Starcraft II closed beta begins this month

took them long enough....

@RobbySpry "Of course i used them. I just didn't need to very often as they aren't very effective. Transporting units is a natural part of many RTS games so that's hardly a "skill"." This is exactly why I know you know nothing about Starcraft, since you think those skills aren't effective. I've seen entire games are won or lost based on those abilities in pro matches. And you think I'm just talking about transporting reavers. Of course not. I'm talking about an entirely different skill. You drop a first reaver to draw enemy fire, and drop a second one to fire a scarab. You then pick up the first reaver before the enemy fire hits, and avoid damage while the second one fires. Repeat this and you can destory an entire army of units with just 2 reavers and a dropship. Similar thing with tanks. Your oversimplification of Starcraft shows exactly how ignorant you are of the game. There's an entire dimension of Starcraft out there that you've never even experienced.

Yifes: "Just massing basic units in Starcraft is like playing chess with only pawns. it's simple, and it gets boring fast. You don't get the depth and permutations of strategies available once you bring unique units and abilities into the mix. Unfortunately, most RTS players never get beyond this stage, because it's hard to control a mix of units with different special abilities and use them effectively in real time." SC is actually a very good example of what you're explaining. I think you need to play other RTS games to understand how simple SC really is. And the more simple a game is, the more you're reliant on number of units (button-mashing.) CNC3 is a good example of skills both effective and easy to use. Let me remind you that you're chatting with a guy who played all kinds of strategy games like it was his religion for ten years. "Just like in chess, if you change most of the pieces and what they can do, it changes the game dramatically. However, if you just stick to using pawns, you'll never notice that you're playing an entirely different game." You don't even need to explain that to a person who never played an RTS game. Just because i don't like SC or WC it doesn't mean that i'm stupid, Yifes. And stop giving your own posts positive reps.

yifes: "Just as I thought. You're a "mass one type of unit and attack" kind of player. We all start out that way. It's easy to get overwhelmed with so many units and abilities that you end up focusing on one or two core units. And if you ever play someone who knows what they're doing, you're going to get destroyed." No, you misunderstood. The matches i saw of professional players competing in SC2 with commentary were all button-mash. Hardly any strategy at all. Very dull to watch even though something was happening all the time. It was all about speed, which means button-mash. Myself, i like the tougher challanges, like finding the right balance of units to use in teams like NOD in CNC in risky moves. You're weak, so you have to rely a lot on your experiences, rather than button-mashing and protecting harvesters for 15 minutes. "If you never used an arbiter's stasis, or a dark templar's malestrom, or a corsair's distrubtion web, or drop shuttled reavers then you'll never know how they are crucial to the game. Of course i used them. I just didn't need to very often as they aren't very effective. Transporting units is a natural part of many RTS games so that's hardly a "skill". "If you reduce the game to a few core units and just send them off to attack, then every RTS becomes the same." Which is why i got bored with SC after 30 matches or so because that's what everyone kept doing.

@RobbySpry Just massing basic units in Starcraft is like playing chess with only pawns. it's simple, and it gets boring fast. You don't get the depth and permutations of strategies available once you bring unique units and abilities into the mix. Unfortunately, most RTS players never get beyond this stage, because it's hard to control a mix of units with different special abilities and use them effectively in real time. Just like in chess, if you change most of the pieces and what they can do, it changes the game dramatically. However, if you just stick to using pawns, you'll never notice that you're playing an entirely different game.

BloodMist: "Really?You never heard anybody praise the excellent single player campaigns Starcraft and War 3 have?Hmm, must either have a short memory, or ADD.From your obviously absurd comments about Starcraft, more than likely both." Nope, and i played through both of them including the expansion packs to see if it was anything special but they were very shallow, as most strategy games' campaigns are. Just because i don't like the games it doesn't mean i didn't play them. If you'd compare Red Alert's campaigns to Star Craft's you'd notice a huge difference in work. Most of SC's campaign-missions were not only simple in terms of how much you'd actually do to finish them, but very similar to each other too. They consisted of way too many missions in which you had to guide a small group of units safely through the fog-of-war. Absolutely worthless idea for an entertaining time. "Anybody who says the single player doesn't matter can kiss my ass, either way." Then we agree about something.

A big MEH from me. Story in one was okay, the fact that they want me to shell out money for the same type of content that was given in the first, no thanks. If they need money that badly, they could just open a item mall in wow or sell gold. I will be reading the spoilers though so I can see the story as that's what ANY good game is about.

10 years in the making, I am so excited, this is going to be awesome.

iopoiop: "Single player experiences don't matter in strategy games. At least in the sense of good vs bad. I don't know how you can call yourself a 'fan of the strategy genre' and think that a single player computer game experience can be very strategic." To you and to most others, obviously. But some love a good story-line of a strategy game over multi-player because it brings a much deeper meaning and depth to it. Strategy to me is about doing what it takes to beat an opponent far stronger than you and with limited resources. It's about difficulty, in other words. You could have just as much fun against masterful AI as against human opponents. Read about the game A.I. War for example. "Also SC is still played all over the world today. If it was just the 'first to have easily available multiplayer' it would have died out long ago. It's the best RTS ever made." You're the third person who assume that i don't know that. I have never said that the WC or SC series are bad games. Anyone who'd make it as simple as "good" or "bad" when discussing SC in a strategy-game discussion are clearly stupid. I was originally only commenting my curiosity to why little SC2 seem to differ from SC. A simple game-play is sometimes very entertaining. But to say that simplicity is hard to do would be wrong. Battle.net obviously got the ball rolling not only for multi-player RTS, but for gamers yet to fall in love with the strategy genre. It's easy to play, so it got a lot of people's attention. This has nothing to do with quality. Blizzard simply dared to reach out to something that no company had done before and it worked. There's nothing more to it and there's not much else to be proud about being an SC fan.

@RobbySpry "Just because you add some more units it doesn't mean that a game plays much differently. What i've seen so far is the same old get to the resource-spots first and button-mash the zergling/marine/zealot build button until the game is over. If you've played one game of SC, you've played them all. It's that derivative simply because there's so very little to do in the game." Just as I thought. You're a "mass one type of unit and attack" kind of player. We all start out that way. It's easy to get overwhelmed with so many units and abilities that you end up focusing on one or two core units. And if you ever play someone who knows what they're doing, you're going to get destroyed. If you never used an arbiter's stasis, or a dark templar's malestrom, or a corsair's distrubtion web, or drop shuttled reavers then you'll never know how they are crucial to the game. Entire gameplans are built around their use in combination with other units. Changing these units completely changes the gameplay. And that's just for protoss. If you reduce the game to a few core units and just send them off to attack, then every RTS becomes the same.

Harry16021: "you are just one of the few who doesnt like bliizard games, well its your oppinion nothing more but a lot of people do loves those games for their great formula ( easy to play , hard to master ) so please dont start saying it all just to hype , is just childish , its true almost all of the blizzard games when they are going to be released are hyped but thats because of the excelent product blizzard has managed to make, and their sales can support it." Assuming that Blizzards early success is due to a for its time unprecedented online play service has nothing to do with maturity, buddy. That actually makes sense, because i don't know anyone who ever said anything positive about the campaigns in a WC or SC game. Imagine that it was turned around. Westwood started Battle.net and Blizzard used aging multi-player connectivity. It would most likely look very different on amount of copies sold of the games we're talking about.

In order to get into the beta, do I need to connect a game key to battle net before they accept it? I don't have any blizzard games, so I'm just wondering.

@RobbySpry Single player experiences don't matter in strategy games. At least in the sense of good vs bad. I don't know how you can call yourself a 'fan of the strategy genre' and think that a single player computer game experience can be very strategic. Also SC is still played all over the world today. If it was just the 'first to have easily available multiplayer' it would have died out long ago. It's the best RTS ever made.

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

@RobbySpry: "As a fan of the strategy genre, the first SC delivered very little in terms of single-player experience, and i didn't have the internet back then so i never got into the part where SC shone." "I really don't understand what's so special about WC, WOW and SC. " It shows. Starcraft has its enormous popularity and longevity because of its depth and balance. The different units, abilities and strategic choices available allows for amazing skill and creativity. The pro gamers take the game to a truly new level. SC Legacy has some highlights of great matches: << LINK REMOVED >>

@RobbySpry "I really don't understand what's so special about WC, WOW and SC" *you are just one of the few who doesnt like bliizard games, well its your oppinion nothing more but a lot of people do loves those games for their great formula ( easy to play , hard to master ) so please dont start saying it all just to hype , is just childish , its true almost all of the blizzard games when they are going to be released are hyped but thats because of the excelent product blizzard has managed to make, and their sales can support it.

yifes: "What are you talking about. For example, look at the protoss. Only 4 units are returning from SC1. Protoss has 8 new units, each with new spells and abilities. The new combinations and strategic possibilities are countless. Just look at what the crazy things pro gamers like Boxer have done with Starcraft 1 years after its release that the designers never even imagined. You really know nothing about the game if you think it's going to play the same. Unless, of course, all you know how to do is mass carriers and you're going to do the same in SC2." So Protoss got a make-over. Maybe because Blizzard deemed it necessary. I've only seen Zerg vs Marine matches so far and i was bored from the first second to the last because i'd seen it all before. Just because you add some more units it doesn't mean that a game plays much differently. What i've seen so far is the same old get to the resource-spots first and button-mash the zergling/marine/zealot build button until the game is over, which takes around 15 minutes. If you've played one game of SC, you've played them all. It's that derivative simply because there's so very little to do in the game. "And also, look at my post comparing SC2 to Supreme Commander 2 and CnC 4. If you think the graphics are "amazingly dated" then you really are blind." For its time, SC2 isn't visually impressive. Everything that you see already exists in RTS games. I'm not saying it looks worse than other RTS games. Just that the visuals hardly are something that you can brag about as a reason to get the game.

Does anyone here got the key by any chance?

@RobbySpry What are you talking about. For example, look at the protoss. Only 4 units are returning from SC1. Protoss has 8 new units, each with new spells and abilities. The new combinations and strategic possibilities are countless. Just look at what the crazy things pro gamers like Boxer have done with Starcraft 1 years after its release that the designers never even imagined. You really know nothing about the game if you think it's going to play the same. Unless, of course, all you know how to do is mass carriers and you're going to do the same in SC2. And also, look at my post comparing SC2 to Supreme Commander 2 and CnC 4. If you think the graphics are "amazingly dated" then you really are blind.

Oh man I can't wait. This will be the greatest online rts ever, for me anyways.

I guess Blizzard's real success is Battle.net. Back when WC and SC started getting popular the CNC and RA series for example were terribly dated in terms of online play, while Battle.net made WC and SC accessible on a much wider scale which is essential for a game to live on: multi-player. That doesn't make WC or SC better than any other RTS games. It's just that they were most people's only choice to play online back then. Then of course SC felt very modern due to its sci-fi setting. People get hooked on what looks new. And sometimes, like in SC's case, that's enough for people to consider it "the best" whether it really has the most impressive story-line and game-play or not.

TheVihn: "All this and I have yet to mention how to please all the hardcore Korean SC'ers across the ocean..." Beats me what's up with them. I've got maybe 20 hours of multi-player SC experience and i have never played an RTS in which each match was so similar to each other before or after. I know a lot about what this genre so i'm not just trying to be anti-Blizzard or anything. All i was saying was that i'm amazed with how SC fans can be so crazed over SC2. It's like a mental plague far worse than that of CS:S was. I barely dare to think of what the true hard-core fans in S-Korea are doing right now. lol TheVihn: "Korean's have StarCraft televised nationwide. How much pressure is there on Blizzard really?" Well, that's not really my point. The reason why SC2 will succeed isn't because it's that much greater than the first SC, but because it's simply a more modern version of a game that is as popular as ever. They don't NEED to do anything spectacular, so they won't. This is what i mean with focusing on brainwashing games. I really don't understand what's so special about WC, WOW and SC. They were nothing special then and they are nothing special now. So it only seems logical to me that Blizzard lives on due to hype, not quality. It's fascinating, that's all.

TheVihn: "I'd personally find it a pretty daunting task to create something new that pleases all the original StarCraft players as well as please new ones." Of course. That was my point all along. Re-read my post at the end and you'll see that i understand this. As a fan of the strategy genre, the first SC delivered very little in terms of single-player experience, and i didn't have the internet back then so i never got into the part where SC shone. Just like i myself was part of the CS hype and was all nuts about CS:S, i know what to expect from what i've seen of SC2 compared to SC so far, and it's not something that i think is going to turn more fans over to the SC series. Games like Rise of Nations and Rise of Legends brought something new and interesting to the table. And Legends for example has the best story-line of any strategy game i've ever played. From an all-around perspective, for a new strategy game to succeed, whether it's part of an old series or something completely new, it has to bring something very appealing to the table since RTS games usually are very similar in terms of game-play. So, you have to work really hard if you want a strategy game to turn into something great, and i don't believe that Blizzard has done that with SC2. It's much too similar to me.

TheVihn: "I'm not defending the game as a fanboy, but I'm curious to know as in how would you go about doing it if you were a developer?" Well if i made a product that got very popular to play online, i'd of course only need to focus on improving on what's already there. Making multi-player games is much easier than focusing on campaigns and stories. My point is simply that what SC2 delivers is something that i'd expect from it a few years after the first game, not this late. It's more like an update as i see it.

this game cannot come out soon enough

this game gonna need CD key , and if need how i can get 1 ?

@Viron_Berserker Or compare SC2 to some new RTSes: Supreme Commander 2: << LINK REMOVED >> CnC 4: << LINK REMOVED >> Starcraft 2: << LINK REMOVED >> You are a fool if you think SC2 isn't up to the normal standards of today.

They should just delay this game for five more years or slowly work on it toward then.

seems like Greg is trying really hard not to mention Steam - "other online game services..." this is merely an observation, I'll be glad to see what they come up with - innovation by any party can improve the whole ecosystem

@Viron_Berserker Exhibit A: << LINK REMOVED >> Exhibit B: << LINK REMOVED >> If you really think B looks better than A, then there's really no point arguing with someone as unreasonable as you. Or look at this: << LINK REMOVED >> Everything about it, the lighting, the models, the texture quality, the artistic style, is top notch. Complaining about the graphics is one of the most retarded things anyone do, because: 1. The graphics look great 2. You really are missing the point of Blizzard games if you think Graphics even matters. Stop trolling.

@TheVinh Yeah, your definitely not a fan, that's why your protecting a game from minor criticism from a person who trolls as a job. No, I read what your sh*t said and it was exactly that. It was defense. Maybe if you weren't socially backwards you would know that wouldn't you? "You're an idiot" is a perfectly normal response from an idiot. "Why does graphics even matter?" First, its do, not does and second if this argument isn't valid as you SEEM to be saying then why are you even posting about it? My guess is that you are insecure about your opinion and you have the attitude of a small spoiled child. You know what YOU ARE RIGHT, you're not a fan, you're trollbait. Have a nice night I am gonna go enjoy knowing that however stupid I am, I am twice as smart as you are, retard

They have been working on this game for so long, they must be cooking up something huge here. Looks great.

Yifes: "Yeah the game is exactly like Starcraft 1, except most of the units, the story, the engine, physics, and the gameplay are new. How much you know about this game: nothing." @ yifes Dude, most of the units DOES look the same. I'm not blind. The story in the first game was very derivative with really boring missions and considering SC is about multi-player i think you'd better not count the story in as a key-feature if you don't want to build someone up only to get disappointed. The game looks amazingly dated and what does physics matter in a strategy game? Not much. The game-play? I've seen several matches of SC2 and you honestly hardly notice that it's a new game. I'm not saying this to be offensive. The game really doesn't look or feel different in any way, and i think that's Blizzards point. You're obviously a big fan of SC since you try to defend the game in a really weak attempt with desperate reasons. You don't need to defend it because the facts are already out on the table and there's nothing to be impressed about. It's all been done years ago. It's just like everyone was so hyped about Counter-Strike Source just because it was running a new engine. Hardly any difference and the graphics was nothing to get excited about. The differences that were there were hardly helping the game's popularity. It's no big deal. You and i know just as anyone that SC fans are drewling over SC2. But that's because it's SC2, not because it's a great new game.

@RobbySpry, Yeah the game is exactly like Starcraft 1, except most of the units, the story, the engine, physics, and the gameplay are new. How much you know about this game: nothing.

I can't wait for SC2, it's gonna be the greatest thing since WC3!

and the testing begins.. XD hope gamespot will release beta keys like they did with CNC4, although i didnt like CNC4 so much. hope SC2 will be worth the wait.

Time to restart my Clan i)D( starcraft UMS dodgeball clan!

yeesss! My xbox360 has been dreading this day for years. Don't worry Trisha, I'll be riiight back. Just going out for a pack of smokes is all...

After so many years of playing SC, how can SC fans actually be hyped about a game that looks exactly the same apart from it now being 3D and works exactly the same apart from a few more units? SC2 looks incredibly boring to be honest. Even though CNC4 might be too much of a twist, at least it's not CNC3 all over again with a few changes here and there. It's like Blizzard focus on making the ultimate brainwashing games. They turned a whole nation into zombies for one. A boring obsession, playing SC.

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

pick me

I grew up playing Starcraft. I'm happy to hear this.

Praise Heavens !!! Finally, some worthy information on Starcraft 2!

god I hope I get into this beta

We hae been given 11 years to train for the ultimate war. Now the time has come. Prepare for hell.

@TheVinh But what was the last game they released? What was the last non-WoW expansion? Give up? It was WoW. So what evidence do you have that it is polished? What does it bring to RTS that hasn't been done by Starcraft or other RTS games? Dammit I am tired of talking to fanboys could a sensible middle ground person look at this and tell me that this game is 100% worth the wait? You'd think they were making a movie with this much time in development. CoH looks better than SC2, and it's 4 years old. Why the hell can't they at least up it to normal standards for today? And you can't argue that taking out LAN was a good idea, that was just retarded. NOTE: I am not saying that this game is gonna be terrible, I am just pointing out hole in the damn fan fever about this game. I am still gonna buy it, I am still probably gonna enjoy it, so why don't you people stop being such f**ktards that you censor people because they aren't singing the games yet to be proven praises.

@TheVinh You tell'em! If the gameplay sucks the best graphics in the world couldn't save the game. I have said it before, I would not have mind in the least if Starcraft 2 graphics were comparable to Starcraft 1, its all about the gameplay for me. (Granted I love the new graphics, I love seeing marines ripped to shreds under a wave of lings)

this will be like hell online

$%^@ Yea!!! But what does it mean by closed beta?