Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

StarCraft II Beta Signups Open

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the time-to-zerg-the-servers dept.

PC Games (Games) 123

motang writes "StarCraftWire reports that Blizzard has started taking beta sign-ups for StarCraft II. Quoting: 'Interested parties must simply visit their Battle.net profile page, choose to opt-in for the beta, and re-submit their current system specs by way of a small downloadable piece of software.' Blizzard's Chris Sigaty said in an interview, 'As with previous betas for our real-time strategy games, the StarCraft II beta test will be multiplayer only, and players will have access to all three races — terrans, protoss, and zerg — and all of their units. We'll include a selection of multiplayer maps, but they won't necessarily include all of the maps that will be in the final version of the game. We're making some great progress on the single-player campaign, but we don't plan to do a public beta since we want to keep the story under wraps until the game's out.'"

cancel ×

123 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I signed up yesterday (4, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863039)

I signed up for this yesterday but so far haven't received any notification. My guess is Blizzard will just select from the pool of everyone that applies, possibly selecting based on hardware specs for a wide variety of system configs.

Patience, young Padawan (1)

Y2KDragon (525979) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863067)

Give them time. I'm sure they're going to pull from a large enough group to get newer and older systems as well. Various hardware and OS configurations need to be tested to be sure of getting a good cross section. If they just opened up the sign-ups, the testing will likely start sometime in the next month or so.

Re:I signed up yesterday (3, Informative)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863601)

You'll notice that this is an opt-in for future game betas. It's much more likely, knowing Blizzard, that you or anyone else will not get any notification for weeks at best.

I wouldn't worry about not getting a notice. It isn't SC2 specific. The title is misleading, but SC2 will be the next beta we see, so it "fits."

Re:I signed up yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27865089)

It's much more likely, knowing Blizzard, that you or anyone else will not get any notification for weeks at best.
Especially since Blizzard has said the beta won't even begin until later in the Summer (which doesn't even start for another 1-1/2 months). So yes, I would expect that it will be months before you hear from them, mainly because they ALREADY FUCKING TOLD YOU SO!

Re:I signed up yesterday (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#27867931)

I chuckled at the statement that summer doesn't start for another 1-1/2 months :p Then again, I'm from the deserts in western America. We're already hitting over 105Â days :p

Back into the Internet Lexicon... (5, Insightful)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863051)

I was beginning to feel old when I used the term "Zerg Rush" to describe anything involving lots of people swarming to get at something. By younger IT colleagues would roll their eyes at the "old man" with his dated terms.

Now there will be a new generation of geeks who will learn the power of the Zerg...

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863079)

unless the zerg got nerfed :p

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863449)

OMG Zerg nerf kekeke!

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (0)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863799)

I once had an argument with one of my friends (big Zerg fan) that a "Zerg Rush" wasn't anything specific to the Zerg, simply the only tactic you can reasonably use with them. I resolved the argument by performing a Zealot Rush and wiping out his piddling Zerg base. Antaro Adun!

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27864001)

Noob. 1) Zerg rush isn't the only tactic available to the Zerg. 2) The name originates from creating as many cheap zergling as you can and sending them as early as you can in hopes of surprising your enemy.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (0)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864293)

Noob. 1) Zerg rush isn't the only tactic available to the Zerg. 2) The name originates from creating as many cheap zergling as you can and sending them as early as you can in hopes of surprising your enemy.

Try re-reading my post, you fail at reading comprehension. All the Zerg have is a cheap early advantage, once you get to a longer running game with higher tech trees the Zerg can easily be wiped out because any of the other races more expensive units are more than a match for even the most powerful of the Zerg units. The only hope for Zerg is an early win with overwhelming numbers, hence Zerg Rush. You can however perform a rush with any race, it's just usually better to invest those early resources in building your tech tree for a tactical advantage.

In the fight I referenced I built 3 Zealots and sent them to his base where they easily wiped out the 9 Zerglings he had managed to produce in the same amount of time without losing even a single unit, and then proceeded to destroy the base. Once again a rush is not a Zerg only tactic, merely the best tactic available to them.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

BlitzTech (1386589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864701)

Tell me, if Protoss and Terran are clearly superior to Zerg, then why do all of these professional Starcraft players [wikipedia.org] choose Zerg? Maybe because the differences in races are better exploitable by different players with different strategies? Claiming that the Zerg are terrible because they only have cheap units shows that you have never played a decent Zerg player.

And if you wiped him with 3 zealots, then he is not a good example of a Zerg player. Decent players can fend off 3 zealots with 11 drones.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (0)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865101)

I never said they were terrible, just that a successful Zerg game relies on a early victory. Once you've reached the higher levels of the tech trees the Zerg can no longer compete against the other two races. The Zerg can easily defeat one of the other races if they pump out enough units early on and their opponent has been focusing on climbing the tech tree rather than also pumping out their cheaper low level units.

Being that it was early in the game and he was focusing on building out his basic infrastructure he didn't have many units to spare. Had he pulled all his drones off production immediately when he saw me coming he might have been able to stop them, but would have left himself crippled for the followup wave of Zealots I had coming his way. The reason I was able to use that tactic was it was a 1v1 game, had I needed to deal with another player I could not have performed the rush as it would have left my base completely undefended. The Zerg, with their very cheap, fast to produce, and weak units can afford to go run them off cliffs at random because they cost virtually nothing to make. They may also leave their base (relatively) undefended while they harass other players because they can produce units much faster than others even though individually those units are far weaker (counting on the other players more concentrated forces to be at their own base doing defense). Essentially the Zerg can afford to spread themselves thin without leaving large gaps in forces.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (2, Insightful)

BlitzTech (1386589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865615)

Watch some of the pro replays. There are people worlds better than your friend, than you, than me, and than most people you encounter online. Your blanket statement is patently false, as evidenced by these replays. Zerg can survive and win late game.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (4, Informative)

toad3k (882007) | more than 5 years ago | (#27866159)

Your understanding of the game is poor.

Zerg do not have to win early. In fact if left alone, a zerg will expand twice as fast as the other races, culminating in wave after wave of hundreds of units. They may have weaker units, but their unit production is so much faster that it greatly affects their resource production. They also have much more nimble units and the ability to cross the map meaning they can hold these expansions with relatively small forces.

It is obvious you stopped playing 8 years ago, and the game has advanced so far you simply can't even conceive of it. I'm not saying that to insult you, but it is true. Neither you or your newbie friend would be able to win a single game in 20 against even the worst players on iccup.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27866713)

I think it's been closer to 7 years, and I've got no idea what iccup is (did they replace battle.net?). Unless they nerfed protoss badly in addition to buffing the Zerg I'd still stand a pretty good chance against most players, I doubt they've done anything too drastic like removing protos carriers so fundamentally the game should still be the same. I assume if the Zerg can hold their own in a long running game they've been given something more powerful than a mutalisk (probably the most powerful Zerg unit overall at the last time I played).

Dude you're not listening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27867059)

What he's saying is that you were playing against other bad players such as yourself, and you wouldn't stand a chance against a player who does competitions.

Think of it like chess. You think you're a badass chess player because you could beat your friends at it. The problem is all your friends are piss poor chess players. So you're slightly above piss poor. Get it?

Re:Dude you're not listening (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27867165)

My statement still stands. I'd still stand a good chance against most players, as most players are not at the level of competition gamers. Just because you can have your ass handed to you by someone that makes a living playing the game doesn't mean you suck, it just means they're very very good. Professional level players are probably less than 10% of all the players out there. Also, I never claimed to be a bad ass player, just that I could stand up to most players (IE average players).

Re:Dude you're not listening (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27867985)

You would stand a good chance against most players 7 years ago. Now? Not so much. I think the acronym APM didn't even exist 7 years ago.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27869295)

Its even more obvious you only play zc15nr or some other lame ass game... Zergling rushes are still very much used.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865225)

Try re-reading my post, you fail at reading comprehension.

You fail at Starcraft comprehension. Most Zerg players only play to the rush aspect of Zerg. You would seem to fall into this category. However, the Zerg are very capable of lasting even the longest battles. One way is using the queen to put an eye out into enemy forces and a defiler's spell to slowly leech away health. The terrans and protoss may have simple brute strength at the top of thier tech trees, but the Zerg can be even more rewarding once you learn how to play to their strengths.

Man, I'm reaching back on this, I hope I got the names right... =P

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865417)

I've found the best use for Zerg is to capture one using a dark archon and then just build lurkers, they're really the most useful unit the Zerg have. If I can last long enough to have my carrier fleet built and a dark archon it's pretty much all over as I'll go capture the other two races and combine the best of all of them. On defense a wall of lurkers, followed by photon cannons, and backed by seige tanks will stop almost anything, particularly with a cloaked carrier fleet hanging above it. On offense the ability to teleport a mass of carriers just about anywhere on the battlefield is pretty much game over.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865775)

I loved watching my friend's teleport in a fleet of carriers, and watching them fall rather quickly, even though they had full shields, their armor had been reduced to rubble by my defilers that were burrowed a short distance from his base. Of course, this all depends on the player making sure his army targets the carriers, and not the drones (interceptors?) flying out of them.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865919)

Guardians are also pretty useful, but they have to have cover against air attacks, and the brood war air to air mixed with a squad of hydras is prety effective. Guardians outreach turrets making them awesome for base decimation and ground unit thinning.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

Vohar (1344259) | more than 5 years ago | (#27866483)

A 'rush' is not Zerg-specific, but a 'Zerg rush' in a game actually involving Zerg, definitely is. The term has become gamer slang for any kind of mindless rush in other games, but in Starcraft rushing with Zealots is not a Zerg.

kind of but oversimplified (1)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864915)

Typically "zerg rush" involved either a 9 pool or 6 pool (amount of pop you had; 9 pools were typically dropped prior to your second overlord)

This impacted your economy significantly, since you're working from one hatchery instead of 2 in the early game, and didn't go fast gas.

There were other strats that were valid; 'ling massing vs zealots were pretty effective prior to the first forge upgrade, and were very synergistic with mutalisk follow-ups to finish off the 'toss player.

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

redJag (662818) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864383)

Well of course Zerg Rush is specific to the Zerg.. it has the word Zerg in it! Rushing is a more general word that describes forsaking "teching" and building up an economy to get out units as fast as possible and try to catch your opponent with his pants down. The Zerg Rush is so well known because they are the fastest, but less so than in previous patches.

ZOMG ke ke ke ke ke... (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864153)

never doubt the power of korean gamer alliterative laughter either

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864405)

Yeah. When I hear someone reference a video game in real life, I think "old."

Re:Back into the Internet Lexicon... (1)

Reapy (688651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27867697)

I'm going to date myself more.

Rushing... I think the term actually came back from Warcraft 2 via kali. The term first got coined on shlonglor's famous war 2 page when the medium resource 7 grunt/footman rush was introduced. It was just called "Grunt Rush", and involved building no town hall but instead making 7 grunts, then immediate proceeding to your opponent and beating them with their pants down.

The strat worked because at the time each start spot was tied to your color, so you knew just where a person was, and even then still worked sometimes with proper scouting.

Universally it was just considered bad form since games were boring, and hence the rule "thf" or town hall first, was born for war2 games.

Eventually the term grunt rush become more and more diluted to just mean playing aggressively (something any good player would do) and attacking early with grunts. Weaker players would sometimes claim "ogre rules", to build only your tech 2 guys first, or just say "no grunt rushing".

Further on down the line, as RTS games become more popular, and the general population learned how to play them properly, the term has further diluted to mean 'hurry up and make something', hence zerg rush, zealot rush, mutie rush, basically any aggressive strat to go right for a particular unit.

I guess you can safely get off my lawn now :(

Not just Starcraft 2 (5, Informative)

FLEABttn (1466747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863117)

It's worth noting that this beta signup also allows you to opt into Diablo and Warcraft universe beta testing as well.

Let me be the first to say.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863135)

Squeeee!!!!!!!

Re:Let me be the first to say.. (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865443)

Squeeee!!!!!!!

I heartily endorse this event or product.

Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (4, Informative)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863157)

It should be noted that in order to sign up for the beta, you apparently need to have at least one Blizzard game CD-key signed up with your battle.net account. Otherwise you get this message:

You need to have at least one Blizzard Entertainment game attached to your account in order to set up your beta profile.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863241)

Just merge with your WoW account... are you saying you never played World of Warcraft?!

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863285)

I have, but it says WoW account merging is US only.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

xactoguy (555443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863363)

By "US only" they mean North America (or possibly the Americas) ... which still may or may not help you (I'm Canadian and merged my account just fine).

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863477)

Thanks for the tip. But alas, no; I'm in Europe.

Coming Soon!
The World of Warcraft account merge process is not yet available in your region.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (2, Informative)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863741)

They've stated that the beta won't start until the EU region can merge their accounts properly. It's in TFA, iirc.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864321)

You will also have to download and run an application on your computer.

So no, you can't complete this beta sign up at work like I just tried to do.

Buggers.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864439)

It probably looks at your hardware configuration, since they'll want a good varied mixture of testing hardware, so it would not be a good idea to run it on your work machine anyway.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864819)

I assume the GP is, like me, using Linux at work. I ran into the same thing. Oh well, at least they have a Mac client I can run at home :-)

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#27868279)

There goes my signing up *grrr* One of the perils of Linux

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27864025)

WoW? I've never even seen it played... (unless you count commercials)

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864353)

Just merge with your WoW account... are you saying you never played World of Warcraft?!

What is this...World of Warcraft...of which you speak? Is it popular? I hope it doesn't have gold farming that ruined my Legend of the Red Dragon experience. *hide*

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27866357)

Never have, but I do have a legal Warcraft II disc somewhere, did that game have a key? I can't remember.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27870373)

Sorry, it won't work.

The following games are supported at this time: StarCraft, StarCraft Battle Chest, StarCraft + Extension, Warcraft III, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, Warcraft III + Extension, Diablo II, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, Diablo II + Extension

And World of Warcraft, though only for American accounts for now.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (3, Interesting)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863475)

On the plus side, that means if you create a separate b.net account for each cd-key (and oh boy do I have a lot of em) you increase your chances of getting into the beta.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863503)

Any reason you have a lot of em? And can I have some? :)

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863921)

Heh...I really *should* give em away since I already have a beta SC2 key from Blizzcon last year :)

Why do I have so many?
WC2, WC2 battle chest (to get TCPIP multiplayer), WC3, Diablo2, D2 expansion, SC2, SC2 expansion. Most of those games are X2 keys because I got a copy for my wife (girlfriend at the time) to play with me a bit.

In addition, 6 WOW accounts between us (including ~4 expansion keys). This is due to dual-boxing and Recruit-a-Friend accounts, plus a botched RAF signup that they wouldn't refund.

If they let me make a separate account for each expansion key...woo boy =D

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864575)

Wouldn't it be better to get your wife in on the beta with you? :)

Or are you just another typical slashdot user who claims to have a girlfriend/wife?

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (2, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864645)

once the beta starts he'll be getting a divorce.

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865159)

She went to Blizzcon too, but I can't pretend she's as into the nerdy games as I am. Might sell her SC2 key on ebay to buy clothes/furniture ;)

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (2, Informative)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864857)

...SC2, SC2 expansion

Ah HA! So that's why you have so many CD Keys. You're from the future, no doubt a history student from the year 3045 coming back to play SC2 beta so you can compare and contrast it with the retail version. But I'm on to you!

Re:Need a Blizzard game signed up w/ your account (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865175)

Addendum: I'd much rather hear that they multiply beta chances by the number of games on your account, as I don't relish the idea of having 12 different battle.net accounts to keep track of.

Especially if they complete their plans to compete with Steam and offer buddy-list/chat functionality through battle.net accounts.

Mod Parent Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863703)

Mod parent up, this is important.

Late (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863185)

This game's about 5 years too late for me to care anymore. I played the living snot out of Starcraft. Hell, the map editor was amazing. Friend and I made a damned hockey map. Now? Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, Supreme commander Forged Alliance, those are the games. StarCraft II will sell no matter how good or bad it is, just because it's Blizzard. But same 3 races? Sorry, Bliz, but my cash will stay mine this time.

Re:Late (1)

Jeez01 (1442147) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863287)

IMO C&C RA3, SupCom all were disappointing none of them had the storyline that SC had which is why the game is so remembered.

Re:Late (3, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863401)

Are you kidding? Starcraft is remembered more for its multiplayer than for its story.

Re:Late (1)

ouimetch (1433125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863541)

The reason Starcraft's multiplayer is so well renoun is because of the near perfect level of balance it had. It was so near perfect in fact that a thriving competitive market(most notably in Korea) was formed as a result of it.

Re:Late (3, Insightful)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863709)

The reason Starcraft's multiplayer is so well renoun is because of the near perfect level of balance it had.

Which kept getting updated and updated and updated... every Blizzard game has "balancing fixes" with each update. Starcraft has had plenty of updates as well. Sure, it's nice they try to keep the game balanced over time, but after a while it's like "how are they changing the gameplay this time? what are they going to nerf?" Too many of one character (or too many victories from one class) to them means it's overpowered and needs adjustment, because it's not a 50/50 split.

Re:Late (3, Interesting)

timster (32400) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865093)

That's OK. Go is thousands of years old and they keep changing the komi.

Re:Late (1)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864755)

Are you kidding? Starcraft is remembered more for its multiplayer than for its story.

Perhaps by you. I have played multi-player SC, but except for the fact that it was fun I can't remember anything else.
But I'll remember the story for a long time. Heck, my laptop's name is Tassadar!

Re:Late (2, Insightful)

ouimetch (1433125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863309)

I am personally glad that Blizzard decided to put a lot of extra time into this game. The longer the better in my opinion. Too many gaming sequels have been short changed because of a such a rush to get a product out there while the market is still hot(first one that comes to mind is Halo 2).

Starcraft 2 is going to be an excellent sequel because of the fact that they are not rushing it.

Re:Late (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863379)

Oh good. No one cares. Don't spend your money. STFU. No one CARES that YOU don't care!

Re:Late (3, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864297)

Actually, since Blizzard only has 3 IPs, or 2.5, if you wanna consider Starcraft an offshoot of Warcraft, Blizzard should care that I don't care. If there's going to be 10 years between installments, they need to bring something new to the table. The same 3 races with the same basic attributes are not something new. People will just find equivalents to the old units, and the game will feel much like the first, with prettier graphics. You know the first bit of excitement I had over SCII? The April Fool's Day prank about the transforming base. I knew it was a prank, but I wanted it to be real, because that'd be something new. It wouldn't even be a precident, really, since they have units that combine to new ones (Templar to Archon), buildings that receive add-ons, (Machine Shop to Factory, for instance), and units that changed attributes on deployment (Siege tanks). So takes those ideas together, and make it so you need to build the components together, and they need to deploy, and take time to change. It would be a magnificent addition. Late game high-tier unit rushes would be counterable by making your base defend itself!

Instead, they take the idea, and make it a joke.

So, we have nothing substantially new gameplay-wise in SCII. WoW means we won't see a Warcraft IV for ages (WCIII sucked. I like massive battles. An 80 unit cap is unacceptable. Otherwise, it tried new things, so I can't completely hate it.) Diablo III again looks like more of the same, right down to including a bunch of the same classes. Blizzard's stagnant, and should hear from fans as to why they lose interest. I literally put hundreds of hours in to each of their previous games. I WAS their core audience. Delays may make for a better game, sometimes, but if they're not using that to innovate, but instead just polish the pixels, how many others are just going to shrug to themselves, and joke about how that's "so 90's."?

Re:Late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27864709)

Are you seriously complaining you didn't like Warcraft 3 because they chanaged stuff, and you assume you won't like SC2 because they didn't change stuff?

Note Warcraft 3 had 4 races. It was crap because all the races were the same. Balancing 3 separate races is almost impossible, balancing 4 probably is.(6 different matchups vs 10, or 3 vs 6 if you don't count mirror matches)

If you don't want to play it dude, don't. They're making the game most people want, which is Starcraft, but better, more diverse, and not massively screwed up.

Re:Late (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865365)

Have you played DIII and SC2? Do you know what the games will be like when they are released? No? Then stop making assumptions and shut up.

For the record, Blizzard games never brought any thing new to the table. They take established concepts and refine them until the game is fun and balanced. You contradict yourself by saying you were their core audience, and then bash their games which haven't even entered public beta yet.

Re:Late (1)

nobdoor (1496229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27867617)

It's better to adhere to tried and true game mechanics than drastically change the gameplay just for the sake of change. The game is called Starcraft2. It should retain the core mechanics of its predecessor because it's a sequel. My case in point is Dawn of War 2. Relic has alienated its core audience by making a game that doesn't resemble its successful predecessor. I consider DoW2 a sequel to DoW only in name. It should have been called something else, because its completely different from what came before it.

Re:Late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27868927)

they already said that the april fool jokes will be in the map editor. that means the transformers and the minotaur marines.

and truthfully, all i really wanted from stacraft II was SC1 with updated graphics. i *like* all the current units. i just wanted prettier graphics, new campaigns. i like the idea of new SP specific units though. and one or two new tricks per race would have been nice--but honestly, imo, SC1 is great as-is.

Re:Late (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863635)

I wanted to like C&C3 and RA3, but both of them used the same network code that doesn't seem to understand how to go through my NAT box, making online play impossible. I still don't understand how a game released in 2008 can be foiled by NAT, I mean it seems like the sort of thing the developers might have considered when making the game... Their online help is a total joke too. The diagnostic tools are from Ultima Online (which uses, as best I can tell, completely different net code) and they don't tell you anything useful.

Re:Late (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 5 years ago | (#27866001)

Forged Alliance! Woot! Nothing like that moment when your Commander goes up in a flash of white mushroom cloud!

At least Blizzard isn't just rendering the same units in 3-D, they're coming up with some interesting looking new units. The protoss have a War of the Worlds looking Stalker unit, and the Terrans have a transforming Land/Air unit that could be alot of fun.

Well.. (1)

hom3chuk (977560) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863209)

I'll definitely screw up with exams this month. Definitely. God bless Blizzard.

Starcraft II in beta... (4, Funny)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863213)

Well, there goes the remainder of my academic career. For Aiur!!

Re:Starcraft II in beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27865925)

What? Your wife's for hire?

Re:Starcraft II in beta... (1)

KingPin27 (1290730) | more than 5 years ago | (#27867587)

ADUN KALIFOS! FOR ADUN!

Beta Codes (2, Insightful)

AAMP31B (1287332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863261)

If you have the cards from Blizzcon or the World Wide Invitational you can use those for this beta too. Just use mine so once invites start going out should be getting mine.

Web site down _already_?! (1)

node159 (636992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863337)

Wow, I think thats the fastest slashdot'ing I have ever seen...

Re:Web site down _already_?! (1)

AAMP31B (1287332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863691)

I had problem getting to the site also, I had to go to "us.battle.net" instead of "www.battle.net" was kinda weird.

trouble signing up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863385)

I ran their program but it says it was unable to upload my system specs. i tried their suggestions, including disabling firewall, but still didn't work. this happen to anyone else?

Re:trouble signing up? (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863627)

I had that problem the first time I tried it, I just closed it and relaunched it... It then uploaded w/o problem.

No Linux? (3, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863437)

No Linux, no interest. I won't make my machines susceptible to zerg infection in order to play.

Re:No Linux? (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863689)

Yea, Blizzard is in for a big surprise if they think they'll ever be a successful company without officially supporting linux. /eyeroll

Re:No Linux? (2, Insightful)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864249)

Well, some number of us would certainly be happier if they shipped a linux version. They've always been about making the best product they can (and making scads of money in the meanwhile, of course), and it could be worth their while, though it's hard to estimate how many linux users would buy it.

That said, there's no point complaining, so I'm hoping to get it working in Wine, or else I'll throw a spare hard drive in my desktop and install Windows.

Re:No Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27868221)

I guess Blizzard is just full of idiots for supporting MacOS, right? Lots of companies have made highly successful non-Mac games so there can't possibly be any benefit for supporting MacOS, right?

Re:No Linux? (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864219)

On the other hand, I've heard they try to make their games run fine under WINE.

Re:No Linux? (2, Interesting)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864543)

This is because:
1. Every geek in the universe plays at least one Blizzard game and Linux geeks are no exception.
2. Blizzard games take so long to make they're technologically obsolete before they are released.

UNIX though (0, Redundant)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864611)

They've got UNIX covered though, that works for me.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html [apple.com]

"Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance -- complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software."

Tagged as "kekeke" (1)

hom3chuk (977560) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863623)

Really related one tag.

Yes! Now if we could only get a Duke Nukem Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863679)

But that should be easy to get. Duke Nukem has been in development for over 10 years. A beta is right around the corner.

Re:Yes! Now if we could only get a Duke Nukem Beta (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863913)

Unless 3D realms just went belly up... oh wait...

Are there riots in Korea ? (5, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863955)

Seriously, I am more scared of South Korea going ballistic over Starcraft 2 than North Korea having the technical aptitude to get an ICBM together.

Wait for the delay, then wait again... (0, Troll)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863985)

And welcome StarCraft Forever. Our new vaporware! What... Somebody have to take the place of DNF.

Re:Wait for the delay, then wait again... (1)

Ender Wiggin 77 (865636) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864883)

I don't recall being invited to a DNF beta program.

System Specs Error (1)

PHPNerd (1039992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864263)

I had to close Firefox to get the systems specifications application to send the info correctly. One Firefox was closed I re-ran the app. and it worked great.

Great service from Blizzard! (5, Interesting)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27864419)

I registered my old Starcraft cd-key from 1998 for the first time and was really surprised when a) it actually worked b) I could download a whole new installer with Brood War included. I had a similar surprise when I registered my old Half-Life cd-key with Steam and got all the HL1 based games for free.

It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27865155)

nouf said

Nooooo, what are you doing!! (1)

Mister_Stoopid (1222674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27865399)

More publicity = less chance of getting in... Let's try to keep this just between us, ok guys?

systemcheck doesn't work (1)

partowel (469956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27868507)

I've tried it several times.

It just doesn't work.

Anyone else have this problem?

Systemcheck is the name of executable which

probes your system specs to send to blizzard for

this beta of sc2.

Maybe my system just doesn't cut the cheese.

Linux? (1)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27869839)

They got a version for the Mac architecture... Yet no binaries that would run on GNU/Linux, bad bad bad Blizzard! You think I am going to buy a game I can't play?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>