Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Battle Report

Should we add a section for marketing or something? or maybe add the battle reports inside somewhere. The First Battle Report is here http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/1.xml another one is coming soon. this is true it is splitting into 3 games but its one for each race not one for the game and 2 expansions because i have it on hold for the whole game not 1/3 of the game¥

Release Date is Unknown

@ S@bre, please read the following (this is on the edit article page):

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING:

Unregistered contributor: according to the gamestop website, the store ships preorder shipments by 7/27/2010. So, shouldn't it have been released by then, not 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.7 (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1. DO NOT INSERT ANY INFORMATION READ ON FANSITES, except when such information can be sourced by reliable sources, or has been released by Blizzard OFFICIALLY!

2. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, INFORMATION ADDED TO THIS PAGE SHOULD HAVE ITS SOURCE LISTED USING THE REF TAG. Information added to this page without a source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.

3. DO NOT ADD THE ALLEGED DATE OF RELEASE. As per long standing consensus on this page we will not add the release date for this game until Blizzard publicly issues a release date.

Number 3 clearly sums it up, Blizzard has not publicly issued a release date, nor have they mentioned 2009 as a year of release. I personally want it this year, but that doesn't mean it is going to be released this year, so please leave it as unknown until Blizzard announces an official release. Activision and IGN do not count as official sources. Here is the official source of Starcraft 2's release "www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml" 137.244.215.61 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V overrides anything added in hidden comments. Activision Blizzard, Vivendi or whatever it calls itself these days is official enough for an estimate release date, and IGN is a reliable source to corrobate that information. Sourced information is what Wikipedia is about, the comment is meant to protect against precise dates from unsourced speculation and retailers. Considering that it has said "2009" with those two sources in it since September last year—seven months—past consensus on release dates has clearly changed, although the policy towards anything more speculative has not. In anycase, putting "Unknown" is an entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional word for dealing with that field. -- Sabre (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Blizzard's official website takes precedence over Activision's speculation and especially IGN. You are right about "unknown" being unencyclopedic, and a better suited word or phrase would be "TBA" which has been used on several other future game articles. 137.244.215.61 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on secondary sources. These secondary sources, reliable under Wikipedia guidelines for featured articles, point to a 2009 release. And Activision Blizzard, as the owner of Blizzard, is hardly the sort of source that would be speculating about what happens in its own backyard in an official announcement. Just because Blizzard hasn't said on their site doesn't mean it hasn't been made known by other means. You are not presenting a case for why WP:V, one of the three core Wikipedia policies, should be ignored. -- Sabre (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabre. Both sources used to cite the date both state that the game's release date is still highly speculative.

"Next year's offerings from Activision Blizzard should include highly anticipated PC strategy title StarCraft II, the sequel to one of the world's most enduringly popular games"

"Contrary to speculation, Blizzard has always said that StarCraft 2 would release 'when it's done.' "

http://pc.ign.com/articles/907/907028p1.html

A word of caution though! Even though Activision Blizzard owns Blizzard, they have always been a very independent company, regardless of owners, and could very well hold StarCraft back to 2010 just to prove us wrong...

http://www.starcraftwire.net/blog/comments/activision-confirms-starcraft-ii-for-2009/?gr_i_ni

Now if you can find me a better source that says the game will absolutely be released on XX day, TBA is a better replacement. 2009 or not, no release date has been announced. Oldag07 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright, if we're not going to take Activision Blizzard's estimate for it as parent company, then I'm not going to push the issue any further. -- Sabre (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had consensus override my ideas many a times. Thanks for all the hard work Sabre. Oldag07 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for maintaining this article and other StarCraft articles. I can see you have put a lot of work in them, but I really hate seeing speculated release dates for games that haven't been officially announced. For us gamers, let's hope it does come out this year. 137.244.215.61 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I thought you (Oldag07 and the guy who needs to register an account) said IGN and fansites were unreliable sources. Why then did you cite them in support of your argument?--Soviet689 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that they were or were not reliable sources. I am merely quoting the sources that were originally used to justify that a 2009 release date. These sources actually do not justify the release date, but rather support the TBA marker. Oldag07 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the new source, http://starcraft2may2009release.wordpress.com/ blogs are not considered reliable sources, unless they are official blogs of blizzard. Oldag07 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Release date: E3

Right, Mike Morhaime, the president of the Blizzard Entertainment, has confirmed that the game is anticipated for this year at E3, though subject to the usual string of "we won't release until we're satisfied". This is a different case from the Activision Blizzard stuff above; this is Blizzard Entertainment themselves saying this. I'm sure we can all agree that the president of the company can speak on justifiably on behalf of the company. Source. -- Sabre (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While I can accept this recent announcement. This is far more concrete than sources in the past have given. In defense of those of us who defended not putting up the release date, the announcement Sabre references only happened a few days ago. The previous debate was due to questionable sources, or vague secondary sources. With this current announcement, with is posted over a wide variety of sources, I feel we can loosen the release date blackout on this page and put 2009 on it with in my opinion justifies putting it up. However, I would like to see what other editors would have to say about this before posting that this game will have a late 2009 release date.

Oldag07 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, but I suggest stating that a specific release date (an actual date) has not yet been given. Other than that, this is exciting news.137.244.215.61 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit, I think we can put the topic to rest for now, until the official release date is announced. Thank you Oldag and S@bre for making this article what it is. 137.244.215.61 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While this certainly is not as authoritative like the Blizzard president, this new source seems to think that there is likely going to be a delay. New source I think we go with what we have, but, i am tempted to add the source into the page anyways. Oldag07 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the article and think, although a delay is likely (since beta hasn't been launched yet), the analyst's main point was really pointless and had no relations to Starcraft. I don't see why Activision couldn't release two games within a month of each other, especially since they are two completely different category of games. If the game does get delayed, it is because it isn't finished yet. So I don't think we need to reference the article. Lets hope there is no delay though. :) 137.244.215.19 (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6214823.html:

the publisher announced as part of its April-June earnings report that Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty for the PC has been delayed to the first half of 2010.

This seems official enough to add to the article, instead of TBA. Thue 13:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

~~See sections of talk page past the Lan controversy. [[~~User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC) merged all sections Oldag07 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of them cite a reliable source. I did. So is there any reason not to update the article with a 1H 2010 release date? Thue | talk 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See "Release date as of August 5th 2009" below. Oldag07 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion there is whether the source there is a primary source. I linked to what is clearly a primary source, so I don't see how the discussion below is relevant. As I also said above. Thue | talk 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, i thank you for your patience. This seems to be an hot button issue. The key word in the primary source is anticipated this wording suggests speculation, not according to WP:CRYSTAL "included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (Note, Thue, i am willing prevent an edit war, so I will not revert until you respond, or until this evening if you don't) Oldag07 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Release Date Update as of August 1 2009

"As of a report on July 28th, it has been speculated that the release date will be bumped back to 2010. This is not certain at this point, but in an interview with video game analyst Jess Lubert, he stated, "StarCraft 2 may be pushed out of this year, due to development delays. The beta testing for 'StarCraft' hasn't started yet. If it starts in August and takes 5-6 months, then launching the game this year is next to impossible."

I was hesitant put up this information due to WP:CRYSTAL. It is sourced and it is valid information. But it is speculative. Removing it however, begs the question, should we remove 2009 release date too, and state that it is TBA again. We spent so much time arguing over it earlier, I am hesitant to do anything at the moment. Oldag07 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say throw the TBA tag back up. "Late 2009 or early 2010" is too speculative. In reality, no release date has been officially announced. Mike Morhaime was stating that they wanted to get the game out by 2009. "To Be Announced" is probably the best description of the release date at this point. 137.244.215.19 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Release date as of August 5th 2009

Given the discussion above, I decided not to "be bold" just yet. But... This announcement is phrased in the first-person, as written by Blizzard, and is on an official Blizzard site (forums.battle.net) by an identified "Blizzard Poster" (Cydra). It says "StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty will not be ready for release by the end of 2009"... "we look forward to delivering a real-time strategy gaming experience worthy of the series’ legacy in the first half of 2010." Does that count as an official announcement? --User:AlexChurchill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.18.173 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

yes Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the message board, we should watch for WP:PRIMARY. (If you read earlier posts carefully, I never stated that secondary sources shouldn't be used.) Admittedly there are secondary sources out there, but after posting up a date, changing it, removing it several times for the Q4 2009 fiasco, lets just use the guidelines for WP:CRYSTAL. Oldag07 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, history shows that any release date for blizzard is speculative at best, until there is an official announcement. Thus posting any date violates WP:CRYSTAL. I would be more open to posting something up when the beta for the game is released. Oldag07 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting plans that a company has stated has nothing to do with wp:crystal. It doesn't matter if that company changes it plans often. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"anticipated" does not equal announcement. being the key word from the primary source. and any secondary source will tell you that blizzard will release something "when it is done"Oldag07 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to go with my compromise solution, but if no comment is made, I personally am more comfortable with TBA. Oldag07 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oldag, TBA should stay. Every other announcement that has been made so far has been speculative. "Blizzard anticipates a first half 2010 release". This is not an official release date, please understand this. "Anticipating a 2010 release" is saying they would LIKE to release it by then. It is not official until there is an official announcement by Blizzard saying the game is going to be released on a specific date. 137.244.215.51 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard has missed the "Summer" deadline for the Starcraft 2 Beta. Please make a note of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.50.224 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Release date as of February 11th 2010

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/02/starcraft-2-beta-begins-this-month-game-coming-mid-2010.ars —Wulf (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the best place - I'm a bit new and don't know where else to put this. I think it's worth noting that the beta came out (18 Feb right?) and that access keys to the beta are being sold on ebay for upwards of $300 w/ polar bears, and over $200 w/o. That seems excessive. While it may not be a huge deal to us today, in ten or fifteen years when SC and SC2 are near-forgotten relics, the fact that beta access keys were sold for 5-6x the anticipated retail price of the game (if not more) will help give perspective on how excited many fans are about this game. -Vaerax, 24Feb2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 7 at the Reference desk.

Release date as of May 4th 2010

It will be released on July 27 on Mac and PC worldwide except chinalinkI will edit it. --Karim666 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No Lan Controversy (piracy issue)

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/11157-blizzard-cites-piracy-as-reason-for-no-starcraft-ii-lan/ http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59340

Blizzard says piracy is the reason for no support for LAN (offline local area network gameplay)

The controversy is that people are responding badly, thus this can lead to lower sales already and provoked hacking the game to get LAN to work, in which these hacks are often found in game cracks. I don't need more info to understand that it will be hacked and pirated more, especially for newcomers to the series. Which means me too, I will certainly not use some battle.net to go LAN, that's ridiculous. Just looking some sites , it's already sawn from space that this is a huge controversy from point one, seems that this will spark massive hacking. That's true, even I want LAN. Fact is also that no matter how good wow and warcraft3 is, the battle.net sucks so not a good start to direct people to it, while they're making new battle.net upgrade... I don't think that will prevent 13 year old noobs from spamming with shitload of threads.

The original Controversy part so far (I did not originally make it) is in hidden quote, edit, fix, use it when it's appropriate.

Battle.net 2.0 and the beta are nearly due to be announced. It would be prudent to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude as to how Blizzard chooses to implement this. It might very well be that they choose to adopt a similar system to Steam, in which case LAN would be present, but the client would need to auth and stay connected: Thus you play over LAN, but auth with Battle.net.

Also, considering how massive and far reaching the update is said to be that speculation of this nature just wouldn't be helpful. In short, the controversy in itself is fairly baseless due to the fact nobody has any idea how in fact it IS implemented. All this is based on speculation that can easily be verified when the beta comes out (which isn't very far away...)--Tyraz (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard saying they're not going to put LAN on the game coz of piracy is like presuming people are idiots. Of course it's not about piracy but about money. Even a dud can see that what Blizzard is doing is a prequel to a Pay to Play platform for starcraft 2. Of course it's a stupid move which could hurt sales and lead to a crusade to hack the game. I for one wouldn't hesitate to tinker with the game and use 3rd party programs to get LAN gameplay.

And let's be straight about one thing. Hackers will ALWAYS find a way. It's a lame excuse that even morons won't believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.89.3 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is a talk page about the article, not the success of blizzard's anti-piracy initiatives. That type of discussion is appropriate at http://www.starcraft2.com Oldag07 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible delays

On July 28, MarketWatch reported that StarCraft II's release date may be postponed to 2010. While Blizzard has not confirmed any delays, video game analyst Jess Lubert stated, "StarCraft 2 may be pushed out of this year, due to development delays. The beta testing for 'StarCraft' hasn't started yet. If it starts in August and takes 5-6 months, then launching the game this year is next to impossible."^[1]

In response to the possible delay of the release of StarCraft II, Jeff Haynes of IGN.com contacted Blizzard. A spokesperson for Blizzard informed Haynes, "We're still targeting the end of the year for the launch of StarCraft II and we're also still targeting this summer for the start of the beta, so none of that's changed on this end." and that, "We're still looking to ship the game by the end of the year. If that changes, we'll let you guys know, but that's how things are looking right now."

Removed this from the page. as discussed above. If this page's official stance is TBA for the release date, than it makes no sense to have a "delays" section. moreover. WP:CRYSTAL Oldag07 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed: On August 5th, 2009, Blizzard announced that StarCraft II and another upcoming game will be delayed until early 2010.

The biggest reason why we put a release date was because the blizzard president said that it was coming out in 2009. The blizzard president did not say anything about the game coming out in 2010, even though there is reason to believe that there was another delay in the game. I say we keep to the old standards expressed in the comments at the beginning of the page. Oldag07 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit protection?

With all the reverting over the date going into this article should we consider semi-protecting for full-protecting the article for a while? I'm getting tired of constantly reverting unsourced speculation over the release date and any delays, and if that is true of me its probably true of one or two others as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to too, BUT, these are good faith edits. WP:GOODFAITH Despite that, we should do a better job of informing people that no official release date will be announced on this page unless blizzard announces it. Oldag07 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats too bad. I meant hey are editting in good faith and all, but their WP:BOLD attempts are becoming WP:ANNOYING :) Oh well, as Bruce Wayne observed in The Dark Knight, "we wouldn't want to make things too easy now would we?" TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. keep up the good work TomStar81 Oldag07 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was this article made indefinite semi-protected, and could we remove it now when the argument that triggered it has been laid to rest? I cant find any indication in the articles history to validate a indefinite semi-protection as given by WP:ROUGH--Belorn (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done –xeno^talk 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Starcraft 2 Screenshot and Logo needs updating

SC2's art has been completely updated and redesigned. The screenshots on this article are very old and doesn't reflect the latest builds of the game. Also the game logo has been updated as well. Let me put some as examples:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3843223287_6bcd517fc3_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3844016988_71bfcff2e1_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/3843221879_2138f41cbe_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/3844007476_a320df7de4_o.jpg

New updated Wings of Liberty Logo can be found on various sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houw (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the logo with the current released one for Wings of Liberty. I think this page should also be moved to '"StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty"'. DarthBotto_talk•cont —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

There are two options we can do for each game of the trilogy.

1. Move this page to StarCraft ii Wings of Liberty

Pros: simplest. at the moment, the easiest to implement. Until the second game of the trilogy comes out, removes a significant amount of repetition.

Cons: When expansions start development, and the trickle of information comes in on the new sequel, it will be awkward to put information on the sequel on the wings of liberty page. I don't know then the line will be to create a new page for the expansion games.

2. Keep this page, and make eventually new individual pages for each game of the trilogy.

Pros: a centralized location for gameplay, the culture that will eventually surround the game.

Cons: initially, the will be a lot of repetition. the wings of liberty page will be small at the moment, and pretty have repetitive with the main StarCraft II page.

If you can think of any other way to do it, please suggest. if not, I guess, we can discuss how we want to structure the pages of the trilogy. Oldag07 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Or you could keep the main SC2 page & just generate sections for each game in the trilogy. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The two expansions will foreseeably generate sufficient development and reception info for spin-outs, I think we just need to add the "Wings of Liberty" name to this one – I think we've reached the stage when we can rename this article now. Keep the expansion info here for the moment in this article's development section, until each enters full development and we have the info to sustain full articles. That's the pretty standard way to deal with expansions. Either way, we won't need pages at both StarCraft II and StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty at any point, as implied by that second route, the page for the base game typically serves as the central point in relation to expansions as well. -- Sabre (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets give it until next week. if no one objects, than we move it. Oldag07 (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need an admin to move it anyways Oldag07 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem :) -- Sabre (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We could technically spin off some of the information on the expansions to the StarCraft (series) page. I think the SC2 section on that page needs an update. That might be a good compromise solution. 5-6 years after the whole trilogy is out, the page named StarCraft II could redirect there. Oldag07 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating information on the series page will be necessary, but the expansions need to be given basic coverage here as well - the other two are expansions to StarCraft II, in the same way Brood War is to the original (give or take some standalone expansion measures). Wings of Liberty is merely the subtitle of StarCraft II, in the same way as say Project Origin is the subtitle of FEAR 2, there's no point directing StarCraft II anywhere else. -- Sabre (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I also assume that some rewording will be required for the move. I have started working on it in my Sandbox. Oldag07 (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Move completed. I'll leave Oldag to upload the prose refinements in his own time. -- Sabre (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting this page updated media wise? Like I said, the screenshots are very old and aren't really reflective of the game any longer. Makes wikipedia feel not updated.

Well, this is an encyclopedia built on the principle that anybody can edit it. . . Oldag07 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Won't be out till 2015

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzO_3RCfJQw#t=03m17s --67.187.26.29 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia considers youtube a reliable source. Besides, thats seems highly unlikely. Noneofyour (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube may be hosting it, the source is the mouth pieces speaking. --67.187.26.29 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the context they said it, i'm pretty sure that they were just joking.

Yeah, they were joking. There is no way Blizzard would take that long to release the game. --Thelifelessone (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 7 at the Reference desk.

Does that statement that Zeratul is still tormented mean that the game takes place before the novel Twilight? Chronolegion (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question? I am not really into the novels. I don't know. I hate to be a party pooper, but this type of conversation belongs on http://www.starcraft2.com Chronolegion, keep up the good work. Oldag07 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism

Removed the 'lag times' comment from criticism because anyone who knows how battle.net operates would be aware that if all players in a game are on the same lan the service treats it AS a lan game. The only real concern is the inability to play multiplayer where no internet is present. Latency is NOT an issue in LAN games over bnet. Wikipedia is not a place for baseless slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Marketplace

I was AT Blizzcon, I listened to the interview that is linked as a reference for the point I edited. The person who added the segment about DotA didn't listen very carefully. DotA was listed as an example of an excellent mod for wc3, but was also stated very clearly that it would NOT qualify as a premium map because it uses mostly warcraft 3's attributes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Winner of the prestigious Vaporware awards 2009

Now it's in the number one spot [1] and it's been featured before in the list.--99.192.49.231 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I put it in. While I personally disagree with the award, this is a legit source. It is also a way to help balance the article. Oldag07 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Release Date

In the recently released Blizzcast 13 http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/community/blizzcast/archive/episode13.html

Production director, Chris Sigaty, said "You haven't asked this question yet, but I'll answer it ahead of time. We were targeting three to five months for the beta, we're really at a three month period of time for the beta at this point. We are still targeting the first half of this year, so with that in mind, it really shortens the window of time with our major content patch coming out pretty close to the end whether it's even worth it putting out the map editor at that point."

So should we put the release date as Q2 2010 (targeted)?KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone has been pretty stanch "keep it TBA until it is officially announced", I am far more comfortable writing projected release dates now that beta is out. However, I would like to hear more opinions on the issue. Oldag07 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An article released this week by IGN claims "TBA 2010". I think this is a more accurate date than simply "TBA" (as if it's vaporware). Jwesley₇₈ 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Expected: 2010"? TastyCakes (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be ok, but I'd prefer "TBA 2010". There's little doubt it'll be released in 2010. It's already in beta. Jwesley₇₈ 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I know it's a little pedantic, but I think there's a significant difference between the two. "TBA 2010" makes an absolute statement that it will be announced in 2010. This seems, to me, an example of crystal balling. Saying it is expected in 2010 is in no doubt, it is a fact, not a prediction, however well founded. Therefore, saying "expected" is just better language for Wikipedia, in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated. It is about time. Beta is out. Oldag07 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Beta section update

The Beta section needs to be updated. The article mentions that a map editor is expected to be released, along with a major content patch towards the end of beta. Also, it mentions patch 8 as the latest patch.

As of 4/22/2010, Patch 9 has been released, bringing the GalaxyEditor with it. Patch 9 corresponds to the major content patch mentioned as expected in the beta, and should be updated to reflect that. This link can be used as a source/reference: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23094049316&postId=243993487492&sid=5000#10

Cavillis (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I reworded what you said a bit, please review. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is your HUGE HIGH QUALITY SC2 Box Cover - USE IT

I don't know how to update it on the main page and I don't really feel the urge to educate my self about it. Since people working on this wiki are probably big fans of the game: Here is the link where I uploaded it http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8946/sc2m.png If you feel like mentioning my nickname its Polymorpher . Cheers. (You are welcome to delete this message when the image is included at the wiki) [July,23,2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.147.183 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the non free content criteria state that it must be at a smaller size. (Although I'll resize that image and reupload, as it has better colors. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is Kevin Costner on the cover? Terranmeapart (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

because it's not Kevin Costner, it's Jim Raynor. Although he does look a bit like Costner in that image 202.53.199.23 (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

China?

Why isn't it going to be released in China? All of the source doesn't indicate that it isn't going to be released in China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is a part of China 58.9.204.175 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Patches 9 & 10

I added that Patch 9 added a map editor and updated the patch count to 10 (effective about an hour or so ago). Don't know the right way to cite so copied another citation and it came out wonky. Someone should fix it. Also fix this section if I put it in wrong. thx. Slackmaster K 09:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Release date announced

Check out this blog post on StarCraft 2. 192.118.11.112 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Official System Requirements?

Any one have the official system requirements? It should be for the finalized version. Iys best for it to be cited to the official website.76.21.122.234 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blizzard posted official requirements for the Beta on their website. I imagine that the requirements for the final game will be similar if not the same, but as of right now there aren't official system requirements for the retail copy.69.242.68.96 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC) i read on the box of the game that broadband internet connection is a requirement.

Map editor

Ok i downloaded the patch witch allowed the map editor but how to i access it?97.81.53.142 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you managed to write a comment on Wikipedia, but failed to find the galaxy editor exe. --81.204.102.163 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

it is in the same folder as the main exe. the file that runs the editor is called starcraft 2 editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-rated in S. Korea

It appears that Blizzard has censored parts of the game (specifically, recoloured the blood and removed swearing & smoking from the cut-scenes) and got away with a 12 from the South Korean ratings board. Source. Delusibeta (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dicussion about editing of this article on another website

Just a heads up: There is discussion about editing the critisism section of this article ongoing at http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128316. Arthena ^(talk) 07:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the discussion on the TeamLiquid site was on improving the criticism section to meet wikipedia's standards and to edit out any bias appearing in the text. The website is well known for giving honest and direct feedback to Blizzard including a large amount of help with the Beta version of Starcraft 2. Overall the discussion has vastly improved the new criticism section.Zuchinni one (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at the general tone on that forum, it appears that there is general lack of happiness with some of the Blizzard's design choices from the users at that forum, as well as a stated intention to force change by boycotting the game, to voting the game as one-star on amazon, consider this thread for example. While edits to the article are encouraged from everyone, we should strive to ensure that they're of a neutral point of view, and not part of a potential campaign to use wikipedia as a soapbox or to influence a company. If we're including a reception section, we should also include posts which show the game in a favorable light to avoid giving undue weight to the criticisms. Revaluation (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

This keeps getting added and subtracted, so after watching this for the last few hours I've fully protected the article for three days so we can:

Leave the status quo in the article as is, and
Discuss the matter of a criticism section so we can get some consensus for its inclusion or exclusion.

I have no strong feelings on the matter, but I do want to see some decision on the matter by the time the protection ends. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that this seems to have been prompted by an external group of people from a forum, I'd advise individuals concerned read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure and Criticism sections so you're all familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and opinion on these things. "Criticism and controversy" sections can have a negative impact on neutral presentation; usually with video game articles, unless there's major unconventional issues that are covered by the core video game (IGN, GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc) or mainstream media, such points should be worked into the "development" or "reception" sections of an article, not given a special preference section (Left 4 Dead 2#Controversy would be a good example of a valid controversy section done properly).

However, points also need to be properly cited to reliable sources, see Verifiability and No original research for this—forums, fansites and other sites lacking a wider reputation outside their fanbases aren't appropriate. Incgamers, whilst the strongest source of the ones used, is borderline: it needs to be reinforced by references from better sources. -- Sabre (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any points of controversy are best merged into the Development section, which, incidentally, already has criticisms (No LAN, no cross-server play, long development time). While I do sympathize with the writers of it, there is no justification for a new Criticism section.

In terms of reliability, I don't see anything wrong with using IncGamer's interview (primary source) to supplement/support the information in the Development section. However, opinions, such as the first sentence of the former Criticism section ("While Blizzard boasts some of the most loyal fans in the gaming industry, they have recently come under heavy criticism.") should not be included, especially considering that they refer to weak sources (e.g. forums). 24.191.123.88 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on inclusion as well. Thanks for the criticism section stuff, I sure had not read that, and am now. I just had this on my watchlist and came to try and improve it, and probably did overrate the reliability of IncGamers. It would be good for any people on that forum to figure out if they want to integrate it, and if so, how, using what reliable sources, while the page is under full protection. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have no strong feelings about where this information resides within the article ... as it's own section or as part of the Development section. But I do feel that if it is placed in the Development section then all the criticism should be consolidated into its own subsection.Zuchinni one (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The vaporware award can fit in development. The lan controversy could be in a criticism section, or in its own section. It has caused quite the uproar. Oldag07 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Their have been many many sources of criticism from the mainstream press. Among them include sites like http://kotaku.com/5304113/no-lan-play-for-starcraft-ii http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzards-response-to-no-lan-support-for-starcraft-2/http://pc.ign.com/articles/999/999171p1.html All which address the negative Fan reaction regarding the issue Halfthought (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of the current articles that may be suitable reference material for the criticism section.

-The original Frank Pearce interview:

http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/270/blizzards-frank-pearce-interview

-An INC Gamers article on the petitions to include LAN support:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/17162/Thousands-Petition-Blizzard-For-StarCraft-LAN

-An INC Gamers article on the lack of even Semi-LAN support:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/22943/not-even-semi-lan-in-starcraft-ii

-A Game Rant article discussing the lack of LAN:

http://gamerant.com/blizzard-starcraft-2-no-lan-js-23284/

-An INC Gamers article on the region locking issue:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/22928/no-intercontinental-starcraft-ii-friendships

-A GX interview with Kevin Yu of Blizzard discussing region lock:

http://www.gx.com.sg/Blog/Blog.aspx?id=cee4cc72-d74f-4837-8e9e-d25983a2e67e

-A Gosu Gamers article discussing the lack of cross-region play & how that will effect the competitive scene. It also briefly discusses the lack of chat rooms:

http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/12068-battle-net-2-0-what-are-we-missing

-A kotaku article about the lack of LAN play:

http://kotaku.com/5304113/no-lan-play-for-starcraft-ii

-A Gossip Gamers article about lack of LAN play:

http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzards-response-to-no-lan-support-for-starcraft-2/

-An article on Starcraft-Fans giving Blizzard's response to LAN requests:

http://www.starcraft-fans.com/page/Blizzard+Responds+to+No+LAN+Support?t=anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the best solution I see. There's no dispute that the LAN issue needs to be covered (its already touched upon in the article), this is about how it is covered. The lack of LAN is still part of the development narrative; it, the reaction to it (properly sourced) and Blizzard's response to that are all still development information. Nevertheless, I think we could get a good paragraph, possibly two, out of available sources. However, any top-level section heading that indicates weight on either positive or negative aspects in such a manner, such as the troll-magnet titles "Criticism" or "Controversy" is a very bad idea for this case, especially given that the article isn't in great condition at the moment anyway.

What I'd suggest is to put it in a sub-section heading within the development section entitled "Lack of LAN play", "Multiplayer production", or some variant on that. Doing that would provide a neutral structure, satisfying WP:NPOV, for discussing the whole LAN issue. That way, it still gets a section all to itself, but is integrated properly.

Lets have a look at sourcing:

The IGN source posted by Halfthought is already in the article. IGN's a major video game media outlet, its perfectly acceptable. However, unlike Halfthought says, it doesn't present any criticism, it merely reports the lack of LAN. That's something key to remember about sourcing: Don't mistake simple acknowledgement for criticism. In any case, source is acceptable.
Kotaku is also a major outlet, its all good there. Same deal as above though, it merely reports, it states nothing on response.
Incgamers appears to be the main source of information for main media groups. That demonstrates a reputation for reliability and source checking, as required by WP policy. Thus Incgamers can be used. Just don't use what it reports for synthesis.
Gamerant and Gossipgamers are just random internet blogs about video games. Unless they can be demonstrated to be reputable peer-reviewed sources, they're no good and shouldn't be included.
GX is also a blog, I can't see anything that would indicate why it should be considered reliable. We can just about get away with citing the comments by Kevin Yu with it, but don't cite any of the site's own content or opinion. However, this source also has nothing to do with LAN, so I don't see why it was brought up.
StarCraft Fans is a fansite, its not a reliable source for any academic purposes. No dice.
Gosu Gamers is an editorial that discusses Battle.Net 2.0, not any issues with LAN. Its not particularly relevant for a section dealing with LAN; a vague reference to it in the open blurb isn't enough to make it worthwhile for this particular purpose. Plus, it would need to have its case as a reputable source demonstrated.
While we're at it, lets deal with Team Liquid itself. As a forum, its completely unsuitable as an scholarly source (regardless of the need for registration or the amount of people involved). Forum posts aren't reliable and citing the forum poll would arguably constitute original research on the part of the forum operators. Now, if this poll result is picked up and reported on by someone such as IGN, then we can cite that third-party analysis of the poll, but citing it directly isn't any good.

That leaves IGN, Kotaku and Incgamers, and tentatively GX. There's some more decent references from GameSpot and Ars Technica in the article already as a start towards more mainstream stuff, which I'm confident exists. I'm sure something can be put together out of those. -- Sabre (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sabre for vetting the potential sources :)

I think you are correct that there should not be a top-level criticism section. The current development section would serve as a good place for a sub-topic.

The three main issues that seem to be generating the most problems are:

1) Lack of LAN play - Blizzard's reasoning for this is quite simply to prevent piracy. The fan complaints revolve around the lack of high quality of gameplay since LANs offer the least amount of lag.

2) Region locking - Blizzard has said people will need to purchase multiple copies of the game (and possibly the expansions too) in order to play in different regions. Their reasoning is that they want to provide a solid experience for the players and very low lag.

3) Lack of chat rooms - It is unclear why Blizzard has refused to include chat rooms. While this might seem like a minor issue it actually has major ramifications in terms of the social aspect of the game and there are major privacy concerns. Currently the system provides no anonymity and requires that you either share your e-mail address or Facebook page with potential friends. While this issue is one of the biggest there is very little news from reliable sources. One of the best bits of information comes from a tournament organizer who published the difficulties of a non-chat environment on youtube. But that hardly qualifies as a mainstream source.^[2]

There seems to be a decent amount of mainstream reporting on the first two issues, but it is lacking for the third.

For issue 3, the lack of chat rooms, would it be acceptable to simply explain the requirements that Blizzard has put into place for social gaming? Something along the lines of

"Unlike the original Battle.net service, the Battlenet 2.0 system does not allow anonymity and requires users to share e-mail addresses or Facebook information in order to become in-game friends."

Or would that be considered unsourced? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the game hasn't launched, I don't see how we can have a Criticism, unless there's some form of controversy similar to the L4D2 article. Part of these problems may be resolved before launch (which is 2 months away). This is an article about Starcraft 2, not the Starcraft 2 beta. It seems to me that a bunch of forum users who want features implemented in the game are trying to POV push it into this article so that they can get action from Blizzard. Wikipedia is not their soapbox. I generally agree with Sabres assessment, but I don't think we need anything outside the development section. Revaluation (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The criticism has been regarding Blizzard's assertions about what will and will not be in the final release. Nothing mentioned here is in regards to the Beta. Also most of the issues which have been highly criticized were recently covered in a discussion with Frank Pearce, one of Blizzard's founders. That interview has sparked a new firestorm of protests including a drive to boycott Starcraft 2 and to rate it 1-star on Amazon. There has also been a petition signed by 250,000 people demanding changes. So I think its fair to say there is a real controversy here.Zuchinni one (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, reading guidelines on controversy, if it shows up in more reliable sources it would not be unheard of to have a dedicated criticism section. However, at this point it doesn't make sense. There is undoubtedly some bias, but as long as everyone is trying to improve the article we must take the stance of assuming good faith. As to the above, it is probably considered original research, and is not a neutral sentence. A more neutral sentence would remove the part about not allowing anonymity, but could include the requirements. Additionally, it's a little dangerous to make assertions, as Blizzard said they disabled the feature so they could more thoroughly test the facebook/email features. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is a criticism section, it should probably be a subsection of the reception section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing reception setting

This article currently lacks a reception section, which is listed as essential content in the video game article guidelines, and, after quickly skimming through the article history, it seems that it has never had such a section. Could someone with editing rights add a {{game cleanup}} tag to the article? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm declining that request for the same reason I protected the article earlier: the game hasn't come out yet. Having a reception section for the game before its release makes no greater sense than having a criticism section, and at any rate the lock is only for another 48 hours. After that you can feel free to add it to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the game has not been released, there is more than sufficient content for a reception section, from the release of the Beta. Though personally I feel most of the backlash is actually about the merger with Activision, rather than issues with Sc2/Bnet 2.0. 174.7.110.7 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources please. -- Sabre (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New Starcraft 2 Beta Reception Section?

It occurs to me that perhaps the best thing to do would be to write a brief bit about the reception of the Beta, which was very positive overall, as a sub-section of the Beta section. And then have a sentence or two about the criticism along with all appropriate references from RSs.

Something like:

"Overall the Beta has been very well received by the gaming community with praise for playability, artwork, and Blizzard's Map Editor. However there have also been reports of widespread disappointment at the lack of LAN play, chat rooms, and region locking."

The wording here might have too much bias so I welcome suggestions on improving it.

Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some kind of feedback on the beta might be helpful, but we need references first. Otherwise that's just completely unverifiable original research. Remember, make the prose fit what the secondary sources say, don't create the prose then try to find a way of sourcing it. A full subsection seems a bit overkill for just this bit anyway—the critical analysis will come for the final game, not so much the beta phase—it would fit better simply as a closing paragraph to the existing beta section. -- Sabre (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks S@bre. The prose suggestion above is from a wide range of articles that I know already exist, but I couldn't source off the top of my head. I'll find the refs, make sure the prose only comes from what is actually said, and add this as a subsection of the Beta. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

^ Gallagher, Dan (2009-07-28). "Activision under pressure on worries about game delay". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2009-07-29.
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-r_uCaFxg8

Page notice?

I'm interested in hearing if anyone would object to creating a page notice for the article, perhaps something like:

IMPORTANT:

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING:

1. DO NOT INSERT ANY INFORMATION READ ON FANSITES, except when such information can be sourced by reliable sources, or has been released by Blizzard OFFICIALLY!

2. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, INFORMATION ADDED TO THIS PAGE SHOULD HAVE ITS SOURCE LISTED USING THE <ref> TAG. Information added to this page without a source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.

3. DO NOT ADD A CRITICISM SECTION TO THIS ARTICLE. As per consensus reached on the talk page no such section will be added to the article until after the release of the game. Any attempt made to add a criticism section to this article will be reverted immediately.

What do y'all think? Is this worth pursuing? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Would prefer something to the tune of:

Please read before editing:

Please do not insert information found on fansites or forums, except when such information can be sourced by reliable sources, or has been released by Blizzard officially.
Whenever possible citations added to this page using the <ref> tag, or using the RefToolbar 2.0.
Information added to this page without a source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion. (See WP:BURDEN)
Do not add a dedicated criticism section to this article. As per consensus reached on the talk page no such section will be added to the article until after the release of the game (July 17). Any attempt made to add a criticism section to this article will be reverted immediately.

The issue with this remains, however, the fact that it is possible (now that the beta phase has ended) that large game journals, considered reliable sources could summarize the criticism, which could be integrated into the development section. However, I think this is formatted a bit better. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

online only

based on what i have found out it is online only. there is however a guest mode where people can play single player online without an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To validate the game, a battle.net account and connection is required. An offline single-player mode will be available, but only after valdation. 74.88.105.35 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) i read a faq on blizzards forums that say that it is online only. i do however understand that people refuse to believe it. most people on the hive workshop also refuse to believe that it is online only.

incorrect editor name

i have used the editor myself so i can tell that is simply called the starcraft 2 editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blizzard has confirmed that the official name for the editor will be the Galaxy Editor. What was seen was simply a title for the application window. 88.151.126.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC). the fact is that is called the starcraft 2 editor, live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's avoid some form of flame war, but here's a reliable source for the official title for the map editor in Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty being called the Galaxy Map Editor.

Read post #3, posted by a blizzard poster Furthermore, the programming language used in the editor is called Galaxy.

See question #1 I am not saying that Blizzard does not use several names for the tool used to edit the game, but the Galaxy Editor seems to be the successor to StarEdit. 75.67.82.245 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC) i currently use the editor. there isnt any galaxy in the editors name. on the european forum of the beta it is called the starcraft 2 map editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) the game have been released and the editor is called the starcraft II editor. please correct the error in the article.

Mac and Win in the same game?

Will there be released a game for Mac OSX and one for Windows - or will there be only one release which works on both platforms? --Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One game for both operating systems Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we know if the game will come on two DVDs - one for Mac and one for Windows - or will they put the game for both OS down on one single DVD? --Lindberg (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Very likely that it'll be a single disc. Probably a dual-layer DVD. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. Is there any sources that can support that theory? --Lindberg (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but given that Blizzard have done this consistently for years I doubt they'd change it now anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that thumperward is right, the fact that the original StarCraft game did it would count as a good indication. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.99.242 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

dvd drive isnt required

the system requirements shouldnt include a dvd drive because there will be a digital version which will be released on the same day but 10 am pacific time.the dvd drive should be listed as optional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboi209 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The game is live, released and selling copies over an hour ago in South Korea.

http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/launch?ref=/sc2/en/ http://www.facebook.com/#!/StarCraft

The game was released today, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 in Southeast Asia. It is not 'currently under development' - the game is live, as Blizzard has announced. 99.178.100.125 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot Development

Does anyone who's been playing the game have the time to spare to flesh out the campaign? It's been half a day and a lot of people are bound to start looking for this site to know what the plot line is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.36.162 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The ending cinematic's been posted all over YouTube. --Bobak (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Starcraft

I heard the game is a computerized version of the Warhammer 40k table-top game (with Warcraft being similarly a computerized version of the original Warhammer table-top game). Not sure where or if this origin of the game should be mentioned in article. C3ndy99 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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/w/index.php?title=StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty&diff=376243669&oldid=376239680

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

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If there's more on that topic then it would be a controversy perhaps. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

External Links

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)

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)

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)

Posted Zuchinni one (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

100% agree with Stabby and Torchiest Zuchinni one (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[Delay_to_2010-1] Gallagher, Dan (2009-07-28). "Activision under pressure on worries about game delay". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2009-07-29.

[2] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-r_uCaFxg8

[1]

[2]