Coincidentally, Next week is my annual trip to see an old Air Force buddy of mine, and we usually spend the majority of the 5 days playing the latest version of another Blizzard RTS game, Command and Conquer. While we would prefer to connect through the LAN, we can still set up a private game on Battl.net. While it does seem silly to have to connect to the Interwebs when we are literally 2 feet from each other, it's not going to prevent us from playing. Sometimes there are connectively issues, but, meh - nothing more annoying than any problems oen is going to have when dealing with computers.
We might play Starcraft 2, also. I'll give the group a review if we do. My only concern there would be that there will be A LOT of people jamming the servers, since the game just came out. And Scott has good point about the price. Not only do you get the 30 plus hours of campaign, you get the unlimited amount of time to play skirmishes, either with other people or against AI. I can't tell you how many 100s of hours I played Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge, and I still play Warcraft 3. It's not out of market for other new games that cost over $100M to make. As for the initial link: an article on 45 Amazon reviews, many of which were posted BEFORE the game came out, is not a fair article. The stats now stand at 121 Five stars, 14 four stars, 9, three stars, 18 two stars, and 106 one stars. Something ain't right about that distribution. I didn't read all of the 1 stars, but most seem to based on it not having LAN capability and price. That's like giving a movie a bad rating before you see it, just because it wasn't available in a 3D IMAX version, is only 110 minutes, and because of the price at the theater. You can't even tell if most of those people have even played the game. But here is a quote from one of the one stars that did seem to have played it, "At best, its a 7 out of 10 rating when reviews come out next week on all major gaming sites." Really? The guy says major gaming sites might give it a 7, but he's giving it one star? Unless his point was trying to say that the major gaming sites are shills (which I don't think he was), that doesn't seem too consistent. ~Ron ________________________________ From: Edward Crosby <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 9:44:09 AM Subject: Re: [The Unique Geek] Re: Starcraft 2 complaints Actually, I, and many others I know, still play LAN games. I have a 11 yr old avid gamer in my house whom I prefer not to play online with strangers. He and I, on many occasions, play LAN games, when it is available. Also, when Todd is in a good mood he will occasionally invite me over for LAN games that he and I enjoy. So, LAN is not dead. Starcraft 2 is not the only game that has frustrated me in the past for not having LAN capabilities. That mode has been around forever and is nothing new. You would think by now that would be a standard for all multiplayer games. -- Have a Better One, Edward Crosby http://www.edwardcrosby.com ----- "There are no atheists in foxholes or firmware updates." Merlin Mann > Slamming Starcraft 2 for not having LAN seems to me like slamming > Avatar for not releasing a VHS version. Are there really people who > still go out and attach their computers to each other with hunks of > copper? I guess there are, but I would hope those people would realize > that the rest of the world stopped catering to that particular hobby > around 2005. > > As to it being "just" the Terran missions, It's not like there are > only the Terran missions from the original Starcraft. Starcraft 2 has > 30 missions, which is how many the original game had for all three > factions, plus a hell of a lot more story stuff. As far as I can find > the quickest anybody finished the single-player campaign is 15.5 > hours, which means it will take me at least twice that long (because > I'm a normal, conservative player and not a APM freak), and I'm going > to watch all the cinematics. Considering that I've bought full price > XBox/PS3 games, good games, that were a lot shorter than that (Batman: > Arkham Asylum, Dead Space), I don't think Blizzard's pricing is > unreasonable. Thirty hours of single-player plus the the most active > multi-player community this side of Modern Warfare 2 is fine with me. > > (And how long was Modern Warfare 2's single player campaign? Eight > hours, maybe?) > > On Jul 27, 1:48 pm, "Edward Crosby" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was really looking forward to this game but it looks as I will be >> passing on it. I'm really disappointed. >> >> http://bit.ly/aLHwoF >> >> -- >> Have a Better One, >> Edward Crosbyhttp://www.edwardcrosby.com >> ----- >> "There are no atheists in foxholes or firmware updates." >> Merlin Mann > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Unique Geek" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.
