Starcraft II (Page 1 of 3)

If I went back and added it up, I'd probably find that I've lost years of my life to playing Starcraft. Even more to Diablo II.

just got a free pass version from a buddy burning thought my 7 hours, got to say even thought i suck at it great game, sorry not art, but a wicked fun game.

My boy Phill Gonzalez is one of the artists on that game.  He designed most of the Terran buildings.

Jeff, what planet did you grow up on exactly? 60 bucks is about the average, note AVERAGE, price you can expect to be paying for new games these days. I'm surprised it's only 60 bucks, with the hype around it they could have gone much higher.

No I haven't bought it and probably won't, this is part because I'm a broke as all shit student and I'm not really a game guy.

It does depend on what you're use to. I'm a very casual gamer, and usually wait for prices to drop. Any desire to pay full day one price disappeared when they finally released a Mac version of Steam and put games on sale for under $10 $35 is probably the max I'd pay for a game, and then it has to be something like The Sims or Civilization where I know I'll get years of playing out of it...

But, Goldeneye probably cost $60 when it came out. Cart games justified the high cost because the extra memory chips did add an expense companies really had to pass on to consumers. I agree, older games are just as fun, but it's like shaking your head at those paying $30 for a new book when 100 year old ones are free online

Whelp, I decided what-the-heck, and shelled out the sixty bucks. Now a hideous Jim Raynor is staring out at me with dead eyes.

The game itself seems fun enough so far, but wow, these cinematic interludes are ugly.

I guess it's just an alignment-of-incentives problem for me. I don't care enough about games to fathom spending more than ten bucks on one, is probably the real bit of it.

The defaults for my laptop, which I think are "medium" all the way across the board. The opening cinematic was very nice — if ironmanny, but didn't I see it circulating on the Web before Iron Man was released? — but the scenes with Raynor in the bar are really bad CG. Maybe it's all real-time rendered or something, which raises the question of my-god-why. Quantity over quality or something? I'd skip them, if I weren't such a whore for plot.

And as for it being a better game than Goldeneye, I can't say yet. I spent sooooo much time at my best friend's house after his divorce playing Goldeneye with him, or just keeping him company while he played. Video-game therapy is what that was. I mean, it's fun so far (after the first two missions), but for me it's too early to say.

For me, it boils down to the simplistic and undefinable notion of "worth it." To pick a topic that's come up on the forum recently, I think I paid $20 or so for my DVD of The Fountain. Maybe it was even less, like $15 or whatever; I honestly don't remember. But my hand to god, I would have paid a hundred. Maybe even two hundred. I love the movie just that much.

Yes, I dropped sixty bucks on this game, and I might end up regretting it somewhat. Like you, Teague, I'm just not a video-game guy for the most part. I can probably count on both hands the total number of video games I've ever played in my entire life. But so far I've heard nothing but good things about this one, and it's a very lazy weekend, and sixty bucks really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, so … well, here we are.

Very true, but I was responding to your comment regarding shaking your head at those willing to pay for new things: "...isn't that a valid thing to do?"

I say, no The old and cheap is here because people paid for it when it was new and expensive. But, now that I think of it, you're young enough that this stuff in fact is "new" and cheap where as us older farts already enjoyed those old games and want something fresh much of the time.