Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 19 NEXT
 

You see, because of this nobody like hardcore gamers.
There will be people who gonna like it, There will people who who gonna hate it. So you enter in the discussion, give the reasons because you like it or not. Discuss if the review is exaggerated or not is also valid. But, suggest that people are pretending like or pretending dislike, that's a lot of hardcore insecurity.

Mazty:

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.

I'd really love to see some screenshots of the DX10 or DX11 effects that make the quality difference between some main stream RTS game and SC2.
Let me guess... what made Metro worth the money were the 2-3 DX11 features they badly implemented last month before release?

mike1921:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

...The graphics ARE poor. Artistic style is utterly subjective and I think it looks like angry micro machines covered in bloom. But the graphics are poor - the textures are low quality, low poly models and so on. That technical aspect is not up for debate.

I have everything set on ultra and it looks good to me

Compared to what? Donkey Kong or Dawn of War 2?

Compared to every game I have ever played barring crysis and keeping in mind it's an RTS.

Mazty:

Xocrates:

Mazty:
Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

Battleship?

I would believe you were talking about the Battlecruiser, but that can't be it as those can be taken down fairly quickly by lower tier units a fraction of the cost.

Deeleted:

Mazty:
[quote="Rythe" post="6.223172.7554098"]

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

I'm supposing you are referring to the battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are in no way OP at all. They are countered by a number of units, void rays for example. Void rays are T1 flying units in the protoss setup, whilst Battlecruisers are T2 flying units in the terran setup. Heck, most ground to air units counter the battlecruiser.

And I noticed how you guys are ignoring the videos we linked (Look at the HDstarcraft one linked below mine, HDstarcraft does in fact have a better computer then Husky, my bad.) where the graphics are SO MUCH better then the crappy VERY early beta patch picture you linked and keep referring to.

Then what's the point of the Battle Cruiser if it can be smashed by units that cost half the price...? Broken unit much?

Nah, just situational and needs an escort unless you're sure the opponent has no decent counters for it. It is pretty powerful against anything that doesn't directly counter it.

The only units I think you can even argue are OP are the marauder,void ray, and infestor.

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.
The one reason I bitch about the graphics is the price of SC2. It's $60 and the graphics are okay, with the terran art style being god-awful. I mean all the edges are rounded as if they are in a nursery for children with special needs. The intro and original would suggest a far grittier more industrial feel to the buildings, not something that would look right at home in a duplo set.
After watching the game and having grabbed a guest pass, I understand how the game is more tactical than I had wrongly presumed, but it looks like it has a major problem that if your first attack doesn't work, it's game over. Seems very ruthless almost to a degree that your first move just has to be a lucky one e.g. you start making marauders only to see halfway through that you're up against an entire zergling rush.

I play tons of games. Maybe I just don't notice because I'm not a graphics whore

I don't pay for the graphics. As long as they're half decent it has no effect on my decision to purchase a game.

The original would suggest that the marines, SCVS,a lot of other shit, and the command center look exactly the same way they do in starcraft II. It would be stupid to change the look of the units and buildings from the original game and piss off the fans just because of the few people who will take issue with that.
Also, I wish I had duplo sets that let me build this as a kid
http://img.fsgatelands.com/images/bv8frzh2aqt41sjxqdm.png

That's only if you rush and don't scout. If you scout your opponent early enough you could be ready for a zerg rush

Maybe you don't notice because of idiotic fanboyism blinding you? Open the f**king editor and have a look at the wire meshes. Seriously, stop arguing this point. The Terran have children proof buildings and everything is bloomed to hell and back, not to mention the Protoss simply look cell-shaded. Try playing games which aren't DX9 and then get back to me, k?
Asking for good graphics when a game is $60 is "being a graphics whore" how? Or are you now just defending a purchase decision instead of being honest?
For $60 for a PC game, I want everything to be great with no exception.
If everything is meant to look that way, then how come the 3D portraits always look a lot grittier then the in game models? Explain that please.
Duplo? No. Power Rangers? Sure thing. Seriously why on earth would MILITARY buildings be rounded?? The only reason buildings are rounded is to make things safe/retard proof H&S. It's just really, really poor design which I'm baffled that no one has taken issue with, but I guess when you've been waiting 10 years for a game, you aren't going to say anything other than OMGOSH ACE LUL.

abija:

Mazty:

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.

I'd really love to see some screenshots of the DX10 or DX11 effects that make the quality difference between some main stream RTS game and SC2.
Let me guess... what made Metro worth the money were the 2-3 DX11 features they badly implemented last month before release?

How much is Metro 2033? How much is SC2? Go figure.
http://www.pcworld.com.mx/UserFiles/File/mtro2.jpg
I can get that for 12, whereas SC2 is 35 and doesn't even offer close to decent graphics. They are good graphics for DX9 which is how many years old??

Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.

I'd really love to see some screenshots of the DX10 or DX11 effects that make the quality difference between some main stream RTS game and SC2.
Let me guess... what made Metro worth the money were the 2-3 DX11 features they badly implemented last month before release?

How much is Metro 2033? How much is SC2? Go figure.
http://www.pcworld.com.mx/UserFiles/File/mtro2.jpg
I can get that for 12, whereas SC2 is 35 and doesn't even offer close to decent graphics. They are good graphics for DX9 which is how many years old??

Metro 2033 looks like shit compared to SC2 though.

Deeleted:

Metro 2033 looks like shit compared to SC2 though.

While I do defend Starcraft 2's graphics...it most certainly does not look better than Metro 2033.

Wait, you can't seriously be comparing StarCraft 2 with Metro 2033?
They are in totally different genres, and obviously the game engines have to be optimized for those differences. Metro 2033 looks ridiculously beautiful in it's cramped but very detailed enviroments - FPS engines generally only render a very small portion of a map at one time too (enemies often are not even spawned into the game world until the player gets close to them), just beyond what's visible to the player, while StarCraft 2 has to render the entire game world at once, render a lot of units at the same time and calculate path finding and that stuff for all those units.
Open world games also generally look worse than FPS'es and RPG's, because they also similarly have to stream the entire game world in a very different way compared to how FPS and RPG games do.

Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

You know why we dont have lan? its to stop people from pirating the DLC that will come out soon.

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

I also noticed going from forum to forum the different looks on the game, People on map making forums are hating on blizzard, people on websites like these are giving this game love.

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

Deeleted:

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.

I'd really love to see some screenshots of the DX10 or DX11 effects that make the quality difference between some main stream RTS game and SC2.
Let me guess... what made Metro worth the money were the 2-3 DX11 features they badly implemented last month before release?

How much is Metro 2033? How much is SC2? Go figure.
http://www.pcworld.com.mx/UserFiles/File/mtro2.jpg
I can get that for 12, whereas SC2 is 35 and doesn't even offer close to decent graphics. They are good graphics for DX9 which is how many years old??

Metro 2033 looks like shit compared to SC2 though.

How & why?? Because you say so? Because you have eye sight problems? Metro 2033 is far more graphically advanced and looks far better as the models aren't rediculously basic (Open the editor and have a look for yourself), the art style isn't retarded (smooth edge buildings for the children running around...) and the graphics aren't dated (Seriously what the hell are the Protoss buildings made from? Plastic, clay? Can't actually tell thanks to the "great" graphics).
Please tell me in what way that screen shot looks sh*t or you just defending the $60 you spent?

abija:
Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

How about decent lighting and not just everything coated in bloom? Or you trying to tell me that the industry has it wrong when they say bloom is how DX9 games make up for a lack of lighting? End of the day, SC2 is one of the graphically weakest RTS out there. Are you really going to argue with benchmarks etc over that one?

ionveau:
Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

You know why we dont have lan? its to stop people from pirating the DLC that will come out soon.

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

I also noticed going from forum to forum the different looks on the game, People on map making forums are hating on blizzard, people on websites like these are giving this game love.

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

LAN is hardly necessary in this day and age. I really don't get all the gripes about it. People who hate it the most seem to be people who want to play with friends and family who either don't have the game or who aren't on an internet connection, In the first case, that's the idea. You want to play the game, you buy it. As for internet, with all the options available these days I find it hard to believe someone couldn't come to an arrangement.

They don't charge a flat monthly fee. What they do is, you pay for a part of the game, like a subscription, and you can play it for a while without having bought the game. Like a month long demo, but with all the game features. If I recall correctly, once they have paid off as much as the game costs they own the game. It's not like an MMORPG where you buy the game and have to keep paying.

Pretty much your whole post in nonsense. Want to know why people defend this game so much? Because they LIKE IT. Is that a hard concept to grasp? People who talk about blind loyalty are fooling themselves. The first game is beloved to this day. If anything, people would be LESS lenient in their views on this game, what with expectations so high. However, this is the realm of the internet, and that means that when people post saying they like something popular they are automatically fanboys, jumping on the bandwagon, and blind idiots. StarCraft 2 was made for the fans. We didn't want them to radically change the formula. They did what a sequel does, which is take the core mechanics and refine them. It doesn't look like much when you watch, but the UI is MUCH better, menial tasks are smoother (now you can rally minerals and they will mine them when they spawn, for example). It's the little changes they made, along with refining core gameplay, that makes it work so well. If you don't like that, fine. The twitch heavy micro/strategy combo that makes SC what it is isn't for everyone. However, I don't understand why people are getting so upset in here about the game. If you don't like it don't play it. Just because it is not your personal cup of tea doesn't make it bad, it makes it not your type of game. I have never enjoyed a GTA game, but I don't come into GTA topics telling people how bad it is, or how they are mindless sheep for liking it. So please, stop with the pointless attacks in here. You won't convince us of your points, and we won't convince you, so what does it accomplish?

Mazty:

How & why?? Because you say so? Because you have eye sight problems? Metro 2033 is far more graphically advanced and looks far better as the models aren't rediculously basic (Open the editor and have a look for yourself), the art style isn't retarded (smooth edge buildings for the children running around...) and the graphics aren't dated (Seriously what the hell are the Protoss buildings made from? Plastic, clay? Can't actually tell thanks to the "great" graphics).
Please tell me in what way that screen shot looks sh*t or you just defending the $60 you spent?

God, why are you STILL harping on about the graphics? And to compare it to a FPS of all things, a game rendered and programmed totally different? You are really starting to reach, here. It's actually kind of funny. I've been willing to read your posts and not say anything, since you simply have a different opinion, but now you are being ridiculous. Strategy games have to have the entire map and everything on it rendered at once, hence why they look worse than other games. FPS games render small amounts of the map at once, hence why they can look so good. And are you arguing STYLE now. Saying that you don't like the style does not make the graphics bad. I will admit, SC2's graphics aren't top of the line. However, they are not bad in the slightest, and it's not worth knocking the game about it.

Mazty:

abija:
Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

How about decent lighting and not just everything coated in bloom? Or you trying to tell me that the industry has it wrong when they say bloom is how DX9 games make up for a lack of lighting? End of the day, SC2 is one of the graphically weakest RTS out there. Are you really going to argue with benchmarks etc over that one?

Still waiting comparative screenshots from those better "RTS out there". It also puzzles me how you got benchmarks into this discussion and what truth are they suppose to prove.
And wth has lightning to do with it? Do you really expect true dynamic lightning when you can have close to 1000 units at the same time on the screen? You think DX10 would magically make that possible?

abija:

Mazty:

abija:
Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

How about decent lighting and not just everything coated in bloom? Or you trying to tell me that the industry has it wrong when they say bloom is how DX9 games make up for a lack of lighting? End of the day, SC2 is one of the graphically weakest RTS out there. Are you really going to argue with benchmarks etc over that one?

Still waiting comparative screenshots from those better "RTS out there". It also puzzles me how you got benchmarks into this discussion and what truth are they suppose to prove.
And wth has lightning to do with it? Do you really expect true dynamic lightning when you can have close to 1000 units at the same time on the screen? You think DX10 would magically make that possible?

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

...The graphics ARE poor. Artistic style is utterly subjective and I think it looks like angry micro machines covered in bloom. But the graphics are poor - the textures are low quality, low poly models and so on. That technical aspect is not up for debate.

I have everything set on ultra and it looks good to me

Compared to what? Donkey Kong or Dawn of War 2?

Compared to every game I have ever played barring crysis and keeping in mind it's an RTS.

Mazty:

Xocrates:

Mazty:
Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

Battleship?

I would believe you were talking about the Battlecruiser, but that can't be it as those can be taken down fairly quickly by lower tier units a fraction of the cost.

Deeleted:

Mazty:

Rythe:

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

I'm supposing you are referring to the battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are in no way OP at all. They are countered by a number of units, void rays for example. Void rays are T1 flying units in the protoss setup, whilst Battlecruisers are T2 flying units in the terran setup. Heck, most ground to air units counter the battlecruiser.

And I noticed how you guys are ignoring the videos we linked (Look at the HDstarcraft one linked below mine, HDstarcraft does in fact have a better computer then Husky, my bad.) where the graphics are SO MUCH better then the crappy VERY early beta patch picture you linked and keep referring to.

Then what's the point of the Battle Cruiser if it can be smashed by units that cost half the price...? Broken unit much?

Nah, just situational and needs an escort unless you're sure the opponent has no decent counters for it. It is pretty powerful against anything that doesn't directly counter it.

The only units I think you can even argue are OP are the marauder,void ray, and infestor.

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.
The one reason I bitch about the graphics is the price of SC2. It's $60 and the graphics are okay, with the terran art style being god-awful. I mean all the edges are rounded as if they are in a nursery for children with special needs. The intro and original would suggest a far grittier more industrial feel to the buildings, not something that would look right at home in a duplo set.
After watching the game and having grabbed a guest pass, I understand how the game is more tactical than I had wrongly presumed, but it looks like it has a major problem that if your first attack doesn't work, it's game over. Seems very ruthless almost to a degree that your first move just has to be a lucky one e.g. you start making marauders only to see halfway through that you're up against an entire zergling rush.

I play tons of games. Maybe I just don't notice because I'm not a graphics whore

I don't pay for the graphics. As long as they're half decent it has no effect on my decision to purchase a game.

The original would suggest that the marines, SCVS,a lot of other shit, and the command center look exactly the same way they do in starcraft II. It would be stupid to change the look of the units and buildings from the original game and piss off the fans just because of the few people who will take issue with that.
Also, I wish I had duplo sets that let me build this as a kid
http://img.fsgatelands.com/images/bv8frzh2aqt41sjxqdm.png

That's only if you rush and don't scout. If you scout your opponent early enough you could be ready for a zerg rush

Maybe you don't notice because of idiotic fanboyism blinding you? Open the f**king editor and have a look at the wire meshes. Seriously, stop arguing this point. The Terran have children proof buildings and everything is bloomed to hell and back, not to mention the Protoss simply look cell-shaded. Try playing games which aren't DX9 and then get back to me, k?

No, it's not. I simply don't give a shit about graphics as long as I could tell what is what and it looks like it was made within the last 10 years. Why the fuck should I look at the editor? That's not what I see in game, it's not relevant.
The terran buildings look similar to how they did 12 years ago, which is exactly what the fans want. They want a game that feels like starcraftI but polished and advanced to a reasonable point.

You do know you can turn down the brightness if you want?

I have played games that aren't DX9, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Asking for good graphics when a game is $60 is "being a graphics whore" how? Or are you now just defending a purchase decision instead of being honest?

Yes, caring about graphics enough where you aren't willing to spend $60 on it because you think they're sub-par is being a graphics whore .No, I have enough money where I don't need to defend any purchase under $100.

For $60 for a PC game, I want everything to be great with no exception.

Then you're nit picky?

If everything is meant to look that way, then how come the 3D portraits always look a lot grittier then the in game models? Explain that please.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Duplo? No. Power Rangers? Sure thing. Seriously why on earth would MILITARY buildings be rounded?? The only reason buildings are rounded is to make things safe/retard proof H&S. It's just really, really poor design which I'm baffled that no one has taken issue with, but I guess when you've been waiting 10 years for a game, you aren't going to say anything other than OMGOSH ACE LUL.

I have only been waiting 3 months for this game.

THE BUILDINGS ARE (or, the CC and bunker and probably something I forget) ROUND BECAUSE THEY WERE ROUND IN THE ORIGINAL, THE FANS WANT STARCRAFT TO LOOK LIKE FUCKING STARCRAFT. The reason no one is complaining about it is because:
Not everyone's immersion is as easily broken as yours
They want the buildings to look this way

Also, this is a german bunker (the holes are damage obviously)
http://media.nickhodge.com/legacy/1792.jpg

Seems pretty well rounded to me

ionveau:
Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

How about we wait until they actually announce some DLC. They're obviously going to make expansion packs, but I sorta assumed those were par for the course and acceptable

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

Wait until they announce DLC. Also, really I don't believe that many people have no internet connection where it will significantly hurt them. How about you start complaining about how the new battlenet is shit that feels like what you'd get on a console?

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

OK, DID THEY ANNOUNCE SOME DLC YET

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

1. Who cares
2. No clue
3. Not relevant to a purchases made where I live
4. spawn play?

someone should make a DotA in Starcraft. id be EPIC.

mike1921:

ionveau:
Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

How about we wait until they actually announce some DLC. They're obviously going to make expansion packs, but I sorta assumed those were par for the course and acceptable

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

Wait until they announce DLC. Also, really I don't believe that many people have no internet connection where it will significantly hurt them. How about you start complaining about how the new battlenet is shit that feels like what you'd get on a console?

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

OK, DID THEY ANNOUNCE SOME DLC YET

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

1. Who cares
2. No clue
3. Not relevant to a purchases made where I live
4. spawn play?

You are light minded, your whole reply is STARCRAFT DOSENT HAVE DLC!!@!#@!#

Well i assume you dont know what your missing, Before i mark you as another light minded poster, did you ever play DOTA?

I have yet to see a single store that charges more than €50 for StarCraft II, I bought my copy for €40, and later realized a store right next to the one I bought mine charged €30 for it.

Man, every reviewer on the planet seems to kiss Starcraft II's ass. They did it with GTAIV, Killzone II and Far Cry 2. Unfortunately, these three are all games I despised... What to do...

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

abija:
Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

How about decent lighting and not just everything coated in bloom? Or you trying to tell me that the industry has it wrong when they say bloom is how DX9 games make up for a lack of lighting? End of the day, SC2 is one of the graphically weakest RTS out there. Are you really going to argue with benchmarks etc over that one?

Still waiting comparative screenshots from those better "RTS out there". It also puzzles me how you got benchmarks into this discussion and what truth are they suppose to prove.
And wth has lightning to do with it? Do you really expect true dynamic lightning when you can have close to 1000 units at the same time on the screen? You think DX10 would magically make that possible?

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

ok man enoth we know the graphic arnt good trust me i know my favoit RTS before starcraft2 was rise of nations witch had a rediculous amount of detail on the units but guess what? it was not as fun as starcraft and i cant play it on any settings higher then low! graphics dont make a game game play makes a game. if you truely want a game that focuses on just graphics go play heavy rain on a ps3. as to it getting a "perrfect score" check the other sites reveiws of it it get top marks because though it has flaws the rest of the game makes up for it.

ionveau:

You are light minded, your whole reply is STARCRAFT DOSENT HAVE DLC!!@!#@!#

Well i assume you dont know what your missing, Before i mark you as another light minded poster, did you ever play DOTA?

Yes, because StarCraft 2 DOESN'T have DLC. Unless you count expansions. And the maps which the map-makers (not Blizzard) choose to sell for a fee. But there are plenty of other custom games which are completely free (granted, the custom games right now have lots of issues, but that's beside the point).

The burden of proof is on you. Can you offer a single credible shred of proof from a reliable source that SC2 will have DLC? I haven't seen anything like that anywhere that wasn't just paranoid imaginings, so I'm forced to conclude that this is just more of the same. If you can point me to a post where Blizzard said it would be doing DLC then I'll gladly retract my words, but until then you have no proof, no argument, and no leg to stand on.

Mazty:

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

Look up what? Are you implying that game has real time lights? Sorry to disappoint you but it's the same "faked" stuff you have in SC2.
Or are you implying that's a better looking game than SC2? Because that would be really weird considering it's low poly, bright and cartoonish (even more than SC2) and the style/level of detail are years behind.
Still waiting for those examples of DX10/11 effects that are used in main stream RTS games and make those games look better than SC2. I mean it has worse graphics than almost all other RTS, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

ecoho:

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

abija:
Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

How about decent lighting and not just everything coated in bloom? Or you trying to tell me that the industry has it wrong when they say bloom is how DX9 games make up for a lack of lighting? End of the day, SC2 is one of the graphically weakest RTS out there. Are you really going to argue with benchmarks etc over that one?

Still waiting comparative screenshots from those better "RTS out there". It also puzzles me how you got benchmarks into this discussion and what truth are they suppose to prove.
And wth has lightning to do with it? Do you really expect true dynamic lightning when you can have close to 1000 units at the same time on the screen? You think DX10 would magically make that possible?

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

ok man enoth we know the graphic arnt good trust me i know my favoit RTS before starcraft2 was rise of nations witch had a rediculous amount of detail on the units but guess what? it was not as fun as starcraft and i cant play it on any settings higher then low! graphics dont make a game game play makes a game. if you truely want a game that focuses on just graphics go play heavy rain on a ps3. as to it getting a "perrfect score" check the other sites reveiws of it it get top marks because though it has flaws the rest of the game makes up for it.

Problem is all the other sites give it rave reviews and zero detail to the ACTUAL gameplay. With all the tactics based on unit composition it's nothing more than a long winded version of rocks, papers, scissors because scouting does not work and once you're committed to your chosen tactic, it's up to the gods whether or not you win as the fire fights are nothing more than "X goes against Y, Y will always win" rather than taking real strategy such as flanking, field of view, moral etc into consideration.
Plus holy hell this game has some problems I haven't come across in RTS' in almost a decade e.g. builders getting stuck behind buildings, units moronically standing still as a fire fight happens a stone throw away etc.

I love that a few people don't like the game and everyone jumps on them, I mean damn don't you people have a game you would rather be playing? like StarCraft 2?

abija:

Mazty:

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

Look up what? Are you implying that game has real time lights? Sorry to disappoint you but it's the same "faked" stuff you have in SC2.
Or are you implying that's a better looking game than SC2? Because that would be really weird considering it's low poly, bright and cartoonish (even more than SC2) and the style/level of detail are years behind.
Still waiting for those examples of DX10/11 effects that are used in main stream RTS games and make those games look better than SC2. I mean it has worse graphics than almost all other RTS, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

Tessellation low polygon.....? And there goes your credibility.....
But if you are really going to play the ignorant card, here is a wonderful screen shot from the editor to show how 'amazing' the graphics are:
image
Now you are saying they look just as good as:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3233336213_d87839c334_o.jpg
http://evo-gamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/assault_battle.jpg
http://www.vgblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/06/DawnOfWar2SystemSpecs.jpg

The graphics are on-par with the first dawn of war, a six year old game no less, which didn't cost $60. So how about you show me how SC'2s graphics are outstanding and how all the other RTS' barely come close.

Oh give it a rest. My favorite RTS/Sim Builder thing is Dwarf Fortress, which uses ASCII. Get over the graphics. It seems you're dead set against playing Starcraft anyway, so what good does arguing do you? Talk with your wallet. Be happy. Play DoW.

I thought Starcraft II was a blast to play. The dialog and story were shitty, but the gameplay has been majorly overhauled from the first, which was already fun to play despite the UI wranglin'. Now that the UI actually works with the player, you can focus on the absolute chaos only Starcraft supplies. The crazy multitasking is my favorite thing about Starcraft. To the folks here arguing about strategic depth and what not, maybe Starcraft is lacking. I wouldn't know. My favorite thing about it as an action RTS is that it does not let up. From start to finish you are hopping all over the map and dealing with each individual crisis as it pops up.

The campaign was still fun in spite of the storytelling. The RPG elements were a nice touch and the level design itself was phenomenal. Blizzard is skilled at adding personal details to their maps, and the UMS type elements really added to it, making it so each scenario has a unique playstyle.

That, and Starcraft is famous for its balance. I've seen arguments against that here too, but I just don't see how it could possibly be so popular professionally in Korea without being top-of-the-line in that regard. Blizzard has gotten plenty of bad publicity recently, but on a PERSONAL level, nothing they have done has affected me. They dropped realID, I have internet, even in Beta I was happily screwing around with UMS, and the chat/region issues are supposedly on the plate. I know Blizzard for supporting their games for years, so if they suddenly drop that, no need to buy the expansions. This is a solid offering on its own and a good review.

PS: Speaking of expansions, complain your heart out. Its been over a decade since the original title. I'm not about to consider that milking when I'm on a site with a dedicated Bioware fanbase: Dragon Age already has an expansion, $44 of DLC, and another title on the way in less than half that time. Mass Effect is in about the same boat. Plus as far as I'm concerned, they're still all quality purchases, just not my cup of tea.

ionveau:

mike1921:

ionveau:
Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

How about we wait until they actually announce some DLC. They're obviously going to make expansion packs, but I sorta assumed those were par for the course and acceptable

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

Wait until they announce DLC. Also, really I don't believe that many people have no internet connection where it will significantly hurt them. How about you start complaining about how the new battlenet is shit that feels like what you'd get on a console?

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

OK, DID THEY ANNOUNCE SOME DLC YET

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

1. Who cares
2. No clue
3. Not relevant to a purchases made where I live
4. spawn play?

You are light minded, your whole reply is STARCRAFT DOSENT HAVE DLC!!@!#@!#

Well i assume you dont know what your missing, Before i mark you as another light minded poster, did you ever play DOTA?

That's because your whole argument is based on them having DLC. It's hard to not seem light-minded when your arguments are so embarrassingly easy to counter given they are entirely based on assumptions we have no reason to believe.

I never said that it won't have it. But until you can give me some decent proof instead of you just babbling about how they're going to do it and they are evil for it your post is irrelevant.

Wikipedia tells me it's : Defense of the Ancients
a custom scenario for warcraft III
How is this relevant?

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

Look up what? Are you implying that game has real time lights? Sorry to disappoint you but it's the same "faked" stuff you have in SC2.
Or are you implying that's a better looking game than SC2? Because that would be really weird considering it's low poly, bright and cartoonish (even more than SC2) and the style/level of detail are years behind.
Still waiting for those examples of DX10/11 effects that are used in main stream RTS games and make those games look better than SC2. I mean it has worse graphics than almost all other RTS, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

Tessellation low polygon.....? And there goes your credibility.....
But if you are really going to play the ignorant card, here is a wonderful screen shot from the editor to show how 'amazing' the graphics are:
image
Now you are saying they look just as good as:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3233336213_d87839c334_o.jpg
http://evo-gamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/assault_battle.jpg
http://www.vgblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/06/DawnOfWar2SystemSpecs.jpg

The graphics are on-par with the first dawn of war, a six year old game no less, which didn't cost $60. So how about you show me how SC'2s graphics are outstanding and how all the other RTS' barely come close.

At the distance from these units your point of view is normally at, sure.

Also, do you get it yet that we just DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about graphics
Convince me these graphics are worse than games that came out 15 years ago, then maybe I'll care.

Mazty:

Problem is all the other sites give it rave reviews and zero detail to the ACTUAL gameplay. With all the tactics based on unit composition it's nothing more than a long winded version of rocks, papers, scissors because scouting does not work and once you're committed to your chosen tactic, it's up to the gods whether or not you win as the fire fights are nothing more than "X goes against Y, Y will always win" rather than taking real strategy such as flanking, field of view, moral etc into consideration.
Plus holy hell this game has some problems I haven't come across in RTS' in almost a decade e.g. builders getting stuck behind buildings, units moronically standing still as a fire fight happens a stone throw away etc.

All you're proving is that you're really bad at StarCraft. Here's food for thought: Why do you assume that flanking, field of view and morale are completely absent just because they aren't hardcoded into gameplay? If I'm playing as Zerg, and I see that the enemy is advancing on my base with an army that does well against my Roaches but is weak to my Zerglings - but ONLY if the Zerglings can take full advantage of their numbers in open field - I send the Zerglings out away from my base where the enemy won't see them, I keep the Roaches in a chokepoint to force the enemy into the open, and then I close the pincer and swarm them with the Zerglings from behind. Flanking, terrain tactics, and field of view - none of which has to have a hardcoded system in the game to matter.

Hell, Morale is organic, too - on the part of the PLAYER, not the troops. If I've been outthinking a guy all match and he gets a decisive victory against me, but is too wary to press the advantage thinking it's a trap? I can still win.

Also, I don't get how you say scouting isn't important and then turn right around and say that it's an instant win if you're going with the right strategy. The two are completely exclusive statements.

What you also don't get is that SC2, thanks to being designed to be heavily competitive, is a game that is all about precision. I want my units to do exactly what I tell them to do, and nothing more. You complain that a unit is hanging out outside a firefight and not getting involved? Maybe that's what I wanted it to do, because it was valuable and I wanted to give it time to recharge energy/shields, maybe I didn't want it wandering into range of their tanks/turrets, whatever. Now, if the game automatically has it engage, and then it gets Siege Tank'd, then I'm pissed because I lost a unit because it did something I didn't tell it to do.

SC2 is a wholly different breed of beast in regards to gameplay than any other (genuinely great) RTSes. They're apples and oranges. It's breathlessly fast-paced, intense from the start (no safe periods), requires excellent reflexes and coordination in addition to strategic think - it's basically an action RTS, as opposed to an action RPG. It's also incredibly fun, and adding a load of extra extraneous features that contribute nothing to the core StarCraft gameplay wouldn't add to that.

Regarding your harping on the graphics: Really? REALLY? You're ignoring the fact that SC2 was designed to do two things: Run on years-old machines and look like the original StarCraft in terms of the art style. It does both admirably well.

Now, if you're even assuming that we care about the graphics being super top-end (hint: we don't), posting individual zoomed-in screenshots doesn't actually argue anything, because nobody is going to see the game at such close perspective when it's not in motion. In motion, when you have armies rolling across the landscape, and cool visual effects on the Colossus' laser sweep, the Battlecruiser barrage, Zerglings roasting to a crisp when killed by a Hellion or whatever, it still looks good.

No, it doesn't look as good as the super-top-end games. But it wasn't designed to. If you can look at one of the huge top-level SC2 battles and tell me with a straight face that it looks "bad" (as opposed to simply not looking as good as some things out there), then I will tell you that you either are A.) in desperate need of a visit to the eye doctor or B.) lying to serve a purpose. The game still looks great in action. Does it matter that there are other games that look better? Not at all.

LittleBigPlanet doesn't look as good as Heavy Rain or God of War. Does that mean that we should all suddenly start shunning LBP and ignoring the fact that it's got incredibly fun gameplay with well-designed levels? Of course not.

Given that the SC2 engine is capable of rendering such highly detailed models as we see on the Hyperion/in the cutscenes, it's obvious that the low-poly in-game models were a design choice, not a limitation of the game itself. But this is perhaps one of the single most irrelevant points against the game that you could have ever made, to be honest.

@Mazty
Yes hardware tesselation. The effect every RTS dev has been waiting for... It makes a hell of a difference. If your game is priced at 60$ the zerligs have to use it to render those small organics bumps on their skin...

Now, for the DoW shots. Do you notice how bad the orc models look compared to your crew? How badly the mapping is done making the skin look like plastic? How many bland/bad textures are in the environment? Do you realize that game has a lot less units on screen and they still had to lower the quality in areas people aren't likely to notice them?

Also, why did you put a pic of SC2 from editor, with low quality textures and without any effects on? Are you afraid that normal screenshots might give people the impression that SC2 actually has great graphics.

http://a.imageshack.us/img844/1382/screenshot2010080802593.jpg
Not quite the abomination you implied isn't it? And keep in mind in screenshots you can't catch the detail effects like small displacement lights when beam projectiles hit the target or the particle effects.

John Funk:

Mazty:

Problem is all the other sites give it rave reviews and zero detail to the ACTUAL gameplay. With all the tactics based on unit composition it's nothing more than a long winded version of rocks, papers, scissors because scouting does not work and once you're committed to your chosen tactic, it's up to the gods whether or not you win as the fire fights are nothing more than "X goes against Y, Y will always win" rather than taking real strategy such as flanking, field of view, moral etc into consideration.
Plus holy hell this game has some problems I haven't come across in RTS' in almost a decade e.g. builders getting stuck behind buildings, units moronically standing still as a fire fight happens a stone throw away etc.

All you're proving is that you're really bad at StarCraft. Here's food for thought: Why do you assume that flanking, field of view and morale are completely absent just because they aren't hardcoded into gameplay? If I'm playing as Zerg, and I see that the enemy is advancing on my base with an army that does well against my Roaches but is weak to my Zerglings - but ONLY if the Zerglings can take full advantage of their numbers in open field - I send the Zerglings out away from my base where the enemy won't see them, I keep the Roaches in a chokepoint to force the enemy into the open, and then I close the pincer and swarm them with the Zerglings from behind. Flanking, terrain tactics, and field of view - none of which has to have a hardcoded system in the game to matter.

I agree but....Umm...I thought field of view was hard coded into the gameplay

paketep:

kingcom:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.

Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.

You can still Lan you just need an internet connection. I don't see what the problem is. Irregardless it's still a great game.

mike1921:

ionveau:

mike1921:

ionveau:
Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

How about we wait until they actually announce some DLC. They're obviously going to make expansion packs, but I sorta assumed those were par for the course and acceptable

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

Wait until they announce DLC. Also, really I don't believe that many people have no internet connection where it will significantly hurt them. How about you start complaining about how the new battlenet is shit that feels like what you'd get on a console?

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

OK, DID THEY ANNOUNCE SOME DLC YET

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

1. Who cares
2. No clue
3. Not relevant to a purchases made where I live
4. spawn play?

You are light minded, your whole reply is STARCRAFT DOSENT HAVE DLC!!@!#@!#

Well i assume you dont know what your missing, Before i mark you as another light minded poster, did you ever play DOTA?

That's because your whole argument is based on them having DLC. It's hard to not seem light-minded when your arguments are so embarrassingly easy to counter given they are entirely based on assumptions we have no reason to believe.

I never said that it won't have it. But until you can give me some decent proof instead of you just babbling about how they're going to do it and they are evil for it your post is irrelevant.

Wikipedia tells me it's : Defense of the Ancients
a custom scenario for warcraft III
How is this relevant?

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

Look up what? Are you implying that game has real time lights? Sorry to disappoint you but it's the same "faked" stuff you have in SC2.
Or are you implying that's a better looking game than SC2? Because that would be really weird considering it's low poly, bright and cartoonish (even more than SC2) and the style/level of detail are years behind.
Still waiting for those examples of DX10/11 effects that are used in main stream RTS games and make those games look better than SC2. I mean it has worse graphics than almost all other RTS, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

Tessellation low polygon.....? And there goes your credibility.....
But if you are really going to play the ignorant card, here is a wonderful screen shot from the editor to show how 'amazing' the graphics are:
image
Now you are saying they look just as good as:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3233336213_d87839c334_o.jpg
http://evo-gamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/assault_battle.jpg
http://www.vgblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/06/DawnOfWar2SystemSpecs.jpg

The graphics are on-par with the first dawn of war, a six year old game no less, which didn't cost $60. So how about you show me how SC'2s graphics are outstanding and how all the other RTS' barely come close.

At the distance from these units your point of view is normally at, sure.

Also, do you get it yet that we just DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about graphics
Convince me these graphics are worse than games that came out 15 years ago, then maybe I'll care.

Well its clear why you love SC2 you never seen how well blizzard used to treat their players.

If you ever played DOTA then you would know that all tournaments where on Garena, if you want to know, right now there is 100,000 people playing DOTA alone on garena.

Thanks to the no lan it will be illegal to host starcraft on garena sure there are alot of people online on Bnet right now but watch those numbers will shrink day by day as people lose their bnet accounts or get hacked.

And again its about freedom, it may seem shady to want Lan but i got the dam game for 60$ so i dont care what you think

John Funk:

Mazty:

Problem is all the other sites give it rave reviews and zero detail to the ACTUAL gameplay. With all the tactics based on unit composition it's nothing more than a long winded version of rocks, papers, scissors because scouting does not work and once you're committed to your chosen tactic, it's up to the gods whether or not you win as the fire fights are nothing more than "X goes against Y, Y will always win" rather than taking real strategy such as flanking, field of view, moral etc into consideration.
Plus holy hell this game has some problems I haven't come across in RTS' in almost a decade e.g. builders getting stuck behind buildings, units moronically standing still as a fire fight happens a stone throw away etc.

All you're proving is that you're really bad at StarCraft. Here's food for thought: Why do you assume that flanking, field of view and morale are completely absent just because they aren't hardcoded into gameplay? If I'm playing as Zerg, and I see that the enemy is advancing on my base with an army that does well against my Roaches but is weak to my Zerglings - but ONLY if the Zerglings can take full advantage of their numbers in open field - I send the Zerglings out away from my base where the enemy won't see them, I keep the Roaches in a chokepoint to force the enemy into the open, and then I close the pincer and swarm them with the Zerglings from behind. Flanking, terrain tactics, and field of view - none of which has to have a hardcoded system in the game to matter.

Hell, Morale is organic, too - on the part of the PLAYER, not the troops. If I've been outthinking a guy all match and he gets a decisive victory against me, but is too wary to press the advantage thinking it's a trap? I can still win.

Also, I don't get how you say scouting isn't important and then turn right around and say that it's an instant win if you're going with the right strategy. The two are completely exclusive statements.

What you also don't get is that SC2, thanks to being designed to be heavily competitive, is a game that is all about precision. I want my units to do exactly what I tell them to do, and nothing more. You complain that a unit is hanging out outside a firefight and not getting involved? Maybe that's what I wanted it to do, because it was valuable and I wanted to give it time to recharge energy/shields, maybe I didn't want it wandering into range of their tanks/turrets, whatever. Now, if the game automatically has it engage, and then it gets Siege Tank'd, then I'm pissed because I lost a unit because it did something I didn't tell it to do.

SC2 is a wholly different breed of beast in regards to gameplay than any other (genuinely great) RTSes. They're apples and oranges. It's breathlessly fast-paced, intense from the start (no safe periods), requires excellent reflexes and coordination in addition to strategic think - it's basically an action RTS, as opposed to an action RPG. It's also incredibly fun, and adding a load of extra extraneous features that contribute nothing to the core StarCraft gameplay wouldn't add to that.

Regarding your harping on the graphics: Really? REALLY? You're ignoring the fact that SC2 was designed to do two things: Run on years-old machines and look like the original StarCraft in terms of the art style. It does both admirably well.

Now, if you're even assuming that we care about the graphics being super top-end (hint: we don't), posting individual zoomed-in screenshots doesn't actually argue anything, because nobody is going to see the game at such close perspective when it's not in motion. In motion, when you have armies rolling across the landscape, and cool visual effects on the Colossus' laser sweep, the Battlecruiser barrage, Zerglings roasting to a crisp when killed by a Hellion or whatever, it still looks good.

No, it doesn't look as good as the super-top-end games. But it wasn't designed to. If you can look at one of the huge top-level SC2 battles and tell me with a straight face that it looks "bad" (as opposed to simply not looking as good as some things out there), then I will tell you that you either are A.) in desperate need of a visit to the eye doctor or B.) lying to serve a purpose. The game still looks great in action. Does it matter that there are other games that look better? Not at all.

LittleBigPlanet doesn't look as good as Heavy Rain or God of War. Does that mean that we should all suddenly start shunning LBP and ignoring the fact that it's got incredibly fun gameplay with well-designed levels? Of course not.

Given that the SC2 engine is capable of rendering such highly detailed models as we see on the Hyperion/in the cutscenes, it's obvious that the low-poly in-game models were a design choice, not a limitation of the game itself. But this is perhaps one of the single most irrelevant points against the game that you could have ever made, to be honest.

Thing is I've managed to go through a few missions and now going against the PC on Very Hard in just over a few hours considering I haven't played the first SC since I was 10-ish, so if that's bad, well that's worrying.
But more to the point, I see what you are saying with that moral etc isn't hardcoded into the gameplay but this just makes the game very dated, bringing back problems I haven't seen in RTS' in years. Such as having men fumble around each other in an attempt to attack the enemy is just unbelievable. Sure it may be how the game works, but it's like bunny-hoping in CS:S - wasn't intended to be like that, but that's how it is, leaving a somewhat dated feel to the game.
Flanking is very, very basic. Sure you can flank, but it doesn't really provide the person with any advantage. With all the fights I've seen (Pro or amateur), the fire fights are over in seconds, meaning flanking is pretty unneeded due to the mechanics and OTT emphasis on unit composition. This is my main gripe - the entire strategy side of SC2 can just be worked out in Excel as it's down mainly to the first attack and maybe a following one to clean up. If Player A builds Roaches, build Marauders or Immortals etc. It's just "build X if you see Y" and could easily be worked out on an excel chart if someone cared to make one. Frankly any strategy game which can be reduced to such a basic level is just lacking strategy and not forcing players to think outside the box, as all great generals should have to. Yes this isn't war, but it's an RTS, and if strategy is just building one specific unit to counter another specific unit, that just is too crude for my taste - more rock, paper, scissors instead of chess.
You call them extraneous features. I say they are features which would add to the strategical element of the game, and I like to think in an RTS the more strategy the better.
Why I said scouting doesn't work is unless you manage to stealth your way into the enemy base or just get lucky, there is very little clues to which way your opponent is going to tech. If he pops down a Gas Extractor as Protoss, I'd assume Stalkers or even Leviathans, but it'd be very easy to carry on with a Zealot rush. With so many of the maps having one entrance to the base (1vs1), it's very simple to keep your tech tree hidden from the enemy, meaning that by the time you can see the enemy forces, unless you both have gone for balanced armies which is very risky, it's pot luck to who will win.
With troops not engaging, I get what your saying and yeah, it'd be annoying as hell if the kept on joining in if you didn't want them to, but it's that the range of everything has clearly been made for 800x600 monitors and it just looks unbelievable, something not helped by the art style.
Yeah the graphics do look okay, BUT at $60 I think they could have done a whole lot better, hence my mentioning of the in-game models sucking. However my biggest gripe is the hideous art style which is getting so much praise. The Terran buildings look child-safe with the large panels and rounded edges and then the Protoss buildings are just bizarre. They were originally metal, but now they look like they're just cell-shaded structures. The Zerg are the only ones I think that are true to the original and look great, but the other two have been taken in a very weird direction, almost completely away from the gritty feel of the original and even the feel in the cutscenes. Why this was done I have no idea, but it just gives the game a very schizophrenic feel - grim one moment, bright and child-like the next.

ionveau:

mike1921:

ionveau:

mike1921:

ionveau:
Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

How about we wait until they actually announce some DLC. They're obviously going to make expansion packs, but I sorta assumed those were par for the course and acceptable

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

Wait until they announce DLC. Also, really I don't believe that many people have no internet connection where it will significantly hurt them. How about you start complaining about how the new battlenet is shit that feels like what you'd get on a console?

I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$

OK, DID THEY ANNOUNCE SOME DLC YET

Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games

1. Who cares
2. No clue
3. Not relevant to a purchases made where I live
4. spawn play?

You are light minded, your whole reply is STARCRAFT DOSENT HAVE DLC!!@!#@!#

Well i assume you dont know what your missing, Before i mark you as another light minded poster, did you ever play DOTA?

That's because your whole argument is based on them having DLC. It's hard to not seem light-minded when your arguments are so embarrassingly easy to counter given they are entirely based on assumptions we have no reason to believe.

I never said that it won't have it. But until you can give me some decent proof instead of you just babbling about how they're going to do it and they are evil for it your post is irrelevant.

Wikipedia tells me it's : Defense of the Ancients
a custom scenario for warcraft III
How is this relevant?

Mazty:

abija:

Mazty:

You are kidding? Go look up Battle Forge. Plus SC2 still has worse graphics than almost all other RTS', so what is your point? Do you really think benchmarks don't give a general idea of the graphics of the game?

Look up what? Are you implying that game has real time lights? Sorry to disappoint you but it's the same "faked" stuff you have in SC2.
Or are you implying that's a better looking game than SC2? Because that would be really weird considering it's low poly, bright and cartoonish (even more than SC2) and the style/level of detail are years behind.
Still waiting for those examples of DX10/11 effects that are used in main stream RTS games and make those games look better than SC2. I mean it has worse graphics than almost all other RTS, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

Tessellation low polygon.....? And there goes your credibility.....
But if you are really going to play the ignorant card, here is a wonderful screen shot from the editor to show how 'amazing' the graphics are:
image
Now you are saying they look just as good as:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3233336213_d87839c334_o.jpg
http://evo-gamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/assault_battle.jpg
http://www.vgblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/06/DawnOfWar2SystemSpecs.jpg

The graphics are on-par with the first dawn of war, a six year old game no less, which didn't cost $60. So how about you show me how SC'2s graphics are outstanding and how all the other RTS' barely come close.

At the distance from these units your point of view is normally at, sure.

Also, do you get it yet that we just DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about graphics
Convince me these graphics are worse than games that came out 15 years ago, then maybe I'll care.

Well its clear why you love SC2 you never seen how well blizzard used to treat their players.

If you ever played DOTA then you would know that all tournaments where on Garena, if you want to know, right now there is 100,000 people playing DOTA alone on garena.

Thanks to the no lan it will be illegal to host starcraft on garena sure there are alot of people online on Bnet right now but watch those numbers will shrink day by day as people lose their bnet accounts or get hacked.

And again its about freedom, it may seem shady to want Lan but i got the dam game for 60$ so i dont care what you think

No and I don't particularly care. I enjoy the game. I don't give a flying fuck about LAN, and you still have no solid proof of them doing DLC

So I assume those people on garena can't sign up for a battlenet account?

Is getting your account hacked a really common common occurrence or something?

I get what you're saying. But if I were to complain about freedom I'd be complaining about the way battlenet 2.0 doesn't give you the freedom to fucking chat instead of something that only REALLY is a problem for people with no internet. It's like I'm playing on fucking xbox live.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here