Jump to content

Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weeliljimmy (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 28 September 2010 (→Update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good topic starStarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is part of the StarCraft titles series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted

JUNE 15th, 2010 - European launch of Starcraft II revealed

Starcraft 2 will be available for purchase on June 15th, 2010 in Europe. This is the official European launch date. This information has been sent to various retail suppliers some days ago. I think the Wiki folks won't update the release date section in the article until a press announcement for the general public has been made, but you'll see that this info is correct. this info is incorrect.

Please fix translations INTO PORTUGUESE

The game will be translated into portuguese as well [1]

Criticism of absence of lan play, region locking, and absence of chat rooms

i edited the article yesterday and had my edit reverted. the subject was criticism of sc2, specifically the absence of LAN play, region locking, and no chat rooms.

i am very new to wikipedia, and i was actually just figuring out the code to use in putting refferences among other things. after communicating with the editor who reverted my work, he/she agreed that my source was valid, but suggested that i submit it to the talk page for approval of the group that is monitoring the sc2 page. the text of my edit is below. the reference is an interview with professional starcraft and starcraft 2 players, posted on the starcraft news site teamliquid. the interview was posted with the ability for teamliquid users to post comments on it ala forums, but it is not a forum post. further, the actual facts of the information like region locking and no lan play are all confirmed by blizzard and may actually already be part of the sc2 wiki article. i will be refining this edit in the near future and resubmitting it with better attribution, but i would appreciate any feedback the edit team has on this subject.

There has been extensive criticism of Blizzard and it's new owner Activision over their decision to eliminate all LAN (local area network) play, as well region locking the title so that a player with a North American copy will not be able to play against a player with an Asian copy. It is widely believed that these two decisions will tremendously hinder efforts to develop a long term Starcraft 2 community, and the absence of LAN play especially will make it impossible for the game to become a global E-sport in the style of it's predecessor.

There has also been an enormous outcry from fans about the absence of chat channels, which was later exasperated by poorly chosen comments from blizzard representatives.

source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=129301

if necessary i can dig up some blizzard sources for the features that are intentionally left out.

Jeremysaint (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on behalf of Jeremysaint (talk · contribs) by TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure here. In this case, an interview of these well-known (or at least relatively) players constitutes that they have concerns. The post itself, I believe, might be considered a reliable source, and I'll look into it more. However, it becomes difficult as to say whether the edit you made is a synthesis of their opinions, and the popular opinion on the forums. I'll give everything a quick look. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Team Liquid (or any other similar site), as covered in an above section, is not a reliable source. Its a fan community forum, not a proper encyclopedic secondary source. -- Sabre (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Came to the same conclusion. Although the source may be true, it is not a reliable source per guidelines. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Team Liquid is not a fan site or community forum, it is the homepage for a professional team. From our policy on reliable sources: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article". ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed and reworded to try and get this to a NPOV. Also, there was a reference to a gamespot article about petitions,etc., which just said there was no LAN. Please ensure that your source is reliable and covers the material being added to the article. Revaluation (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be reasonable to start a separate Reception section now, if suitable sources can be found. Although creating a new section simply for the reception of the beta would normally be overkill, it can be expected that the section will be expanded in the next couple of weeks. Considering the prevalence and significance of the beta release, it would make sense to keep the beta reception in the article at least for the next few months. The section would start out something like "With the release of the beta version, gaming news magazines observed that..." or something like that. Later, after the retail version gets significant coverage, the second paragraph of that section would read "After the game's main retail release on July 27th, 2010, ..." continuing on to give either a supporting or contrasting reception of the final build. What we're missing now are suitable sources on the beta reception. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i edited out an error.

i have used the editor in the latest beta version. i didnt need to go online to use it.

Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm

I started work on a page for the first expansion, Heart of the Swarm. Not sure exactly how to link you guys there directly, perhaps this will work well enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woolysockofdoom/StarCraft_II:_Heart_of_the_Swarm

I'd like to hear some thoughts. woolysockofdoom (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a decent introduction from which to build start the article off when we get some meat on the Heart of the Swarm bone, so good job there. Hopefully Blizzard will start talking about the expansion fairly soon after release, so we can get an article underway. -- Sabre (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already know the game will incorporate elements of RPG like games right? You could add that. Also, It would be a safe bet that the system requirements will be similar to the ones used for SCII:WoL. That could be safely added to the in development version you have going at the moment. Just my two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has yet to be an official announcement from Blizzard yet about the supposedly expansion pack, so it's a little early to be giving it a Wikipedia page already, don't you think? Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. That's why StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm is currently a redirect. The draft above is just that: a draft. -- Sabre (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 August the redirect was changed into a full article, in case anyone didn't know. SouthH (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, as Allthenamesarealreadytaken noted, its far too early for an article. Especially if all that article is going to do is rehash the plot of this game in an overly detailed in-universe style, with the only real-world development information redundant as its already in this one. I've put that back as a redirect. -- Sabre (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if they're not confirmed why are they mentioned in this article's intro? I know this is a potential gray area that might fall into crystal balling, but I tend to think a short article like the draft above would be reasonable at this time. They're upcoming video games almost certain to be released over the next year or so (right?), which seem to me to put them in the category of many other upcoming games such as Civilization 5, Rage and so on. TastyCakes (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that someone changed it back to an article again. SouthH (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon reviews can not be used as reliable resources in an encyclopaedia article.

The headline says it all. Amazon is basically a glorified forum, and what some random person says on Amazon is not notable. I have done a lot of editing on book articles, and I know Amazon is not allowed as a resource for criticism on books. I think there is even a policy article about amazon specifically, but I can't find it.

Of course, I don't care what this article says about the reception of Starcraft 2, as my own feelings are mixed. All I am saying is: find a better resource.

Spinach Dip 05:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Amazon reviews are user-contributed and as such fail the requirements for reliable sources. That's all the policy one needs to remove them from any article. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the actual source for that was another site that was actually like a tech news site. Not sure if a reliable source reporting on amazon reviews makes it notable or not though. —Torchiest talk/contribs 16:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right; this is why I reverted the removal. The Amazon reviews aren't being used as a source; a reliable, secondary source about the reviews is. SoWhy's edit makes this more explicit. —Korath (Talk) 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a week and they'll be plenty of legitimate reviews out to fill the reception. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

give a month and any shred of criticism will be replaced with a "universal praise" remark. The source is legitimate enough, yet I doubt it'll survive here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.40.8 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I'm watching this article. Games that are quite clearly going to get a lot of critical praise with a hardcore, almost religious like fanbase but make sure it's reception section is neutral by wiki standards. That's what I do usually. It's hard at first but it gets done in the end. The best route is write one big normal fully cited recpetion section in one go, ths rendering any new comments (mostly likely absolute praise) redundant. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the large amount of hate leveled at a popular game, as shown recently. If a game gets mostly positive reviews, the reception has to reflect that. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The negative amazon reviews are full of innacuracies, as if some anti-DRM guys just rushed to make the negative reviews. For example, you do not need to login to battle net to do single player things like playing the campaign or watching replays. It is necessary to activate the copy, but that's a one-time deal and is almost as 'bad' as putting a cd-key during installation. The rants about it being only 1/3 of the game are completely unrealistic as in comparison to SC1, the campaign is much longer and more varied. Some guys even complain about not being able to rewind replays which is completely possible. There are of course, some legitimate rants about the lack of LAN and the region-lock are pretty bad though. But overall Amazon reviews are not very reliable in this case.190.103.71.33 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative reviews

Hey all,

A recent edit of mine using an RS of a negative review of SC2 was undone recently.

Here was the original edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty&diff=376243669&oldid=376239680

The removal occurred here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty&diff=376247787&oldid=376246742

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty&diff=376246742&oldid=376243746

I don't want to get into an edit war, but there wasn't any clear reasoning for why the review was removed. This is an encyclopedia, we need to stay WP:NPOV and cannot take sides. I personally love starcraft and starcraft 2, but the negative reviews have just as much of a place in this article as the positive reviews.

Lets keep this discussion open and stay NPOV.

Zuchinni one (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Softsailor.com a reliable source? Any review, whether positive or negative (we should probably be levelling this same question at MEGamers too, for instance), must meet our sourcing standards, that means with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and some degree of editorial oversight and/or peer review. As far as I can tell, Softsailor is a blog by a bunch of techies, therefore needs to meet the self-published source criteria for being an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but a search of wider sources through engines like Google Scholar show its not been cited as a source by authoritive works elsewhere.
Negative reviews will come and should be included, but they have to come from reliable sources, not from any site we find on the net that happens to contain negative comments. Do also bear in mind that any decent reviewer will still be working on their review; its still too close to release for a full critical appraisal yet, thanks to Blizzard's pre-release media blackout. -- Sabre (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Soft Sailor is just as legitimate as the other reviews currently out there, if not more so since they review all sorts of technology and software. I'm a huge supporter of WP:RS but reviews of media are going to fall under Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion and thus I think that both Soft Sailor and MEGamers are valid here. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be concerned with negative reviews getting removed in gernal, not on my watch. But in reality, it's most likely just going to get replaced, and in this recent case the inclusion of that image was very unnecessary. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say that the SoftSailor review shouldn't be used. I think whether it counts as a reliable source could swing either way, but considering there are blatant errors in fact in the article, combined with the fact that there are many, many more vetted and undeniably reliable reviews to draw from, means we can be choosy about using only the best sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a section for e-sports?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2010/07/29/128846098/starcraft-placeholder

Check out the above link. It's clear that the media has noticed that Starcraft:Broodwar was a major e-sport (especially in S. Korea), and it looks like SC2 might be following suit.

Any thoughts on adding a section about the pro-scene or e-sports?

Zuchinni one (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I've added a new section for e-Sports. I think its a good start but I'm happy for others to add in things that I may have missed. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race Capitalization

Should the names of the races (i.e., protoss, terran, zerg) in the game be capitalized? I've noticed Blizzard doesn't capitalize them in the game's subtitles or on the official website. See [2], [3], and [4]. sdornan (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been capitalising them here for years. I'd just stick with keeping them capitalised, it keeps it consistent across the site that way. -- Sabre (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think they should be capitalized, since Blizzard doesn't capitalize them. It also conforms with written English in general. We don't capitalize humans, chimpanzees, tigers, or whales, which are all species/races. —Torchiest talk/contribs 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the names of other fictional races are usually capitalised, presumably in the same vein a nationality is. Klingon, Wookie, Eldar, Dalek, Cylon, Goa'uld, to pick some names from other sci-fi stuff. This trend of using lower-case is a rather recent thing for Blizzard, they always used to capitalise the names. -- Sabre (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Blizzard is the bottom line on this, if they don't capitalize the names I don't see why we should. TastyCakes (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Discussion

I've added more scores and quotes from what little we have so far. While it would seem at the moment the cons are a major issue reviewers have found due to the size of it in relation to the pros, don't bother trying to change it since when more reviews come in, the pros will just end up being expanded. Also I'd recommend using the full referencing method now. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Article: Upon its release StarCraft II was met with a 'positive reception' with an average critic score of 97/100 at Metacritic. Shouldn't it be 'Universal Acclaim'? 89.114.56.249 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the reviews are out yet (including many major sites) so it's possible a few negative ones could still arrive. The average score will most likely remain very high though. ShardPhoenix (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as we like the game "Universal Acclaim" is just wrong. There are a number of negative reviews and there are a lot of people upset with missing features. Zuchinni one (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time however "people" means a portion of the general fanbase. We need to wait for more reviews so we can quote legitimate criticisms yet we also need to maintain the balance that by wiki standards would means more sway to the positive since that's what it's getting so far. I'd leave the opening just "positive" for now as correctly said there are little reviews out so far. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Metacritic.com lists it under Universal Acclaim not Positive Reception and it will stay at Universal Acclaim till it hits 89 metascore. Most games have around 50 reviews listed on Metacritic.com and StarCraft 2 already has 25, it would need atleast 25 more reviews all with score under 83 in order for the metascore to go under 90. Then and only then it will only have Positive Reception. Based on the current reviews it is highly unlikely that it will go under 90 metascore. 89.114.56.249 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you're right, we're currently working on the "what if" aspect of wiki rules since the section is under development and the reception always seems to cause the most controversy. I wouldn't worry though, in a week it will be established. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Metacritic and wikipedia have different definitions for "Universal Acclaim" Zuchinni one (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with Metacritic is deciding 7 is a mixed score (which is bad to most people but good for reviewers), although that issue isn't the case here. Stabby Joe (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe IGN has released their verdict on the game, though I can't access the website right now. FragKrag (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9.0, outstanding, editor's choice. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There have been plenty of negative reviews written for it on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Starcraft-II-Wings-Liberty-Pc/product-reviews/B000ZKA0J6/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.148.180 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

controversy

The lack of chat rooms, cross-region play, cross-game chat, LAN, being released as one third of the game it should be, $60 instead of $50, and several other Battle.net 2.0 and StarCraft II criticisms should be added.--SaturnElite (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There already have been... for a while actually. Is anyone here going looking at the reception with neutral eyes? Stabby Joe (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some minor edit warring of both positive and negative reviews ... not sure if its because people are trying to make a point but I tend to stick with WP:faith Zuchinni one (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've just been adding new points, so far pros to the reception as they come in without any "edit warring" so far. True, we did when it started but I think it's died down... for now. Stabby Joe (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Theres actually alot of controversy coming from custom mapmakers due to imposed restrictions from many angles. 20mb overall map space limit, 10mb map space limit, 5 maps only , popularity system blocks new ppl from joining newly published games. complicated map editor , inappropriate content filter , ban to publishing without reason , no lobby options to change teams once saturated, or kick. 30second countdown (10 or less should be needed). this is just a rough compilation. checkout battle net forums under custom maps to see more details. 99.251.195.19 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but here's the thing, you said it was coming from "mapmakers" who are general users, which means it would be hard to get a credible source to state this. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a) these things sound more like criticism than controversy, and b) please provide reliable sources on anything you want to add (probably a mainstream review). TastyCakes (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that most people who want to add criticisms don't want to for the improvement of the article but flaunting something that some hardcore fans find disagreeable and thus discredit the game. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these issues mentioned in numerous SC2 articles. Here is one where map-making problems are the focus: http://kotaku.com/5605333/blizzard-policing-inappropriate-starcraft-ii-maps-because-they-can Zuchinni one (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's more on that topic then it would be a controversy perhaps. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that its a controversy, but there is quite a lot that map makers have been complaining about. Most of what I've seen was intermixed with other reviews. But I have a feeling that this will either resolve itself with Blizzard changing things or more articles will show up that focus on the map-making stuff. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Cards Overheating

So apparently Blizzard has acknowledged that there is a problem with the way that certain portions of the game are rendered and this has been causing some graphics cards to overheat. This should be fixed in an upcoming patch so I'm not sure if it deserves mention in the article. But I wanted to put it out there for discussion.

Here are some relevant links:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/223306,how-to-dust-away-starcraft-2-overheating-issues.aspx

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/28/blizzard-confirms-starcraft-ii-overheating-bug.aspx

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=258215

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/starcraft-ii-menu-screen-are-overheating-pcs-20100729/

Zuchinni one (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a significant bug like this, which can cause hardware damage, is notable. This goes beyond simple things such as the game freezing, or certain parts of the game not working correctly. —Torchiest talk/contribs 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Zuchinni one (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the game itself, the problem is either the video cards, users' system cooling, or the drivers used by the cards. The reason a video card's temperature increases is because its workload increases. Video cards are designed to work at their full capacity. Benchmarking programs, typically used by hardware enthusiasts looking to "push" their systems through overclocking, are designed to push a system to its limits, under which conditions a system is most prone to failure. Video cards are designed to shut off if their temperature reaches a level deemed too high. If the benchmark causes the system to overheat, it is usually because the user has overclocked their system too far, insufficient system cooling, hardware misconfiguration, or a problem inherent in the system drivers which handle communication between the hardware and the operating system. In this way, these low-detail screens in StarCraft II function similarly to a benchmarking program by pushing a system to its limits and uncovering problems inherent within the system. Making your hardware work hard is not a problem with the software; on the contrary, you would hope that your hardware is always working as hard as possible. See some of the Slashdot user discussion about this story: http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/08/02/1251203/Is-Starcraft-II-Killing-Graphics-Cards sdornan (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect about this. From the geek article: "...it’s a bug Blizzard already have a fix for. Someone at Blizzard forgot to frame rate lock the menu screen in the game. So while in game you may be getting a smooth 60fps, when on the menus they can stress your hardware to its limits and your graphics card melts under the pressure." It's a known and notable bug that has been addressed by Blizzard. —Torchiest talk/contribs 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have acknowledged that it's a bug, but as long as your graphics card is behaving as intended, there's no way the bug can harm it (unless the game run in the menu endlessly). Anyhow, are there any actual reports out there from broken graphic cards because of this? --Conti|✉ 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't frame rate cap the game; that isn't a bug. Most games by default do not have a frame rate cap unless v-sync is enabled. sdornan (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see this it is that:
1) It well known how video card manufacturers design their cards to operate
2) The issue can be resolved with a change to the code
3) Blizzard is releasing a patch to fix the issue
4) Other games do not have this overheating issue
All of this suggests that this is a software problem not a hardware one. That's just my take on it. Honestly though I don't think its that big of a deal since it will be patched soon. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a problem, but it is erroneous to label it as a bug. Choosing to not cap the menu screens was simply a choice that was made. The reason I believe it's occurring is because a lot of people who don't normally play PC games are playing StarCraft II. These people probably have machines that have collected lots of dust, resulting in reduced airflow/cooling, or have systems that aren't typically pushed to their performance limits and thus have never uncovered the kind of stability issues that occur under exactly these kinds of conditions. If they had run a benchmarking program, the same thing likely would have happened.sdornan (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly wouldn't hurt to add that info if you can find some RS to back it up. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/13501356 - Official Blizzard post: "Screens that are light on detail may make your system overheat if cooling is overall insufficient."
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/223306,how-to-dust-away-starcraft-2-overheating-issues.aspx - A site you originally cited, which states "There is no way for a game to physically damage hardware; instead it's a symptom of old and/or poorly cooled hardware rather than some sort of Blizzard-based death touch."
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/02/is-starcraft-ii-killing-video-cards-or-is-it-merely-a-harbinger-of-bigger-problems/ - "But! Nearest I can tell, this isn’t an issue of the game “killing” graphics cards as much as it is that the game has exposed a problem the fact that your card is being inadequately cooled. That could be due to any number of things: a poor overclock; poor airflow; a gigantic buildup of dust; etc. In other words, it could be that your system isn’t in the best of shape and StarCraft II is the first game to actually let you know."
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/starcraft-overheating,10984.html - "For those of you with exceptionally fast systems but just barely adequate cooling, be aware that there are certain screens that make your hardware work pretty hard, and potentially cause overheating."
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102465-Blizzard-Offers-Fix-for-StarCraft-Computer-Melting-Bug - "Rendering framerates of over 200 frames per second for extended period of times means that computers with insufficient ventilation melt themselves into oblivion."
Notice all of the mentions of inadequate cooling. sdornan (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's like going into the attic with a big flash light, finding a large amount of Spiders. Than blaming the flashlight for the spider infestation. --RichardFry (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the flipside, you can say its like sitting at an intersection RED stop light, and simply reving your car engine on very high RPMs untill it overheats and dies. Afterward saying that its the car's fault for not having sufficient cooling. --RichardFry (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely incorrect analogy. Cars are not designed to be revved over and over; graphics cards are designed to work at 100% workload. If your graphics card is only getting 30 fps on a game like Crysis, then it is using the full capabilities of that card'. The game will not run any faster unless the game's graphics settings are modified; 100% of your card's capabilities are being used, period. Similarly, when StarCraft II is running at 200+ fps, your card's capabilities are also being fully exhausted. The key point I'm trying to make is this: the amount of work your card does is not directly related to the number of frames per second the game runs at. Hell, it is very possible that v-sync is disabled on your computer right now as you read this in Windows/OS X/Linux. How can you explain the fact that your video card has not overheated despite the fact that you're probably getting 400+ fps on the desktop? For the record, I have a bachelor's degree in computer science and am currently in the process of obtaining my master's degree. Plus, for what it's worth, I'm quite experienced with computer hardware; the computer I'm using now was self-built and upgraded multiple times. sdornan (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows about computer hardware and software I find this section a little alarmist this is only an issue because of the huge popularity of the game. 1.5M+ games were sold the first day (and that's not counting South East Asia,) statistically speaking a few hundred people with computer failures out of millions seems reasonable to me.

datth a technical support employee at Blizzard posted this ---http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/248296509?page=3#54 "As other users have said, the upkeep of your hardware is your responsibility. There isn't a bug in programming code that would cause your hardware to overheat or die unless it was already on its way out. Nothing can help a ticking time bomb. We've offered two variables to cap the rate at which you render the game for less than optimal cooling conditions (for example, my media center box in a Mozart Sx HTPC case, where my 8800 is on a riser card and it's barely hovering over the entire motherboard) but what you do with the rest is up to you.

There's a hard cap on your GPU and memory frequency set by your manufacturer and that serves as a protection mechanism. That and their cooling solution they use keeps the card in working condition when it's clean and has good air flow. StarCraft II (or World of Warcraft since we had a few people say the same thing about it) does not change your GPU/memory clock speeds so it can only go up until the video card's upper bounds when it is not bottlenecked by your CPU. You're supposed to plateau out heat-wise as you can't push instructions thru the chip and memory at a higher rate.

If your hardware is damaged, you need to go talk to the damaged part's manufacturer and see if you can get help there." -Navitron (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the bug section unless someone can scientifically prove that it's SC2 causing the problem. Third hand information (news stories) from blogs is not proof. -Navitron (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
News sources and Blizzard's own press releases meet the WP:RS standard. In fact if one of us was to put our own "proof" into the article that would have to be removed for violating the wikipedia rules that prevent original research WP:OR. You should not remove this section. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Bugs on release" is not a good name for the section since there is only only one so called bug even on there, "Overheating Video Cards" or something along those lines seems better. This issue has been discussed on the Blizzard tech support forum and I have not seen Blizzards tech support or anyone that knows about the way that hardware, graphics driver & software interact say that this is a "bug". In the GPU hardware world people are known to seek out the highest fps in games so games are smoother and more responsive. This is the first time I have "ever" seen people wanting lower fps. A lot of the news sights picked up this story because it's sensational and its a really popular topic (game) that's sure to get a lot of hits. Respectable hardware review websites like Tom's Hardware & CrunchGear that have a lot of knowledge & respect in the hardware world all say that its a cooling or the GPU failing outright. -Navitron (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my original decision to remove the section about the game frying video cards. I've stated my reasons but I offer something else that might get you thinking a little. Type in any computer game that come out recently into google with "fried my card" or "kills pc" or some other variant at the end and you will be surprised at the results... Well except me it seems.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1090215&highlight=left+dead+fried
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1373298
http://social.bioware.com/forum/Dragon-Age-Origins/Dragon-Age-Origins-PC-Technical-Support/Dragon-Age-frying-graphics-cards-596464-1.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/dell/159764-bioshock-kills-another-pc.html
I rest my case... -Navitron (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from Navitron, but the bottom line is that this issue can be fixed by limiting the frame rate of the menu screens. This issue is similar to programs the have memory leaks, take up more CPU resources than necessary, and that are generally poorly written. If you run ANY computer with a GPU or CPU at full processing power for long enough it will fry the hardware. In this case there is no reason for those GPU resources to be maxed out since it only happens on menu screens. This is bad programming and it will be fixed soon. In the meantime it has gotten A LOT of press from many RS and Blizzard has acknowledged the problem and released a fix. It absolutely meets the standards to be included in this article.
However RS that support the notion that this is NOT a bug are reasonable to include as well. So far I've seen one, from CrunchGear, and I recently added it to the section. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Computers are are always meant to do things as fast as possible (excluding power saving solutions.) If you open calculator and do 2x2 your computer prossecces it as fast as it can. Computers doing thing's as fast as possible is "normal operation." Why do people pay more for computers with faster processors? So they can limit them? A memory leak can't damage your hardware (unless you have inadequate cooling) CPUs have fail safes when they reach a certain temperatures they throttle down and in extreme cooling disasters shutdown your PC to prevent damage. GPUs have lagged behind in having fail safes but they have them now as well. There is only a small minority that have these issues, if StarCraft II is full of memory leaks and bad programing, what about all the millions of people who are playing it right now without problems or using the workaround Blizzard posted? I'm running StarCraft II in the background right as I'm typing this and I leave it on all day (since I hate having to re-enter my info & authenticator) "If you run ANY computer with a GPU or CPU at full processing power for long enough it will fry the hardware." I run a program called Folding@Home when I'm not actively using my computer and have been for the last 5+ years sometimes for months while I'm away and it uses 100% CPU & GPU and last I checked my computer hasn't blown up. Oh It will eventually fail nothing lasts forever especially since I'm overclocking. I've clearly stated my arguments, It's a few blogs that are just repeating the same thing a few people posted on a now debunked thread by a Blue (Blizzard staff post).
"removed verbose quote from Blizzard forum. Too long of a quote and not an RS, it was a statement from a single employee on the forums, not Blizzard's official response." So the quote on there now from same tech support forum as the one that I quoted is RS but mine "ON THE SAME TECH SUPPORT FORUM" isn't hmm... maybe 2 blizzard employee's is enough for you? http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/248296509?page=15#298 -Navitron (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The post from the forum that you listed was part of a user-generated thread and not a Sticky-Locked Blizzard generated thread with a single post devoted to "Known Issues". It is very rare for forums posts to ever be considered RS and even then they are often challenged. But in any case it doesn't matter since Blizzard has since changed the original post and all that's left of it are other RS that refer to what Blizzard originally said. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Memory leaks are completely different. If a program has a memory leak, it is gradually using more memory during use because the program fails to properly clean up after itself, resulting in memory remnants that build up over time until its memory "footprint" - the amount of memory a program has reserved - is so large that other programs cannot reserve the memory that they require to function. If you're running a program that gets less than the v-synced frame rate, then your GPU's resources are being maxed out. If you turn v-sync off in any program, then your GPU's resources are being maxed out. The only thing vsync is does is artificially limit the number of frames that are rendered because your monitor cannot display them, and hence you cannot see them and take no advantage from them being rendered. It has nothing to do with "protecting your hardware", and it is not a safety feature. sdornan (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Present Tense

Much of this article is written as though the game hasn't been released yet. Lets change it to reflect that it has in fact been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.123.137 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we're working on it. If you want to help, go ahead, and I recommend registering an account. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This seems like it should be a high priority for this article. --Fintelia (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map Editor

Here's a few links with some basic info on Map Making including quotes from Blizzard and the limits placed on new maps. "The storage limit for each user is 20MB in total. Up to 5 maps or mods, each with size no more than 10MB."

I don't have time to add it now, but wanted to throw it out there if someone else feels like doing it.

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/starcraft-ii-map-publishing-intro/

http://www.softsailor.com/news/27919-starcraft-2-beta-patch-13-will-enable-the-map-publishing-feature.html

http://www.blizzblues.com/us/starcraft-ii-map-publishing-a-primer-25026453020.html

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/05/tetris-shmups-and-shooters-the-best-of-starcraft-2-maps.ars

http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/12022-blizzard-posts-a-guide-to-map-publishing

http://sclegacy.com/articles/730-battlenet-20-concerns#Map%20Making/Editor%20Issues -- This link is a fairly expansive article, but it does contain good info towards the end regarding map making.

Zuchinni one (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the editor it seems to be a 21mb total limit, but yeah still 5 maps max. 59.101.36.160 (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 20mb limit was pulled directly from Blizzard press releases, but feel free to change it if its wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft 2 or Starcraft II?

The article is currently inconsistent. We should pick one and stick with it. My personal thought is that "2" is easier to read than "II", but honestly it doesn't matter to me either way.

Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were only a few spots where it said 2. It now consistently says II; although many of the sources use 2, the official title uses II, so I think we should leave it that way. —Torchiest talk/contribs 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, which can be shortened to StarCraft II, so we should use that. With intercaps. sdornan (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use Wings of Liberty rather than StarCraft II for the shortened version, personally. Helps to keep it clear for when we have to start talking about the other two thirds of this trilogy. -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the "base" game in a lot of ways; the others won't function without this one. Plus many things that are said in this article can apply to the other 2/3 of the trilogy also. For example, "StarCraft II features the return of the three races from the original game: Protoss, Terran, and Zerg", "StarCraft II continues its predecessor's use of pre-rendered cinematic cut scenes to advance the plot", etc. Almost all video game journalists - as well as Blizzard themselves - have been referring to Wings of Liberty as StarCraft II. sdornan (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is a naming convention, but it could be applied here. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Starcraft II should be used for the short form. "Wings of Liberty" is going to turn out to be similar to "Brood War" in terms of the scope of what the name addresses. That is to say, what we've gotten is not a game Starcraft II with the subtitle Wings of Liberty, we've gotten the game Starcraft II and its first content module, Wings of Liberty. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think the term Wings of Liberty really is only applicable to the campaign. —Torchiest talk/contribs 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SC2 or Starcraft 2. Roman numerals are bad and just because a game company decided to use them isn't good enough reason to break with a easier to index method of identification. Aug 5 @ 12 noon EST
I'm sure WWI and WWII veterans would beg to differ. Roman numerals are completly acceptable. Blizzard didn't copyright StarCraft 2... they copyrighted StarCraft II. An encyclopedia should reflect what it is, not what is easier.69.227.78.3 (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The name is too short for copyright. If you look at TESS, you can see that they don't have a trademark on either StarCraft II or StarCraft 2; they have four trademarks (plus on dead) on the case-insensitive STARCRAFT on various G&S. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community Information

I would like to see a website list of trusted community sites for Starcraft 2.

For World of Warcraft, I see that wow.com and mmo-champion.com are great companions for news and info about WoW, and wowhead.com has emerged as the best online resource for detailed item information as well as stats testing via their profile section.

But there doesn't seem to be a clear community site through Google or noted in the SC2 Wikipedia section and this is pretty valuable info that I would like to see, considering that many listings in Google at the moment are going to lead to sites with potentially false info, or even malware/trojan/virus hazards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.195.203 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux

I am running an Ubuntu 10.04 with wine 1.2 and the game runs without any issues. Gameplay, cinematics, etc all good. Although Linux is not officially recognized by Blizzard as a platform for SC2, in practice it can run on it. Google this and you will see the many sites talking about it. Should we add this in the article (with a note) ? Daniel32708 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes or no, please state why.Daniel32708 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=19376 It does, but I'm not sure it's worthy of inclusion. In fact tons and tons of games will run on Linux through WINE. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and if it were up to me I would at least mention it...considering that an encyclopedia article should give information (useful, factual, etc), but only for the games that run without serious issues (which are just a few games). Some minor issues however are acceptable, just as there are issues in its native platforms...Daniel32708 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)daniel32708[reply]
Quite few modern, big games run so smoothly on Wine, and Blizzard is famous for having several titles winable, including SC2 and WoW. It deserves a mention in my opinion, but I know quite some people disagree. Quispiam (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is both factually true that this game runs on linux, and supported by reliable sources. I can see no reason why this shouldn't be included, and I don't think any Wikipedia policies apply. (disclaimer: I run SC2 on Linux myself) ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 03:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find reliable sources for it? If so, absolutely include it. Official or not, if it's a fact that's been covered by third parties, it needs to be included. — Chromancer talk/cont 03:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOM TV League Announced

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141496 http://gsl.gomtv.com/teaser/main.gom http://www.playxp.com/sc2/news/view.php?article_id=2 http://www.playxp.com/sc2/news/view.php?article_id=2006060006063 http://www.playxp.com/sc2/news/view.php?article_id=2006413

Should probably be edited into the competition area that GOM (currently Blizzard's partner in Korea when it comes to IP broadcasting rights) has announced a massive monthly tournament with over $85k prize money for first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.147.63 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide some non-Korean links? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.gomtv.net/ The English GOMtv website has not been updated for about a year 1/2. I'm sure it will be when the tournament start, it was one of the only few Korean league's that had English commentary. Maybe StarCraft II also needs its own "StarCraft II professional competition" section made same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft_professional_competition -Navitron (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do much editing on wikipedia. That said, it seems like the article would be much more useful with more external links added at the bottom. Besides the official website, I'd love to see some links to starcraft specific wikis that have more detailed information on units and strategy, as well as an aggregate review site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.123.179 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on user reviews

I think its very doubtful to only cite "official" gaming authorities on reviews. At least someone should reflect on that 52% of people on Amazon are totally dissatisfied with their buy.

That would be nice, but Amazon reviews do not meet the WP:RS reliable source standard for inclusion. However the reviews are mentioned in several articles that are linked and the Amazon controversy is mentioned in the reception section. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that user reviews suffer from terrible selection bias and often have little to do with average user satisfaction. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Zuchini one said. Those reviews are already covered in enough detail. We're not trying to promote or attack the game in this article, but merely report on it. —Torchiest talk/contribs 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most who do want to include those do want to do only just that. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with Stabby and Torchiest Zuchinni one (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material

Anyone looking to expand this article, the Sydney Morning Herald's Digital Life section reviewed the game, here. Salavat (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article already covers everything mentioned in that review, actually! 203.217.150.68 (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it covers a good portion of the game. If we did there's plenty of reviewers that are used in plenty of other articles but haven't here. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 'races' be capitalized?

Terran, zerg, and protoss should be considered different species instead of different races. Thus, they shouldn't be capitalized (for example, we don't capitalize 'human'). On Blizzard's site and in the Starcraft 2 manual, terran, zerg, protoss, and xel'naga are all written in lowercase. Why is it different here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.214.91 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up the page ^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BN regions

What are the Battle.net regions for SC2? The article doesn't mention it, and I can't seem to find a specific list of regions. Are the regions listed by language codes (enUS, enGB, enSG, zhTW, ko), or is it completely different? Does mainland China have a server, or are all the Chinese players on SC2 replay sites playing on Taiwanese servers? (there are quite a sizable amount apparently, and there also seems to be quite some controversy regarding player discrimination on Taiwanese SC2 servers, but that's a different story) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Part of this article as written as though the game hasn't come out yet. Sonicsuns (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and modified a few things here and there, to make it sound more like it's been released. I have removed the update template as well. Weeliljimmy talk 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty&oldid=387619464"