Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
hey guys..I am looking for a Starcraft2 beta key!!!@ If anyone has one or knows where to get one I would love to talk to you!!! I am wanting to play this game soo bad because it is the shit, and I am spoiled and can't wait until August when it comes out Thanks in advance for any responses!!!@ xEvan
It comes out in July, the first phase of beta ends at the end of this month in like twelve days (Although there'll be another phase before launch presumably), and most locations like Gamestop offer a beta key with a preorder of either SC2 or it's collector's edition.
i have never played starcraft before so i dont understand why it's so popular is it anything like nfl madden or nba 2k10
you should try it man its really good!!!! its an rts so i dont' know if you have ever played those but they are worth checking out!!!@ and game stop is out of keys already, plus i am to impatient to wait until july. it comes out 7/27/10
The original star craft has tons of people playing it. There was 22,000 people playing the original star craft today I was shocked. .
Rocko wrote on Wed, 19 May 2010 22:12 i have never played starcraft before so i dont understand why it's so popular is it anything like nfl madden or nba 2k10 It's more like a mix between Chess and Piano. xEvan wrote on Wed, 19 May 2010 23:24 and game stop is out of keys already, plus i am to impatient to wait until july. it comes out 7/27/10 Did you call your local gamestop or did you try online? And Gamestop isn't the only retailer to offer a beta key with preorders. Most reputable sellers I've come across are doing something similar. I've heard people trying Amazon.com, but a good bet would be www.teamliquid.net, a StarCraft community that recently got the okay from Blizzard to sell preorders of SC2. You can find the appropriate thread on their website here.
I've my keys, got 3 from blizzard. Its quite easy to get into beta
FACEBUTT wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 04:19 I've my keys, got 3 from blizzard. Its quite easy to get into beta yah? could i possibly have one?!?! lol Dover: how are you multi-quoting? and i have checked everywhere..do you think its worth pre-ordering now? when i called gamestop they said they had sold all of their game keys and had limited pre-orders left..i know that best buy has them and so does toys-r-us. I looked at that forum and its just a link to amazon.
Yeah! i've also intresed in a key that works xEvan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 11:09 Dover: how are you multi-quoting? [quote title=xEvan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 11:09] this[/quote] Yes sir [quote title=xEvan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 11:09]is how its done[/quote] mhm looks like: xEvan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 11:09 this Yes sir xEvan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 11:09 is how its done mhm
well yah but how do you get to that point..i dunno much I have heard that there is a crack you can find..but i don't know how reliable that is
The crack doesn't let you play online. It just gives you access to the map editor and to some pretty awful AI opponents. Personally, I pre-ordered because I'm going to be buying the game anyway and the beta key is just a lovely little bonus.
Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:50 The crack doesn't let you play online. It just gives you access to the map editor and to some pretty awful AI opponents. Personally, I pre-ordered because I'm going to be buying the game anyway and the beta key is just a lovely little bonus. But do you get any hats for pre-ordering?
bakerrrr wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:39 Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:50 The crack doesn't let you play online. It just gives you access to the map editor and to some pretty awful AI opponents. Personally, I pre-ordered because I'm going to be buying the game anyway and the beta key is just a lovely little bonus. But do you get any hats for pre-ordering? lol
Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 03:46 It's more like a mix between Chess and Piano. I dunno. I think it's more like a cross between Chess and the accordion.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:12 Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 03:46 It's more like a mix between Chess and Piano. I dunno. I think it's more like a cross between Chess and the accordion. Accordions require at least 300 actions per minute?
Dover wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 02:28 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:12 Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 03:46 It's more like a mix between Chess and Piano. I dunno. I think it's more like a cross between Chess and the accordion. Accordions require at least 300 actions per minute? Having tried to play one, I'd say so. (For the complex stuff, but then equally I can play stuff on the piano at way less "APM", it just doesn't sound as good) On the accordion, you need to blow bellows, pick which instruments to imitate (via Church Organ esque "Stops") and press keys to select which notes.
ME and a lot of people emailed blizzard with crap like i have depression, can't live without keyz etc. Try
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 00:40 Dover wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 02:28 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:12 Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 03:46 It's more like a mix between Chess and Piano. I dunno. I think it's more like a cross between Chess and the accordion. Accordions require at least 300 actions per minute? Having tried to play one, I'd say so. (For the complex stuff, but then equally I can play stuff on the piano at way less "APM", it just doesn't sound as good) On the accordion, you need to blow bellows, pick which instruments to imitate (via Church Organ esque "Stops") and press keys to select which notes. Then I accept the analogy. FACEBUTT wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 02:09 ME and a lot of people emailed blizzard with crap like i have depression, can't live without keyz etc. Try Given how widely available keys are now, I doubt that will work, issues of morality aside.
well i got a beta Key, just didn't have the time to use it yet.
The beta closes the 31st for a few weeks. Get some playing in before then!
The first phase of beta. Presumably there's going to be another phase sometime between the closing and launch.
On top of the accordion requiring a lot of effort, it also looks really stupid. ie. It doesn't look as hard as it actually is.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 17:58 On top of the accordion requiring a lot of effort, it also looks really stupid. ie. It doesn't look as hard as it actually is. Then I reject your analogy. StarCraft is every bit as hard as it looks.
bakerrrr wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 18:39 Dover wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 17:50 The crack doesn't let you play online. It just gives you access to the map editor and to some pretty awful AI opponents. Personally, I pre-ordered because I'm going to be buying the game anyway and the beta key is just a lovely little bonus. But do you get any hats for pre-ordering? Mousepad ftw!
Dover wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 17:25 The first phase of beta. Presumably there's going to be another phase sometime between the closing and launch. Yes, "for a few weeks".
Dover wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010 04:26 R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 17:58 On top of the accordion requiring a lot of effort, it also looks really stupid. ie. It doesn't look as hard as it actually is. Then I reject your analogy. StarCraft is every bit as hard as it looks. probably harder i would say..especially sc2 its quicker and more like modern day rts such as supreme commander, or at least thats what comes to mind. RMCool13 wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 08:19 well i got a beta Key, just didn't have the time to use it yet. Can i have it?!
xEvan wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010 22:31 Dover wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010 04:26 R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 17:58 On top of the accordion requiring a lot of effort, it also looks really stupid. ie. It doesn't look as hard as it actually is. Then I reject your analogy. StarCraft is every bit as hard as it looks. probably harder i would say..especially sc2 its quicker and more like modern day rts such as supreme commander, or at least thats what comes to mind. RMCool13 wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 08:19 well i got a beta Key, just didn't have the time to use it yet. Can i have it?! You probably shouldn't be in too big of a hurry. They just released patch 13 yesterday which switches over from TCP to UDP, and they have a few issues to resolve before you can play with any kind of stability. Pre order a copy from someplace, get a key by tomorrow, and enjoy.
Youtube.. theres shitload of key contests. As i said ask blizz for key,works.
I might be the only person in this thread that is a bit disappointed with the game. Considering Star Craft is probably the most successful retail game in history, and it's about 12 years old now, it was expected that Blizzard wouldn't change much of the gameplay to keep the hardcore fanbase. Anyway, that's exactly what they did - I've got the beta, and I've played a few rounds online. Gameplay-wise, it's basically an expansion to Brood War. I loved Starcraft and played it for a few years, it is very well balanced and creative, but I expected more of a new game after 12 years. Starcraft 2 offers the same buildings, same units, same factions, even some of the same sounds, with a few minor changes here and there. A few things have been removed on other things have been added. That doesn't make it a bad game, since Starcraft 1 was great, but you can tell that Blizzard REALLY didn't want to take any risks with this game. The visual and audio presentation is great, but it's nothing ground breaking, and doesn't offer much new to the genre. I'm looking forward to the singleplayer cause I KNOW that it would be good. But I expected the multiplayer to be something other than a Starcraft remake with a few new units.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 10:29]I might be the only person in this thread that is a bit disappointed with the game. Considering Star Craft is probably the most successful retail game in history, and it's about 12 years old now, it was expected that Blizzard wouldn't change much of the gameplay to keep the hardcore fanbase. Anyway, that's exactly what they did - I've got the beta, and I've played a few rounds online. Gameplay-wise, it's basically an expansion to Brood War. I loved Starcraft and played it for a few years, it is very well balanced and creative, but I expected more of a new game after 12 years. Starcraft 2 offers the same buildings, same units, same factions, even some of the same sounds, with a few minor changes here and there. A few things have been removed on other things have been added. That doesn't make it a bad game, since Starcraft 1 was great, but you can tell that Blizzard REALLY didn't want to take any risks with this game. The visual and audio presentation is great, but it's nothing ground breaking, and doesn't offer much new to the genre. I'm looking forward to the singleplayer cause I KNOW that it would be good. But I expected the multiplayer to be something other than a Starcraft remake with a few new units. That's a pretty heavy charge you're leveling, and I expect you back it up with some evidence. Name one unit or building that is completely unchanged.
Zealots? I haven't said that the game isn't without its many slight changes and evolution, I'm saying its not enough of a new game to constitute the 12 year gap. I like SC2 just fine, and I think most people do, because its familiar. If you knew the old game, learning to play this one isn't a problem. Though the game is not enough of a sequel in my opinion. The build system and buildings are basically the same, except the Zerg's new usage of the Queen, and a couple new buildings per side. You're still collecting minerals and vespene the same way. More than half the units are right out of SC1 with some slight feature differences and upgrade differences. I think gameplay-wise, the jump from SC1 to Brood War is about the same size as the jump from Brood War to SC2. I am sure some hardcore SC1 players can spot more differences than me, and are very happy with the game because of its similarity to its prequel, but I don't think it leaves much for people like myself who played SC for a couple years and then eventually got bored of it. There isn't enough new content to reel me in for another couple years - maybe a couple weeks though. Graphically, I think C&C3 may look better overall, and that was 3 years ago. Also comes in the fact that they'll be selling the campaigns separately, which is probably going to be more than $150 all together for a game very similar to one I already have, and more people will continue playing.
xEvan wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 00:31 Dover wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010 04:26 R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 17:58 On top of the accordion requiring a lot of effort, it also looks really stupid. ie. It doesn't look as hard as it actually is. Then I reject your analogy. StarCraft is every bit as hard as it looks. probably harder i would say..especially sc2 its quicker and more like modern day rts such as supreme commander, or at least thats what comes to mind. RMCool13 wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 08:19 well i got a beta Key, just didn't have the time to use it yet. Can i have it?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRdAc0LEE5A On a serious note: A majority of the units are changed, new abilities for some units/buildings, scrapped a few buildings, took out some units and a few more added. Fobby, I fail to see where it is (for the most part) the same.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 15:45]Zealots? They have a new charge ability, and where before they were a mindless attack-move unit good for soaking up tank fire and spider mines away from your more valuable Dragoons and templar. In SC2, they now actually require a brilliant bit of micro (At very least, taking charge off autocast and using it/putting it back on at the appropriate moment) to use effectively. This change makes them smarter. The old zealot legs upgrade was passive, which is boring and requires less skill and flair to use successfully. Additionally, because the other units that used to make up the majority of the Protoss forces (Dragoons) don't exist, zealots are now much less of a dumb meatshield and more a proper melee attack unit. For example, in Brood War it takes three to four zerglings to take down one zealot. In SC2, the zealot can easily overcome that same number of zerglings, regardless of the zergling having no stats changed and the zealot losing 10 shields between Brood War and SC2. tl;dr - Old zealot = Hurr durr 1a2a3a hope my dragoons don't die New zealot = a smart proper attacking unit that requires at least some skill to properly field. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 15:45] I haven't said that the game isn't without its many slight changes and evolution, I'm saying its not enough of a new game to constitute the 12 year gap. Oh but it is, and more! If you mean the units, there has only been four years in in-game lore time between Brood War and SC2. It would be unreasonable to expect there are no similarities. If you mean the game itself, the editor is more powerful than anything Blizzard has put out, the engine is fully 3D and beautiful, complete with a physics engine. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 15:45] I like SC2 just fine, and I think most people do, because its familiar. If you knew the old game, learning to play this one isn't a problem. Though the game is not enough of a sequel in my opinion. The build system and buildings are basically the same, except the Zerg's new usage of the Queen, and a couple new buildings per side. You're still collecting minerals and vespene the same way. More than half the units are right out of SC1 with some slight feature differences and upgrade differences. Funny enough, between 1/3 and 1/2 of the current beta testers have never played Brood War (Depending on what one considers "playing Brood War" to mean. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 15:45] I think gameplay-wise, the jump from SC1 to Brood War is about the same size as the jump from Brood War to SC2. I am sure some hardcore SC1 players can spot more differences than me, and are very happy with the game because of its similarity to its prequel, but I don't think it leaves much for people like myself who played SC for a couple years and then eventually got bored of it. There isn't enough new content to reel me in for another couple years - maybe a couple weeks though. Given how incorrect you've been about your assessment of SC2 and the comparisons you draw to Brood War, you couldn't be more wrong. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 15:45] Graphically, I think C&C3 may look better overall, and that was 3 years ago. Also comes in the fact that they'll be selling the campaigns separately, which is probably going to be more than $150 all together for a game very similar to one I already have, and more people will continue playing. lolwut. SC2 looks much better than C&C 3.
starcraft is an overrated game that only koreans like
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Command+And+Conquer&am p;word2=StarCraft C&C must be a pretty miserable series, then.
Quote: They have a new charge ability, and where before they were a mindless attack-move unit good for soaking up tank fire and spider mines away from your more valuable Dragoons and templar. In SC2, they now actually require a brilliant bit of micro (At very least, taking charge off autocast and using it/putting it back on at the appropriate moment) to use effectively. This change makes them smarter. The old zealot legs upgrade was passive, which is boring and requires less skill and flair to use successfully. This is reflective of the entire game. Essentially, you're still playing with zealots, marines, zerglings, hydralisks, carriers, battle cruisers, vulture-type vehicles, siege tanks, photon canons, bunkers, same factions, etc., but they've got new features like "they can charge at shit!" which rationalizes the big 2 in Starcraft 2. I understand that these features, as small as they may seem to me, creates a detrimental difference in gameplay to hardcore fans of the first game, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm saying that I don't need gameplay changes and tweaks, I need a new game, and to me, adding such features to existing units, and adding or replacing 4 units per faction does not constitute a new game. Some of the new units aren't all that new either, like the Dragoon replacement is similar in many ways to its predecessor (both looks and usage). What I was looking forward to originally was something fresh - for example, Warcraft 3 was a proper sequel to WC2, as it added a (couple?) new factions, and some new features to the RTS genre in general. Tiberian Sun too was nothing like Tiberian Dawn. Judging from the end of Brood War, it seemed like a lot could have changed - the Protoss seemed almost extinct at that point, and the introduction of the New Xel'Naga made me hope for a new faction. Quote: Funny enough, between 1/3 and 1/2 of the current beta testers have never played Brood War (Depending on what one considers "playing Brood War" to mean. That's my point - to a large audience of beta testers, this is all very new. To the hardcore SC1 fans like yourself, this is the perfect game, because it offers the same skeleton formula of a game with a different shell to keep it fresh, but not "too different" to feel alienated. To people who've simply played SC1 back when it was new, and eventually got bored of it (like all games after excessive gaming) there isn't enough new mechanics to reel me in for another 3 years and $150+ after 12 years of waiting. Quote: lolwut. SC2 looks much better than C&C 3. It really depends on what art style you prefer, but graphically, let's compare C&C3 (which was also graphically lacking in 2007), World in Conflict (higher standard in 2007), and Starcraft 2 (2010): C&C3: World in Conflict Starcraft 2
Starcraft 2 looks pretty good in those screenshots imo.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06]This is reflective of the entire game. Essentially, you're still playing with zealots, marines, zerglings, hydralisks, carriers, battle cruisers, vulture-type vehicles, siege tanks, photon canons, bunkers, same factions, etc., but they've got new features like "they can charge at shit!" which rationalizes the big 2 in Starcraft 2. Obviously they're the same. It's a game set in the same universe as the first, only four years later. What were you expecting, exactly? [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06]I understand that these features, as small as they may seem to me, creates a detrimental difference in gameplay to hardcore fans of the first game, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm saying that I don't need gameplay changes and tweaks, I need a new game, and to me, adding such features to existing units, and adding or replacing 4 units per faction does not constitute a new game. It's a game set in the same universe as the first, only four years later. What were you expecting, exactly? [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06] Some of the new units aren't all that new either, like the Dragoon replacement is similar in many ways to its predecessor (both looks and usage). Wrong again. The dragoon was, again, a mindless attack-move unit. It was sturdy, strong against most targets, relatively cheap, at a low teir, and easy and effective to mass produce. The stalker is much more fragile, requires a lot of teching to unlock it's full potential, and is centered around clever micromanagement with the blink ability rather than just A-moving into the enemy army. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06]What I was looking forward to originally was something fresh - for example, Warcraft 3 was a proper sequel to WC2, as it added a (couple?) new factions, and some new features to the RTS genre in general. Tiberian Sun too was nothing like Tiberian Dawn. And both games have been considered turning points (in a bad way) for the series. WarCraft III, while fun to play, is considered to have butchered WarCraft storyline and set the stage for the lore-shitfest that is World of Warcraft. Tiberian Sun, too, fucked up C&C lore in many key ways. Why would you want to model an RTS on those examples? Especially if the original StarCraft is more successful than both of them combined. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06]Judging from the end of Brood War, it seemed like a lot could have changed - the Protoss seemed almost extinct at that point, and the introduction of the New Xel'Naga made me hope for a new faction. Hardly. What would make you think they were extinct? They lost Auir, sure, but they were by no means limited to that one planet. In Brood War you have an entire budding Protoss civilization on Shakuras. The Xel'Naga will be making an appearance in the campaign, but why is it a big deal to have them playable? They're supposed to be a race of godlike life-givers. To have them be playable would be as ridiculous as having the Burning Legion playable in WarCraft 3. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06]That's my point - to a large audience of beta testers, this is all very new. To the hardcore SC1 fans like yourself, this is the perfect game, because it offers the same skeleton formula of a game with a different shell to keep it fresh, but not "too different" to feel alienated. To people who've simply played SC1 back when it was new, and eventually got bored of it (like all games after excessive gaming) there isn't enough new mechanics to reel me in for another 3 years and $150+ after 12 years of waiting. Then don't buy it. Stick to C&C 3 or some Red Alert 3 or some other garbage, or keep changing games every six months. I don't care. One would think that the release of best RTS since StarCraft 1 would be enough to "reel you in", but to each his own. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:06]It really depends on what art style you prefer, but graphically, let's compare C&C3 (which was also graphically lacking in 2007), World in Conflict (higher standard in 2007), and Starcraft 2 (2010): pictures C&C3: World in Conflict Starcraft 2 Those StarCraft 2 screenshots are from the pre-beta stages. The current game looks nothing like that, and it will look nothing like it does now when it's released (There have already been many graphical changes since the beta began). Even on the lowest settings, the graphics on the current beta-test build are leaps and bounds above the pictures you've found.
trolling aside, I actually have to agree with Fobby on the graphics. Blizzard's never been known for their fantastic graphics- no reason to go up in arms because someone said it doesn't look that great. Which, it doesn't, but it has one thing C&C3 heavily lacked- unit recognization. It might seem like a small gripe, but even after a good while of playing C&C3, it takes me a long while to know which unit is which, and what unit does what. I have a feeling I'll be able to instantly know what every SC2 unit does, which is really nice.
Nothing can have worse unit recognition than C&C4. C&C3's units were actually rather distinct and Kane's Wrath was able to keep that constant despite introducing quite a few new units (especially in terms of infantry).
C&C 3 design is far better then SC2 and WiC. Ea put a lot work into graphics and made game looking really cool for another years, however left without support. Kanes wrath and TW still has CW and community increases with every "come back guy from past". SC2 graphics and design looks better then thos eyou've posted in SS. I like sc2 graphic but IMO C&C3 and KW design is godly compared to SC2. As for SC1, ive played 2 years and got dissapointed from "skill balance" which is required most for terran. Protoss is pretty easy to play,but zerg gives some difficulties. Even if that balance is ALMOST perfect, from that what i have heard people say late Toss doesn't give a chance to terran.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 23 May 2010 22:09 starcraft is an overrated game that only koreans like Well, not. SC is drug for European players.
FACEBUTT wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010 01:48 C&C 3 design is far better then SC2 and WiC. Ea put a lot work into graphics and made game looking really cool for another years, however left without support. Kanes wrath and TW still has CW and community increases with every "come back guy from past". SC2 graphics and design looks better then thos eyou've posted in SS. I like sc2 graphic but IMO C&C3 and KW design is godly compared to SC2. I'll just pretend you didn't just say this. FACEBUTT wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010 01:48 As for SC1, ive played 2 years and got dissapointed from "skill balance" which is required most for terran. Protoss is pretty easy to play,but zerg gives some difficulties. Even if that balance is ALMOST perfect, from that what i have heard people say late Toss doesn't give a chance to terran. The term for a player who uses perceived imbalances as a crutch for losses is "scrub". If you followed Brood War's competitive history you would know that the racial balance has shifted several times, with no race maintaining a sizable advantage over the others for any extended period of time. The solution is to play better or to quit. That's the mark of a truly great game. Balanced on such a razor-thin edge that victory or defeat lies solely in the hands of the player, and entertaining enough to keep the player base motivated to improve for over a decade. You shouldn't be disappointed with the "skill balance" of the game. You should be disappointed with yourself for being a quitter and for trying to excuse your failures by passing blame on to the game. As for Terran being unable to overcome Protoss in the late game, By.FlaSh would like a word with you. The match starts at around 1:45.
FACEBUTT wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010 03:48 C&C 3 design is far better then SC2 and WiC. 10/10, fuck you although, I do think WiC is utter and complete shit, but fuck, C&C3 is only SLIGHTLY better than it. it's like comparing a piece of shit with a slightly smaller piece of shit
This seems like a prime opportunity to point out that top C&C 3 players are leaving their game to play go to Korea to play StarCraft 2.
Dover wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:28 This seems like a prime opportunity to point out that top C&C 3 players are leaving their game to play go to Korea to play StarCraft 2. I'm sorta surprised they didn't move to RA3...
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 06:38 Dover wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:28 This seems like a prime opportunity to point out that top C&C 3 players are leaving their game to play go to Korea to play StarCraft 2. I'm sorta surprised they didn't move to RA3... Yeah, you're right. Since they're both fucking awful games, it would be like they're hardly moving at all.
Dover wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:51 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 06:38 Dover wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:28 This seems like a prime opportunity to point out that top C&C 3 players are leaving their game to play go to Korea to play StarCraft 2. I'm sorta surprised they didn't move to RA3... Yeah, you're right. Since they're both fucking awful games, it would be like they're hardly moving at all. Still have yet to play RA3, but it seems to me like it's a bit undeserving of the hate it gets. Why exactly do you hate it, anyways?
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 07:17 Dover wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:51 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 06:38 Dover wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:28 This seems like a prime opportunity to point out that top C&C 3 players are leaving their game to play go to Korea to play StarCraft 2. I'm sorta surprised they didn't move to RA3... Yeah, you're right. Since they're both fucking awful games, it would be like they're hardly moving at all. Still have yet to play RA3, but it seems to me like it's a bit undeserving of the hate it gets. Why exactly do you hate it, anyways? Because it continues in the tradition of RA2 and YR of ruining what could have been an amazing series started by RA1. I still can't explain to myself how they went from a serious look at what could have been and the fragility of history through an alternate reality to "LOLZ LOOK AT HIS COMMUNIST UNDERWAREZ LOLZ!!1!". RA3 just keeps up this tradition of a "wacky, zaney, bonky" atmosphere, which isn't what I want when I lead the soviets to victory. It's condescending AND childish, at the same time. In addition, like all C&C games this side of Generals, it's simply a game of "make a million tanks and then attack move". It almost isn't fair to call that a Real Time Strategy, since there's little Strategy to be found, and it's only Real Time in the same sense that baseball is. Take the time to watch that last video. It's only ten minutes or so. 3-5 minutes in Apollo makes some kind of reference to how bad he was at RTSes because he played C&C, what he refers to as "A newbie game". If these are the words of the top C&C 3 player, winner of the gold medal in C&C 3 at WCG 2007, the person who's figured out the game the most, what hope does the game have?
nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 16:27 This thread is terrible. Blame the faggots that had to bring up this C&C 3 and RA 3 garbage.