We're hardly two days out from the launch of StarCraft 2 and one-star users reviews are flooding the internet alongside five-star (and numerical equivalent) professional reviews. Here are the top three complaints making the rounds.
1) Lack of an offline mode -- 'No LAN support!'
Why it's an issue: Multiplayer PC gaming was defined by local area network connections, especially in the days when many people didn't have high speed internet connections to support online play. With no offline mode and no way to connect to other players other than through the internet, gamers are out of luck if Battle.net goes down or they lose their internet connection for some reason. Also, no more LAN parties.
Why Blizzard might think it's not: Battle.net is supposed to be awesome enough to replace the need for LAN, and by being always-online, it's easier to track and prevent piracy.
2) You can only play one faction -- 'What, did I buy 1/3 of a game?!'
Why it's an issue: There are three factions in StarCraft 2 and at present, consumers can only complete the Terran faction campaign. Blizzard intends to add the other two factions' campaigns with Legacy of the Void and Heart of the Swarm, but many consumers are angry that they might have to pay a lot of money for those add ons. Some also argue that the Terran campaign isn't substantial enough for a singleplayer experience by itself.
Why Blizzard might think it's not: By breaking up the campaigns, Blizzard can ration resources so that each campaign gets high quality cinema scenes and well-balanced units. And while it does seem like a money-grubbing tactic, it's not like Blizzard hid the fact that only the Terrans were playable in Wings of Liberty.
3) It does a lot of stuff PC gamers aren't used to, but console gamers are -- 'You want me to pay how much?' / 'What do you mean I can't play international matches?'
Why it's an issue: PC gamers are used to $30 games with the freedom to take on other players from around the world through online matches. Asking them to pay twice as much for a game that does only half of what they're used to (by region locking them) is understandably jarring.
Why Blizzard might think it's not: This is their fist major game release in a long time and games are more expensive now that ever. $60 is par for the course in every other market, as is region-locking. Besides, different regions have different needs -- it's easier for Blizzard to address stuff like Korean or U.S. privacy regulations in-game if the regions are kept apart.
Now for some stuff that either is being addressed or doesn't really count as constructive criticism:
'This is all Activision's fault!' -- Blizzard made it clear that it calls its own shots.
'There are no chat rooms!' -- That's getting patched soon.
'I can't find my way around the user interface!' / 'I don't like the way the units work compared to the old game.' -- Everyone who liked StarCraft the way it was will obvious have some adjusting to do. It's been 12 years, right?
'Why do I have to use my real name when I create an account?' -- The world of online gaming is at the point where Blizzard feels it needs to know whose name is on the credit card paying for the game. Blizzard also used to feel that it needed to know what that name was on the forums, but they've since backed down from that.
Dave's Take: Even IF I liked the crappy genre of RTS in the first place, this is unacceptable. It sounds like they're crippling games in the name of piracy prevention when in FACT IT'S LAZINESS, GREED AND COWARDICE. The mainstays of modern gaming developers!
No comments:
Post a Comment