefer gaming cafes called PC Bangs.

The game has evolved, by perfecting the already brilliant races and units they already established. If they upped and made the game more different then they'd ruin one of the few RTS games with near perfect balance.

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 14:55
That is fair enough. I have a physical authenticator and have so far had no problems with my account security (touch wood). It would definitely be good for Blizzard to deal more with RMT, but I hear of players all the time getting banned for buying gold (they need to be more active at blocking the IPs of the farmers).

They need to ban by MAC-address. Buying a new mobo/NIC every time they get slapped for spamming/selling/farming would cut extremely deeply into their profit margins. Drive prices up to the point where temptation is less since it'd be much easier to just farm gold yourself.

The fact is, if their account security is so bad (and it is abysmal, I had a friend hacked just two weeks before me) they need to be giving authenticators out for free, not just subsidizing them. They need to protect their customers instead of blaming them. They need to be able to take action much more quickly, and they need to be able to provide a higher-caliber of service in the end.

I'd be more inclined to pay them money if I thought their issues were insurmountable. But I know they're not, because I literally know how to start to fix most of them.

Nyana
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 15:03
MAC's can easily be spoofed, which means you have unlimited MAC addresses.

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 15:07
Wow. Disagree strongly.

I was in Beta, so I can at least say that a) I think the graphics in the game were improved, though I do not believe that Blizzard is a company that ever pushes the boundaries on graphics with their games, b) in my opinion the gameplay is moderately different from SCI, though not radically so, and c) the general feel of the original has been maintained in the sequel.

I can see Keith's point. It's not the most beautiful game ever, it's not the most ground-breaking of sequels, and it's definitely not a hugely new experience.

Now, one can argue the toss about how much change would have been ok or not, but honestly I think that it falls short of the mark of what I believe could have been done. But my philosophy of game-creation is not one which meshes well with Blizzard's. The company is and has been one which values polish over innovation and technical achievement. There is certainly more than enough room for that in the industry.

This is, of course, without having played the SP game. It's from a Beta/MP perspective, but I think it's at the very least valid to an extent.

(It also uses more words than Keith used, so it's a bit easier to perhaps see where the comment could stem from.)

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 15:27
MAC's can easily be spoofed, which means you have unlimited MAC addresses.

That's an over-simplification. It's like saying that a spoofed IP is undetectable (which it's not) or saying that you cannot detect forged mails (which you can) . . .

The ability to hack/spoof/cheat all sorts of number across the net is available, yet methods of detection and deflection are as well.

The fact that something can be faked is not reason to discount. For (pretty much) everything that can be faked, it can be detected. And anyone faking anything can be considered persona non grata by a network.

There's no reason in the world that multiple new layers of account security cannot be added. After all, this is apparently a company that is so vulnerable to account theft that they literally bleed out the arse (I'm hardly the only person to ever swear off paying them again, though I may be one of the more stubborn and likely to stick to it . . . lost business even temporary is lost business) as a result of security issues.

As it stands a new PC accessing WoW or a new location accessing an account don't raise any red flags. Unless I hacked myself (lawlz) Blizzard could have detected the hack in process and locked my account down. Unless someone can spoof my MAC address (one I have used and authorized), my IP address (one in a range I have authorized), my username (gg blizz, email addy is so hard) and my pw (which as I said was either hacked externally or bruteforced) then there's no excuse for the company having let the hack attempt go through unflagged.

Yet it did.

Security Fail.

Hovis
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 16:20
Mark the time and date folks, I agree 100% with Ludi.

The single player campaign is not as good as DoW2 which is the game it reminded me most of, even down to everybody meeting up on a spaceship between missions to sort out gear and so on. The presentation of it is excellent and I'm loving the cutscenes, but the old timey gameplay, while perfect for multiplayer, is lacking for single player. It's kind of like how Counterstrike never made for a good single player game.

In the grand scheme of things I don't like the Starcraft style of ultra-high-speed RTS gameplay, so multiplayer is a total non starter for me, and for the single player I'd rather be playing DoW2 or Company of Heroes, something like that. Problem Starcraft has with going all super-retro is that pretty much any RTS from the last two or three years runs rings around it in terms of advancements in the genre.

I do really want to watch all the cutscenes though. If the game was half as exciting to play as the presentation outside of missions is delivered I'd be on it like a tramp on chips.

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 16:24
Mark the time and date folks, I agree 100% with Ludi.

The apocalypse is nigh . . .

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 16:31
SP is already cracked. No clue as to if they'll be making BNet 2.0 emulators. Props to Blizzard for NOT going the AC2 route and merely slowing the inevitable. Of course, I seriously doubt Blizzard need to with a title that is, well, StarCraft. :P

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 16:34
Here is a question for you:

For any of you playing through SCII in campaign mode and watching all the cutscenes . . . how do you feel these compare to the storytelling in games such as Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2?

Again, story, not CGI. ;)

Hovis
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 17:11
Here is a question for you:

For any of you playing through SCII in campaign mode and watching all the cutscenes . . . how do you feel these compare to the storytelling in games such as Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2?

Again, story, not CGI. ;)

I've not got that far with the story, it's not very exciting when the characters in a story are that massively more dynamic and interesting in the cutscenes than in the game. What DA and ME did so well was having the game cover much of the awesomeness, you did cool stuff in cut scenes but it was stuff that tied in with the game. Both games seamlessly blended cut scenes into the gameplay, whether it was doing something badass in ME, or one of those slow-mo uber kills in DA. Starcraft's cutscenes have no relation to the gameplay at all, so they are entertaining in and of themselves, but there's not a whole lot of immersion. There was one point where a battleship showed up to rescue the marines during a sort of scripted part of the mission and it was pretty ropey to be honest because while the graphics are nice, you can't do do much with them. Maybe I should have given the campaign more of a chance, but I can't see it providing enough amusement to be worth the effort.

OniKiy
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:03
I really am enjoying the story in SC2. It'll never compete with the Bioware games, but that's kind of obvious as not many games can compete with Bioware games in terms of story. They're the gods of good story telling so it's kind of hard to be near their level. More so when compairing RPG's that are fundimently story driven and a RTS where single players tend to lack a lot of any thing outside the occasional cutscreen or unit management.

As for the gameplay, I have enjoyed it alot. The way it feels more like an actual story than multiplayer maps simply converted to a story map by the mention of waypoints and scripts. It may well be similar to some people, but in my eyes it's exciting and at least entertaining. More so on some missions where there was extra conditions that altered the basic gameplay and strategy. I'll avoid details, but essentially the way each mission differs is where I tend to enjoy the game. That little extra bit that makes it a little more challenging or less about C&C style 'select all, click attack' game play.

I find it kind of unfair to put it that SC2 isn't as improved as other games. It's the grand daddy and pretty much every other RTS emulates most or parts of it in one way or another. The unit balance and competitive races are nigh on perfect for competitive play. Where other games try to emulate their unit work, they often tend to end up with vastly over or under powered units. Not saying I don't like DoW or CoH, I have spent many hours in both and highly enjoy the squad game play. But the case of most 'innovative' games is a hit and miss game. Where the players end up in different camps, like C&C games of late. They have people who only play Generals, not Red Alert and even those that won't play any thing but the odl Red Alert and the new Tiberium Wars.

Not saying SC2 is perfect, there will be issues here and there. But there is a reason SC was and still is the most played RTS game.

Ludicrouse
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:08
Mat has expanded more or less upon my whole opinion of the game.

Leo, Blizzards PR have screwed this game up more than any developer who has worked on it. Too. Much. Hype.

Oni is about as wrong as you can get. This game has not evolved, it has stagnated. Wow! New/Renamed Units, every RTS sequel does that, same for the Tech Tree's. The stagnation is of pandemic proportions when it comes to the actual core-gameplay, it is still Zerg/Rush dominated. There is no Rock, Paper, Scissors aspect at all. As a Terran all you need is stack of Marines and Goliaths, job done. This could really, honestly, just be a Graphical Mod for Starcraft I.

As for the Campaign itself, well it is trying DoW 2 at its own game. Honestly it does a fair job. The missions are fairly different, there are some real jems in there such as the Day/Night and Lava Surge missions. That is not the problem however.

The big killer in the Campaign is the CGI cutscenes. Beautiful as they may be, they are boring. All of the actors bar two, Tychus and Hoffman, are rubbish. They evoke no emotion at all, they exude a aura of "Im going to do just enough so i dont get sacked!". As i say Tychus and Hoffman are alot better, especially Tychus who is quite funny sometimes.

To sum it up. Disappointing, bland and in parts tedious. I suppose Blizzard did the job they needed for it to sell bucketloads, in Korea. Shame it could of been a bit evolutionary if they had taken the chance of changing things.

Ludicrouse
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:12
I find it kind of unfair to put it that SC2 isn't as improved as other games. It's the grand daddy and pretty much every other RTS emulates most or parts of it in one way or another. It's unit balance and competitive races are nigh on perfect for competitive play. Where other games try to emulate their unit work and end up with vastly over or under powered units.

Lay off the crack.

C&C, Dune II before it, where the Grand-daddies of the RTS Genre. Hell C&C came five years earlier.

As for balance, bollocks. There is a reason "Zerg" has the modern definition in gaming circles.

OniKiy
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:20
Oni is about as wrong as you can get.

I can't be wrong about my own opinion. Thats a difference of opinion, not error in my judgement or what I am saying. So that stament is wrong in of itself.

As posted above, sure you could make all new units and completly change the game. But honstly look at C&C and you'll see how the games differentate with every itteration, so much so that they are either hit or miss with the community. Splitting the community into various camps, unwilling to play other games or giving up on new releases entirely. Look at the transition form DoW to DoW 2, in some ways it was a nice change in other it wasn't. But all it did was build on another game they already made and made it fit the Warhammer 40k universe. It's not so much innovative as it is a mish mash of the orignal DoW and the CoH games.

As for no Rock, Paper, Shotgun. SC built that dynamic more than anyone, with constantly ensuring the balance and pros and cons of all three races. Watch any really competitve gamer play stacraft and StarCraft 2 and you'll see counter after counter. Using specific units to do specific things.

Sure build a big enough force in pretty much any RTS and you'll be able to just swarm the opponent and eventually win. Thats not unique to SC but any RTS game. But in SC you'll be long dead or out of resources against a good opponent. As digging in is the worst thing you can do. Most matches never get to large scale numbers. At least not the kind you'd need to just swarm and win regardless of what is built. It's better to expand aggressively and harras an opponent at every opertunity.

OniKiy
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:23
Lay off the crack.

C&C, Dune II before it, where the Grand-daddies of the RTS Genre. Hell C&C came five years earlier.

As for balance, bollocks. There is a reason "Zerg" has the modern definition in gaming circles.


Yes they were before, but they didn't define the right RTS. By comparison they were far simpler and far less blanced than SC became. Why else is SC still played today and with such fevrance and competitive edge?

Yes the Zerg term does come from SC, but for good reason. They're the swarm, that is their racial benifit, to use larger numbers and various tacticts such as ambush and coversion to engulf their enemy. But again each race has their own benifit and can win.

Oh and Stonkers was the first RTS ever made, Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonkers). I also said 'Pretty much every other' which is a simpler way to say there's more than one and I'm not arsed listing them all.

Ludicrouse
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:37
Yes they were before, but they didn't define the right RTS. By comparison they were far simpler and far less blanced than SC became. Why else is SC still played today and with such fevrance and competitive edge?


...

I am astounded by that very first line. Westwood literally invented the RTS genre as we know it. They came up with the Base Building, Resource gathering core-gameplay that RTS fans adore. Before the creation of TA, C&C and Red Alert were considered by the majority to be the "Kings of RTS". Starcraft was popular but it could not touch any of Westwoods offerings in the Western world, the East was a different story.

Those crazy Koreans are what put Starcraft on the map. They just cannot get enough of it. It really is like a drug to them and the sequel will most likely be just the same.

Regardless, any sane RTS fan will tell you that the historical backbone of the RTS genre was Dune 2 > C&C > C&C Red Alert > TA. If you still care to argue that then im afraid all hope is lost for you. :p



Yes the Zerg term does come from SC, but for good reason. They're the swarm, that is their racial benifit, to use larger numbers and various tacticts such as ambush and coversion to engulf their enemy. But again each race has their own benifit and can win.

*Sigh*

Hovis
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:43
Regarding multiplayer, this is why I don't play:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zmYhX8fjmo8&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zmYhX8fjmo8&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

SC is faster than more intense than any other RTS, even FPS some might argue since you're fully active whether you've found the enemy or not. Only games that are more crazed to play at the highest level are fighting games. I just don't got the energy for this kind of thing these days.

Hovis
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:51
I think the thing is here that plenty of us are old enough and hairy enough to have played Starcraft, Warcraft, C&C and Dune when they came out. I know I did. The accepted hype-history that Starcraft was some sort of huge game when it came out is thus not going to wash. There were better games that Starcraft within a very short time of its release and indeed it is fair to say it wasn't the best RTS ever made when it was made. Best tournament play RTS, without a doubt, Blizzard basically made the digital age's answer to chess, if chess was played by hyperactive nutters, but best RTS in general? Nah.

There will be hype, there will be uniformly immense review scores, there will be fanboys, there will be millions of sales. But then, as with the first one, people will largely forget about it.

Taylor
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:53
Regarding running, this is why I don't play:

By1JQFxfLMM

OniKiy
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 18:53
Each race in SC2 can be dominant and win via the users ability. There is no one side absolutly dominating the game. In some respects, on some maps or with specific settings. You will some times find some races have a benifit and can make it harder to win the game. This doesn't however gaurentee a win outright. It can be won with a skilled player who knows what they're doing.

Much like playing UT a quick look or play. Most people will say one weapon or set of two is over powered. Claim the game is unbalanced and that the game isn't on par with the rest. But any real FPS player will prove that wrong time and time again, every weapon has a use and with the player in full control of the weapon and the situation will be able to win. Even if the other player has OP weapons. Much as the case in SC, you can look at videos. Play games fora few hours and leave assuimg the Zerg or one other race will dominate the game regardless. Where the opposite is true, it's a more player centric game.

Much as people would assume a fighting style is better than another as one student from one school beats a student from another school. This is also untrue, it is instead the difference between the fighters experiance and level. Not the school or style itself. A player is the one element that isn't atributed to a games balance but is infact the majour element. By far the most popular reason for people hating a game is to say it's unbalance and crap. Where you'll some times find those who actuall learned to play do realise the difference. The new players themselves just can't play and instead blame it on the tools.

Now that itself isn't always true, but in the most part with experiance it is usually proven so. Only in rare situations where a weapon hasn't been properly tested or used is such a scenario of weapons being over powered true.

C&C did indeed invent the resource gathering and was hailed by many. Includng myself as one of the greatest RTS games out there. But much as any game successfully adds a feature and is soon then copied by another game this only shows order of creation. Not the basis of which a game is the grand daddy. No other RTS has sold as many copies as SC. Nor played as long as competively. Hell look on the itnernet there's tons of EU, NA and leagues all over the world for SC to this day.

C&C may be the best on someones opinion. I respect that might be true and I do enjoy C&C and always love Red Alert. But in sheer weight in numbers of people still playing 12 years on, SC wins hands down. You can say what you want in terms of what games you prefer. But you have to admit that the game has real play ability, it's well balanced while still offering vast differences between each race. With so much on the plate in terms of racial difference and player style, SC is one of the few games to get it so right.

Oh and before I forget in SC2, you don't get the Goliath in multiplayer. They are a special unit only for Single player story.

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 21:46
SC is faster than more intense than any other RTS, even FPS some might argue since you're fully active whether you've found the enemy or not. Only games that are more crazed to play at the highest level are fighting games. I just don't got the energy for this kind of thing these days.

SCII MP is so dependent on pace that I could destroy Kilnara in the beta with an MM rush at least half the time. That's taking into account that she held chokepoints and high ground as well.

The other half of the time I'd need a second push, usually with more MM, sometimes with STs.

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 21:51
Regarding running, this is why I don't play:

All you really needed to do was post a pic of your svelte 25 stone frame, Tay. :)

Khammar
Thursday, 29th July 2010, 22:03
Each race in SC2 can be dominant and win via the users ability.

Yes, but in the case of SCII that ability is not PRIMARILY the user's mind. It's their APM. USUALLY you need to have an APM comparable to your opponent with pretty much any strategy. Even a badly executed high-APM strat will usually beat a well-executed low-APM strat.


No other RTS has sold as many copies as SC. Nor played as long as competively. Hell look on the itnernet there's tons of EU, NA and leagues all over the world for SC to this day.

It's a tournament game, much like CS 1.6, not the best game, simply one that lends itself towards a certain kind of gameplay. I don't have the skills to play (too slow) an RTS that demands this kind of speed, so FOR ME it is inferior to those whose APM demand are not as high yet whose gameplay is excellent. Take Quake 3 and Rainbow 6 as two extremes in FPS gaming. Quake 3 is very fast-paced and twitch, while Rainbow 6 is very much a game of tactics, placement, and coordination. Does not mean that Quake 3 is bad, just that it's not inherently superior to Rainbow 6 even though it was more-often played in tournaments.


But in sheer weight in numbers of people still playing 12 years on, SC wins hands down.

I prefer Half-Life DM to CS 1.6, but there's more CS 1.6 being played. That doesn't mean that HLDM is unbalanced . . . after all, every single player can use the exact same weapons in that game. That makes it rather inherently more balanced by default than ANY game that allows the kind of weapon loadouts and buildup as CS 1.6. Yet CS 1.6 is a competitive game that is played in tournaments . . .

If you want a very, very good example of the difference between a COMPETITIVE game and one that is NOT, you need only look at PAINKILLER which was even 2005's CPL deathmatch game . . . for no really good reason.

Stokvis
Friday, 30th July 2010, 07:55
Sometimes I simply love you guys for making threads like this. :D

Guy
Friday, 30th July 2010, 08:54
No way in hell I'm commenting again in this thread :D

Khammar
Friday, 30th July 2010, 17:53
No way in hell I'm commenting again in this thread :D

Awwwwwww . . .

Doc
Friday, 30th July 2010, 19:45
APM is a crutch for shit heels Kham.
ActionsPerMinute helps you execute everything that needs to be done, it's not some magical game winning fairy.
If you aren't doing the right actions, you can perform as many as you please.

Ludicrouse
Saturday, 31st July 2010, 10:27
I am a substanstial way through the campaign. Story is getting much more involving, shame about the actual gameplay, and some of the Voice Acting is getting a tad better. Tychus is still the best however.

Fusion
Saturday, 31st July 2010, 23:16
I'm staying out of the argument. I've enjoyed the SP experience so far. Had 1 quick try at MP in the newb zone and won it after my opponent (Zerg) tried to rush me but was slaughtered by my Marines in bunkers at the base entrance. By which time I found his base and sent my army to strike back...

RandomAlien
Sunday, 1st August 2010, 02:09
I've been playing SC2 MP since release, and I have to say it's pretty damned awesome...

I'll probably never be good enough to compete professionally in the game, but using that as an excuse not to play is ridiculous! That's what the battle.net matchmaking system was invented for. There isn't a single sport on this planet I'll ever be good enough at to play professionally, but that's not gonna stop me from playing to have fun!

Anyway, out of the games I've played, I've watched a fair few replays, and my own APM is around 80-100, maybe 150 during combat, but I've been beaten by people with an average of 50 APM simply because they had a better strategy than me and knew exactly how to counter what I was throwing at them.

The races are really well balanced against each other, and the units have evolved immensely from the original game. Every unit has a definite strength and weakness, and knowing these is the difference between losing an entire army and beating your opponent's army! The units are far from stagnant, and if you watch some competitive battles, you can see that the tiniest difference in army makeup can turn the tide of a battle.

Reading through this thread, I can't see a single reason why SC2 is a poor game, all I can see are excuses not to play and opinions on preferred games. What I believe to be a fact is that SC2 is the most balanced and well thought-out (read as: polished) competitive MP RTS that's been released since SC1. My opinion on the other hand is that it doesn't hold a candle to some other games in terms of SP gameplay (such as Empire: TW), but cannot be beaten in MP by any.

If anyone wants to add me for some group action, my user is RandomAlien. I'm silver in 1v1 at the moment, but platinum in 3v3.

Lyngs
Sunday, 1st August 2010, 04:15
StarCraft was the first MMO! :shinner:

Athelas
Sunday, 1st August 2010, 17:25
I started playing it this weekend, just got to Char. Really enjoying the single player :)

Fusion
Sunday, 1st August 2010, 21:17
If anyone wants to add me for some group action, my user is RandomAlien. I'm silver in 1v1 at the moment, but platinum in 3v3. What is your character code?

RandomAlien
Sunday, 1st August 2010, 21:53
What is your character code?

Character code is 738, just added you... I like your portrait, kinda regretting not getting the collectors edition now! :shinner:

Khammar
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 08:48
APM is a crutch for shit heels Kham.
ActionsPerMinute helps you execute everything that needs to be done, it's not some magical game winning fairy.
If you aren't doing the right actions, you can perform as many as you please.

All things being equal, the person whose APM is higher will win. Yes, I can beat morons. I can even beat semi-morons. I cannot reliably beat anyone who is skilled unless they are even slower than I am. :)

I'll save my fast-twitch for shooters. RTS are far too clunky to feel good anyway. No visceral satisfaction in sniping someone's head off. (I have never been comfortable with the micro gaming.)

Fusion
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 09:05
Had some fun doing a couple of 2v2s with RandomAlien last night, but as a newbie to SC, I have a long way to go.

Guy
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 09:17
I'm staying out of the argument. I've enjoyed the SP experience so far. Had 1 quick try at MP in the newb zone and won it after my opponent (Zerg) tried to rush me but was slaughtered by my Marines in bunkers at the base entrance. By which time I found his base and sent my army to strike back...

If you play as Terran, block your base entrance with your first few structures: 1 Barracks, flanked by a supply depot either side. The depot can be raised and lowered to allow to allow your troops through, but prevents him from scouting you early.

Khammar
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 10:17
This works if he doesn't scout early and get lucky.

Guy
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 11:30
Yup, but if you're playing early-stage matches, it's a good initial strategy. It also prevents the zerg rush as you can position Marines in your base to protect them rather than wasting resources on bunkers early.

Fusion
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 13:03
Do you guys have any links to good strategies?

Doc
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 14:06
That said, if you are floating on extra minerals, building a bunker cant be bad, they salvage for their full cost :D

Guy
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 14:58
That said, if you are floating on extra minerals, building a bunker cant be bad, they salvage for their full cost :D

If you're sitting on minerals, you're not playing properly :D

Doc
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 15:58
Not always, say you're about to expand, and a rush is coming
bunkers down to deal with it, salvage and expand.
Also, if you never fuck up your macro, you should be in platinum, and not need to discuss strategies here :shinner:

void
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 16:40
Do you guys have any links to good strategies?

check on youtube they have some nice 1v1 games that skilled players cap, the only real strat vid i have seen is from [red]nada in sc1, but do some easy games and u will then learn on how to counter things.

Doc
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 20:34
I suppose I'll plug day9 (http://day9tv.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc).
This *will not* be everyone's cup of tea, the man is an uber-nerd for starcraft.
I find 'em really entertaining though, he comes out with some hilarious one liners.
If you just want pointers I'd say this (http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/3732340/) changed my view of the game, if you scroll through his dailies there are some very informative ones :P

RandomAlien
Monday, 2nd August 2010, 21:30
Had some fun doing a couple of 2v2s with RandomAlien last night, but as a newbie to SC, I have a long way to go.

It was pretty awesome! Out of 3 games we won 2, lost 1... I think it'd be better with ts/vent, especially since when you're attacking or defending the last thing you wanna be doing is typing strategies! :shinner:


Do you guys have any links to good strategies?

Everything I know I've learnt just from watching replays through the beta. There are some guys out there that do really good commentaries and explain exactly what the players are doing throughout the game and why... The SC Legacy commentaries are really good, check them out here (go to the 'Beta Phase 1 Gameplay' playlist and have a watch):
http://www.youtube.com/StarCraftLegacy

A 20-minute game fits in nicely while you're eating your lunch at work (if you have the privelidge of youtube).

I also just played through some of the training missions earlier today, and they are REALLY good at preparing you for MP. The last few missions in particular are all about building up a substantial force in a short amount of time in order to defend your base against rushing. I'd highly recommend doing these missions even if you're already pretty good! I finished the last one with 4 seconds to spare (silver is 2 minutes and gold is 4 minutes), and I thought I was pretty good! :eek:

Fusion
Sunday, 8th August 2010, 14:02
I think it'd be better with ts/vent, especially since when you're attacking or defending the last thing you wanna be doing is typing strategies! :shinner: The game has built in voice chat. Not tried it yet though.

Have been looking at various strategies, but there is still a lot for me to learn...

Fusion
Sunday, 8th August 2010, 14:05
Just left the game on the score screen for a while and when I got back I noticed my PC was pretty hot. I quit SC2 and found my GPU temp at 82C. Apparently this is a known problem and there is a fix you can add:


Screens that are light on detail may make your system overheat if cooling is overall insufficient. This is because the game has nothing to do so it is primarily just working on drawing the screen very quickly. A temporary workaround is to go to your Documents\StarCraft II Beta\variables.txt file and add these lines:

frameratecapglue=30

frameratecap=60

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/14486-starcraft-ii-unlocked-frame-rate-can-damage-your-graphics-card/

Khammar
Sunday, 8th August 2010, 14:14
Nice bug. GG Blizz!

Hovis
Sunday, 8th August 2010, 15:54
It's not a bug, it's a feature. :D

Now, free of charge, SC2 will test to make sure that your PC is properly cooled and that your graphics hardware is robust enough to be thrashed continuously by menu screens running without a frame rate limit.

Khammar
Sunday, 8th August 2010, 16:55
Exactly! :d

Fusion
Monday, 9th August 2010, 07:05
I checked my GPU after running the game normally. It was still over 80C... ATI Overdrive doesn't seem fussed about running the fan at full speed when it starts to get hot.

Flufball
Monday, 9th August 2010, 14:47
I checked my GPU after running the game normally. It was still over 80C... ATI Overdrive doesn't seem fussed about running the fan at full speed when it starts to get hot.

See I had something similar with my old 4850. The fan would never kick in once it started to heat up, so in the end I had to tab out and turn it up by hand whenever the machine got hot.

Oh and - I never really got into the starcraft games. Discuss. :p

Fusion
Thursday, 26th August 2010, 11:36
I finished the single player game a little while back. I highly enjoyed it and it was a decent length. Still learning on the multiplayer side, but I've been having fun doing team games with RandomAlien, Ironman and Doc.