| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (12)

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 5:24PM shadodw024 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok,now that I saw that screen with tons of Zerg on it, makes me actually want to play it...
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 5:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The last point Pardo wanted to make before the panel was open to questions was about the evolution of Battle.net. With the release of SC2, Battle.net will be transformed to become what they hope is the premiere gaming platform for PC online play."

Makes it seem like, to me, that they're going to start charging for Battle.net.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 6:11PM WiiFTW said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I hope not. My guess is that they'll change it to make it more Steam/XBL-like so that its easy to use with lots of functionality.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 8:22PM EngadgetSoFunny said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think so. There isn't really much justification for a mmorpg-like fee for this game. There's no really large bandwidth transactions. Its more like a queury for available servers with 2vs2 BGH in the title than anything else. There's very little client to server communication except packets of 100-200k when searching for games and even smaller packets when starting/ending games.

Once the game match is started, the hosting is done on a local machine and the data transfered between players and not through Blizzard's battle.net servers. I think your reading words into something that's not there.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 6:44PM secura said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel like I'm missing something....I've never played a Diablo or Starcraft game.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 6:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow... are you really young or have you just started to find out about computer games?

To answer your question: Yes, you are missing out on something. Your homework for this weekend is to play Diablo 2 and Starcraft. Then write me a two page essay on why these games were revolutionary for their time.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 10:33PM kamanashi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You are missing 2 of the best games ever. StarCraft was amazing. Diablo 2 basically created a fantastic world that you could explore.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2008 12:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't bother.

They may have been revolutionary for their time (though thats debatable) but they haven't aged well. What they were was very well polished and well balanced versions of games that have existed for much longer. Great balance, but pretty repetitive gameplay.
Reply

Posted: Jun 30th 2008 4:00PM Larz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
t_m, your argument doesn't hold up. Well, maybe you're right that Starcraft hasn't aged well... but Diablo 2 is still alive and well. I know lots of people who still play it.

And there's about 10 million people playing a game which just copied and pasted the Diablo 2 mechanics / classes / abilities. Maybe you've heard of it: World of Warcraft.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 6:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The screenshots are a big turn off to me. The game looking nothing like the original. It looks too cartoony... Too much like WarCraft. But either way i'm buying it but it could look nicer.

Diablo 3... Can't wait
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2008 8:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Can't help nitpicking, but Dan probalby hasn't played as Zerg or even StarCraft1 too much. They're called *NYDUS* cannals and worms. There is no such thing as Nitus anything.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2008 3:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
SCV good to go, sir!
Ready to roll out!
Got a light?
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Portabliss: Time Ducks (iOS)

Posted on Feb 7th 2012 9:00PM

Portabliss: Sticky Bees (iOS)

Posted on Feb 6th 2012 9:00PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW