Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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)

Can someone provide some non-Korean links? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Also Metacritic and wikipedia have different definitions for "Universal Acclaim" Zuchinni one (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

9.0, outstanding, editor's choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:COMMONNAME is a naming convention, but it could be applied here. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. I think the term Wings of Liberty really is only applicable to the campaign. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I think the article already covers everything mentioned in that review, actually! 203.217.150.68 (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes or no, please state why.Daniel32708 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Yes. This seems like it should be a high priority for this article. --Fintelia (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

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

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)

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)

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

Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure here. In this case, an interview of these en more 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)

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)

Teamliquid is no fan site, its a proffesional starcraft team, but there is still even more proof that people hate activision if you still dont believe me, look here on the starcraft official forums http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/375111955, of course I believe these people on those forums dont know what they are talking about because they are still seperate entities, but that's not the point, the point is people still hated activision for something blizzard did. But I still believe people hating activision shouldn't belong in this article but rather on the article about Blizzard not starcraft 2, thats all I got to say --Poohunter (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Came to the same conclusion. Although the source may be true, it is not a reliable source per guidelines. [[User:NativeForeigner

NativeForeigner]] ^Talk/_Contribs 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1], [2], and [3]. sdornan (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think the non-capitalization is more of an in-universe type of thing. Since they are fictional it makes sense to capitalize them. 199.111.191.2 (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sabre and the above. It's a generally practiced standard, and Blizzard themselves have only recently done this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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) I Think Blizzard was trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.26.212 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Voguy, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following character to Cast of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty: Blair Bess as Donny Vermillion Source: [33} IMDb

Thanks.

Voguy (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Voguy (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done so now, thanks for the reference, can you get any other characters and their voice actors as well? Perhaps the female news host, or the units in the game. (I know many units had the same SC1 voice actors as well as a few having the same person doing them as well.) User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Henkepenke, 4 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The article states: "Most Protoss and Terran units, and some Zerg units, have been shown on the StarCraft II official website, and in several video demonstrations held by Blizzard." I believe this statement is outdated since the game is released and (of course) all units have been revealed. The sentence should be deleted all together in my opinion.

Henkepenke (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I noticed there is quite a bit of plot details revealed in wikipedia articles about video games, would it improve the article of video games such as this one to add a spoiler warning to inform users who have not experienced the games campaign yet? DavidR2010 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

WP:Spoiler "This page in a nutshell: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Although I would hate to ruin a game experience for someone playing Starcraft 2, it simply is unnecessary in the terms of Wikipedia, anyone who has used Wikipedia at least more then once on a topic that has a story should know that most of the time there will be many spoilers. If they don't then sadly I suppose they will find out. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do spoiler warnings. Anyone that reads the plot section and doesn't expect spoilers, well, I don't know what they do expect. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I learned this lesson the hard way a few years ago, and I have since taken the side of the two above respondents. If you don't want to know the facts, don't read the article. Most sources that cover these things are unwittingly acting as agents for the work's creators, by "teasing" the audience. Wikipedia doesn't do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

actually, would it be worth considering trimming down the synopsis section altogether? for example, its a little strange that there is a section dedicated to the voice acting cast, which seems like trivia at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.101.144 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dividing the page

The page "Starcraft 2" currently has the main title "Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty". Since WoL is one of 3 expansions (and since people are no doubt trying to find info about the 2nd expansion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.185.114 (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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 [4]

i edited out an error.

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

Professional competition update

The section regarding professional competition is pretty outdated and a lot has happened during the 6 months since it was updated. It would be could to update that section further - and here is one suggestion for new text - and please help by improving and thus making it better.

Since the launch StarCraft II has become a successful e-Sport with many leagues of ongoing tournaments with prize-pools up to $170 000. Since the launch in July 2011 there are a lot of ongoing of tournaments with players from all over the world; GomTV SC2 Global League, TeamLiquid StarCraft League, Major League Gaming, ESL and the upcoming North American Star League. StarCraft II has also become the the main title in major LANs throughout the world like Assembly and Dreamhack .

In South Korea StarCraft: Brood War is still the most successful e-Sport that includes its own ranking system, and it has been referred to as the national pastime in South Korea, where there are two television channels dedicated to broadcasting professional StarCraft matches..

It is not yet clear if StarCraft II will affect the e-Sports scene and Brood War circuit In South Korea. While there is an interest in a professional StarCraft II scene, there are several factors that could affect the way it develops as an e-Sport. After three years of negotiations, Blizzard decided that the Korean e-Sports Players Association (KeSPA) was unwilling to cooperate with them in regards to the sharing of profits from competitive StarCraft multiplayer games. This breakdown has led to an uncertain future of KeSPA's legal ability to broadcast Blizzard's intellectual property of both StarCraft and StarCraft II without paying royalties.

Blizzard and GomTV signed an agreement on May 26, 2010, allowing the latter to create and broadcast the GomTV SC2 Global League, a series of tournaments, in South Korea. This agreement followed the decision from Blizzard to cease the negotiation with KeSPA, and it confirmed the fact that Blizzard had decided to take another route to promote StarCraft II as an e-Sport in South Korea.

There is also a major concern that a professional scene will not develop without the ability to play over a LAN, which StarCraft II lacks. The reason for this is that there is a latency delay between commands issued and game response when played online. LAN greatly reduces this delay and allows for much finer control over in-game units. One example is the 2010 Major League Gaming tournament in Dallas, Texas, which experienced severe delays that were blamed on the lack of LAN and problems with Battle.net 2.0. So far, Blizzard has no plans to support LAN play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joinsimon (talk • contribs)

I made some updates to include the GSL and the newly formed NASL, but more could still be done. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps stats from this webpage would be useful? http://ehcg.djgamblore.com/ 98.201.56.58 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request ---- 11/26/10

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the Reception section, with the paragraph that starts with "In relation to its story..." the article provides three reviewers praising the story, with only one (IGN) as a mixed review. However, numerous reviewers were very critical of the story. Please consider adding quotes from the following for neutrality purposes:

• 1. Original-gamer.com - http://www.original-gamer.com/?action=article&id=1743
• 2. GameCritics.com - http://www.gamecritics.com/richard-naik/starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty-review
• 3. InsightBits: - http://insightbits.com/pc-reviews/226-review-starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty
• 4. HonestGamers.com - http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8985/StarCraft-II-Wings-of-Liberty.html
• 5. Eurogamer.net - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty-review
• 6. Destructoid- http://www.destructoid.com/review-starcraft-ii-180400.phtml
• 7. HookedGamers.com - http://www.hookedgamers.com/pc/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty/review/article-575-2.html
• 8. FortheloveoftheMedia.com - http://fortheloveofmedia.com/games/393

Richard Naik from GameCritics.com (#2 above) had written a specifically very lengthy critique, in the middle of the page, noting "There are a lot of head-scratching plot points and a particularly curious retcon of something established from the first game."

If you have time, please add at least one source to balance-out the one component of the game, plot, which has gotten mixed-reviews overall in the otherwise very acclaimed game from virtually every critic, including the ones above. Thanks for your time. RussianSpy27 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Eurogamer and Destructiod links can definitely be used, as they have established reliability on Wikipedia. Not sure about the others. However those two reviews may be enough for any editor willing to fulfill this request. --Teancum (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: I added the Eurogamer storyline review, as the phrasing seemed good. However, this section is already just packed with reviews, so I don't think any more are necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

IMDB is not considered a reliable source, but it is used in the cast section. Just putting this out there, it could easily stand in the way at a GAN. Tezero (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation whether IMDb can be used as a reliable source or not. And as far as I can tell IMDb is regarded as an acceptable source when it comes to information about cast and crew for released products. But, if it is a problem anyways no source actually has to be mentioned for that kind of information as it can be gotten from the credits in the game.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not considered a reliable source? I cannot find the cast members listed anywhere else sadly, and going through the extensive credits would be a great undertaking. But I would gladly do it if necessary to list the members as User:TheFreeloader said. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, the situation doesn't matter--IMDb is never a reliable source, because it is the equivalent of an "open-wiki." That is, anyone can edit it, and there is no editorial control. Thus, it cannot be considered "reliable" in the meaning of WP:RS. This is the same reason why Wikipedia itself is not considered a "reliable source" for other Wikipedia articles. However, it's pretty common for people to use IMDb to get the basic information, just not sourcing it as such. Just make sure that what it says matches with what you remember from the (movie/tv/video game/etc.). As TheFreeloader says, you don't actually need a separate source for info like cast and crew, because the information itself contains that information (i.e., is its own reliable source).Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that Qwyrxian, thanks for clearing that up. I'll double-check the current info with the credits to make sure it is all correct. user:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request from RussianSpy27, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Sorry if previous post was not abiding by the wiki guidelines. In the section of the article discussing the critical reception of the plot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_of_Liberty#Reception, after the 100 citation of IGN, please add:

Furthermore, Richard Nail of GameCritics.com also notes: "The [original] game universe felt massive, and the lore surrounding it painted an intricate backdrop for the events to come...By comparison, I was disappointed to see Wings of Liberty's story devolve into an awkward space western with far too many meandering subplots and a cheap "save the girl" arc thrown in."

footnote: Naik, Richard (2010-08-19)."StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty Review" . GameCritics. Retrieved 2010-11-26

RussianSpy27 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add a note on WP:WikiProject Video games, to see if someone more knowledgeable in this field can make a call; I'm not familiar enough with the field to know if those reviews are notable enough for inclusion, sorry. Hopefully I can get someone who can help. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking things over, I have to say that I don't think this content should be added for the following reasons:

1. GameCritics.com does not seem to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. It does not seem to have been evaluated at WP:VG/RS. But after looking at it myself, I have to say that it looks like a group of enthusiasts writing reviews, i.e. a blog-like site. Mind you, they look to be doing a good job and strive for professionalism, but the about us page doesn't mention much about editorial oversight.
   • However, since the site has been around for a long time, other reliable sources may have cited them. A quick glance leads me to believe that the only author on there whose content is probably usable is Ben Hopper, a game developer who is also published on Gamasutra.
2. The reception looks fairly balanced to me. Given something that received such high marks, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of negative comments. And the section does not lack any.

My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Partly done: As per above, this section has so many reviews already, we don't need any more. Our goal is not to represent every single voice, just a wide variety of them, in reference to their weight. As Guyinblack25 points out, with such a high Metacritic rating, it's clear that our coverage should be strongly balanced towards the positive. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful additions! There is a missing footnote, however about Giant Bomb where the article quotes " Giant Bomb echoed this view while also noting the Hyperion portion between missions, finding it to have "more depth of character, more believable pathos, more surprise twists--than I honestly expected out of the story"." RussianSpy27 (talk) 12:40, 04 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree with your judgment that such an acclaimed game generally needs to have a positive coverage. With respect, I think we may be misunderstanding each other to the fullest. At issue is not the whole game, but rather one very specific component - the plot (not even "storytelling" mechanics - simply the story/plot), which in RTS titles does not carry the same weight as in say RPGs or Adventure games. Moreover, it is possible for an acclaimed game to have one specific mixed/weak aspect that does not diminish its overall praise. For example, [Call of Duty: Modern Warfare], was exceptionally acclaimed yet was noted on wikipedia as being criticized specifically for lacking innovative component to the genre. Perhaps an easy way to address that would be to slightly add to the sentence: "The game was particularly praised for retaining the popular RTS gameplay while introducing new features and improved storytelling", [by adding] "while the story itself received somewhat mixed reviews." Thanks again. RussianSpy27 (talk) 1:49, 05 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that criticism can focus on specific parts, but the source provided above from GameCritics.com does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. However, if you find another source from WP:VG/RS or something in one of the current sources that points this out, then I don't see much reason to omit it.

Also, I added a {{fact}} tag to the Giant Bomb sentence. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

http://www.ag.ru is listed under verified foreign websites. Please feel free to consult wiki translators or software, but here is a part that I translated from their review paragraph right under the second big blue-lettered heading of the article, midway down): "If you throw all secondary plot-lines away, such as: helping special forces operatives-renegades break out of prisons and colonists get rid of a dangerous virus, the juiciest part can fit into 6-7 missions. Cute scenes with new graphics engine cannot fill the void of plot-weakness and utter shallowness of literary thought. Characters are plain and primitive...The game's dialogue, better nicknamed 'Captain Obviousness' is filled with kiddie naivete and bizzare contradictions." - http://www.ag.ru/reviews/starcraft_2_wings_of_liberty.

Locally, Destructoid may work, but it seems to be on a partly-verified list, depending on the validity of the writer, and I have no idea if the writer of the review is considered reliable. "I also felt that the story, while decent, wasn't spectacular. This is probably because I'm comparing it to the polish and shine of the rest of the game, but it felt like it was slightly lacking. What could have been a decent twist at the end was at least partially spoiled by the opening cinematics, and I do have to admit that I felt some of the dialogue between the characters felt a bit forced and unnatural." - http://www.destructoid.com/review-starcraft-ii-180400.phtml . As for the Giant Bomb citation, I found the review http://www.giantbomb.com/starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty/61-20674/reviews/ . This review actually happens to be fully positive and I think the beginning of the sentence stating "Giant Bomb echoed this view" is incorrect, as the review does not echo Eurogamer's stand on the weakness of the story. RussianSpy27 (talk) 12:51, 07 December 2010 (UTC)

Add voice actor

The voice actor for the character Annabella "Nova" Terra (the Ghost agent who plays counter to the character Tosh in the story missions) is played by Grey DeLisle. She is credited not only in the game credits, but also under her own page here on Wikipedia. I believe she's the only major speaking role in the game's story mode not mentioned in the article. Just for the sake of completion, might as well add her as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecaiblight (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added her to the list.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seems that someone changed it back to an article again. SouthH (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good start for the article, I'm looking forward to reading and monitoring it when It's done, lets hope blizzard starts talking about it some more and soon. --Poohunter (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible HotS ending leaked: http://vimeo.com/bdub/videos/search:starcraft/sort:newest - the "pre-visualization" was uploaded a month after WOL's release and the second video is a slightly different version of a real cutscene from WOL. There isn't enough time for a person to create the custom videos in a month, which seems like it's a legit possible leaked video. --- RussianSpy27 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't in the business of reporting unsubstantiated rumours. -- Sabre (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

it seem to have been canceled. exactly why i cant tell but it would explain the lack of information on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Are the top 200 players in Europe on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadams90 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC) No, not in this article. It can be found here. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Useful source

For your perusal: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33368/gdc_2011_developing_starcraft_ii_.php Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through this and enter it into User:Gary King/StarCraft II. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

incorrect statement

"Any breach of the EULA amounts not only to breach of contract but copyright infringement as well,"

License agreements are not contracts, and clicking a button does not constitute signing a contract in any common legal jurasdictions anywhere in the world. A license is exactly that, a license; its something blizzard has granted custommers in exchange for money; specifically in this case its a copyright usage license. Violating the EULA that is attached to the lience is not a breach of contract, however it does grant blizzard the right to revoke the purchased license, without returning the customers money. After the license has been revoked, the user cannot continue playing the game without committing copyright infringement.

This is a common legal misconception and its a shame it has appeared in this article; an article whose neutrality is very much in dispute given what common views are not represented, and the rather questionable personal-analysis in some parts of the article. Either way, a legal-falsehood is clearly defined. Please correct the incorrect statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.221.30 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference list rend bug

Due to the long reference list, on Chrome 11.0.696.60 the reference list is split in two columns, the right one being unusable. I don't know if this is an article problem, a template bug or a browser issue. Can anyone confirm? 85.187.35.160 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine for me. Do you mind giving a more detailed explanation? Elockid ^(Talk) 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem by adding {{clear}} before the reference section. It has to do with the image spilling over into the reference list, which pushes the list over. It looks like a recent barrage of vandalism has somehow removed the {{clear}} I had added about a month ago to fix this issue exactly. Elockid, if you zoom out a bit more, you may see what the 85.187 and I were seeing (I'm in Chrome as well). Seeing it or not may also have to do with screen res (I am at 1440 by 900). BTW, I'm being bold and reprotecting the article for a long time. The amount of vandalism isn't insane, but it's copious indeed. Airplaneman ✈ 01:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Maximum Number of Players

It's easy to see the maximum number of players for the Starcraft 1 page under gameplay, but not on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.144.112 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Growth of Western E-sports

Many have always associated Korea with the golden standard for starcraft gaming, well as of 2011 this is being heavily doubted. Many New Tournaments have risen such as the IPL, a 50,000 dollar grand prize hosted by IGN.com. Other Large tournaments include the NASL which offer a prize pool rivaling the GSL. The first season is set at 50,000 USD as well as the second season. The third season is set at 100,000 dollars making it the largest prize pool of all time for starcraft II. The growth of modern e-sports, without the need for the brutish agency KeSPa, has flourished in the west. Many people have tried to become professional players, and those that were in StarCraft One are still likely around to promote the heavy growth.

The heavy growth has been attributed to many factors, the first thing that is given major credited is the Streaming services that are used by many of the professional players. Thousands of players and fans tune in to watch players such as LiquidTyler, dSeleCT, EGIdrA, EGInControl and many others whenever they can. This has lead to a boom in the streaming service, allowing them to pay players a good sum for showing advertisements, and for streaming on certain times. The other main reason that the scene has flourished is due to the players that never played StarCraft: Brood War finding out about the community websites, teamliquid.net and the starcraft section of Reddit.com. These sites have prompted many well known talents to take up arms in the battle for expanding E-Sports. The largest of these is probably a player that goes by the tag of Day[9] who offers content all the time via his web show "The Day 9 Daily" found at day9tv.blip.tv.

Through Day[9] other people have heard the call and decided to make their own StarCraft tools and advices. Many of them are casters at Youtube, or another video hosting website. Other such websites that offer replay analytics and word based help have also sprung up, such as SC2analyzed.com. Western E-sports is quickly emerging on Korea's front door, and many believe the the scene in the west to be larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SC2Guy (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

Near the beginning of the article it says:

"...features that existed in the original StarCraft game, such as the lack of LAN play and the splitting of multiplayer regions, were removed in StarCraft II" -- Lack of LAN play was not present in Starcraft and this 'feature' was not removed in SCII. In fact, lack of LAN play was added in SCII because SC1 supports LAN and SC2 does not. Later on, the article goes on to state this. I'm guessing the original author meant to state that LAN play was removed in SC2, but it should probably be reworded, because when I first read it, I thought SC2 had LAN capabilities and I had to double check. 209.134.115.5 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to correct it. Wording is still a bit clunky, but it's probably better than what was there previously. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I took another stab at it. I didn't want to step over any toes NativeForeigner. The sentence was a run on, so I divided it into two. Oldag07 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cross Region Update

The following should be added below the Battle.net 2.0 and LAN play heading.

As of Ladder Season 3 on Battle.net, Blizzard has chosen to allow cross region play between select realms that are in close proximity to each other to increase the player pool available to players. The North American region will combine with the Latin America region, Europe with the Russia region, and Korea with the Taiwan region. These changes will take effect at the start of the Ladder Season 3 on July 18th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magrath26 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Starcraft II: Starter Edition

I don't have an account with enough priveleges to write, but there is missing information regarding a free-to-play version of the game (not the demo) with pretty decent limitations, and alot of value.

Among others, players are able to play about 5 missions, view any replay they download and play multiplayer as the Terran race with a couple of maps made available to them.

Here are some links referencing this: https://eu.battle.net/account/sc2/starter-edition/index.xml (Official Blizzard Page) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=250920 (Team Liquid Forum Thread) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.236.5 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I love this game, and am sorry to do this, but I believe that this article currently fails section 3a of the GAC. Specificly, the "Professional competition" section has been tagged as outdated since February, and while it looks like the LAN and tournament issues was being batted around on the talk page as recently as last month, the outdated tag is still there, and apparently for good reason.

Please fix this issue promptly, I really don't want to see this delisted. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How about now? Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You've brought the information up to date, however it appears several of the new citations you added (116, 120, 121) are broken. Once that's fixed I'll be happy to close the GAN. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. It occurs to me that I probably should have started with a talk page message before jumping to GAR. My apologies. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

The latest version on the information box to the right side of the page, should be changed from 1.4.1.19776 (September 29, 2011) to 1.4.2.20141 (November 08, 2011) Source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3914939/Patch_142_Now_Live-11_8_2011#blog Xinxy (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

Hi. Under section 6 "Professional competition" the third sentence says, "Since the launch in July 2011..." The game was launched in July 2010. Thanks! 161.225.196.111 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate article using professional competition section

I am planning on creating a new article called Starcraft II professional competition which will include content from StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty#Professional_competition. There is already a similar article for StarCraft: Brood War entitled StarCraft: Brood War professional competition. The progaming scene for Starcraft II is bigger than the Brood War one was, and would be a good subject for a new article.

I'm leaving this message here for a while in case anybody objects. Otherwise, I'll create the new article shortly. —Entropy ^(talk) 21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing information

This article is missing key information. To play StarCraft 2 single player, you need to be online. This is something that other websites discuss, and has caused controversy.

Some consider it a valid means to prevent piracy, while others say that it is an infringement of privacy and an unacceptable impediment to players with no or slow internet who wish to play single player. We shouldn't take a side, but this deserves to be mentioned.

I consider this a glaring error, because I am a consumer who was considering if StarCraft 2 is worth purchasing. The information that I have discussed above is something that I think is important, and could only find on websites other than Wikipedia. Other consumers who read this article could easily miss relevant information.

2/16/2013

https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/starcraft-ii-system-requirements - "StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty multiplayer and single player modes require an active Internet connection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcd25 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't need an internet connection to play single player. You can play as a guest. Your in-game mission achievements are not saved. 76.182.15.125 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Battle.net

I think the recent changes to Battle.net (patch 2.0.x) are really worth mentioning here, because they fixed most of the problems people had with the "new" battle.net. Unfortunately, there is no LAN but in this day and age with all the DRM and copyright, we can't really expect that to happen. 76.182.15.125 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Revolution Overdrive: Songs of Liberty

Does anyone think this CD deserves a brief mention in the article? To be honest I was surprised it isn't mentioned there already. Also the games other soundtrack - the original score, doesn't get much of a mention; I would have expected release info and track listing as a minimum. Freikorp (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created a 'Soundtracks' section with information on both soundtracks, any suggestions or feedback is welcome. Freikorp (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)