Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
plus it's just not right to think that releasing another title one year later with pretty much the same content as the first in it. yeah, it looks prettier, zombies look more like "real" zombies and everything is crisper, new weapons, etc... but that's the only major changes. aside from 4 new maps, who in their right mind would want to pay another 60 bucks for just that? DLC is the only way to go.
if you read this all, sorry for the TL;DR. ;D
Yes I am saying we were robbed the moment we bought the game at ever since Valve has been trying to catch up to make the wasted money worth while. The game was amazingly shoddy when it first came out and if I could have returned the game I would have.
Yes I like the game but the multiplayer is no where need up to par of even EA. Once Valve steps in we expect a good product from the start not a few months afterwards.
SC 1 was released in 1998, StarCraft II isnt even out yet(it's due at the end of 2009).
Wikipedia would have told you as much