Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 19 NEXT
 

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

Mazty:

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

I don't consider graphics to even be a factor when determining the quality of a game as long as they're not incredibly terrible. Like say, 15 years behind. I honestly don't consider a game less worth my money just because of graphics.

I don't think there is a single person here who has standards as high and stupid as yours

John Funk:

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.

I'm so sorry
"Dustin Browder said that he is sure that there will also be additional content available via the Battle net."
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,692694/Starcraft-2-DRM-DLC-screenshots-and-trial-version-but-no-co-op/News/

They also added that its not clear whether its going to be free or not, seeing the treatment MW2 got its clear what the answer is

Mazty:

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

The graphics are excellent.
The in-game cutscenes are the best I have ever seen, bar none.
And the actual gameplay graphics are amazing too.
No low res textures, no blocky models, excellent use of effects like light, smoke, and other shaders to create very distinctive environments.
And the units themselves are pretty much perfect.
They're very distinctive, and if you zoom in, they actually have a surprising amount of detail as well.
In fact, even if you go looking for visual blemishes in the game, you'd be hard pressed to find any at all.
They've managed all this while keeping a distinctive mix of stylised and realistic look and keeping the requirements low to make it accessible.

Also, $60 is unheard of?
Are you kidding me?
EU gamers often get to pay well over $80 for their games.
Stop sitting there with your silver spoon, complaining about how slightly less than average your ambrosia tastes like.

Mazty:

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

ok i need to make this clear in a way that wont offend anyone hopefully. Ahem the reason the game costs $60 is because it had the ENTIRE multiplayer packge in it as well as the campain and i know other games do this and dont cost as much but think of it this way you pay $60 bucks for the first game but only have to play 20-30 bucks for the expantions in the long run it saves us money. Now if that doesnt end up being the case go ahead and start going nuts again but untill heart of the swarm is released lets just let this thread die.

Oh BTW for the guys who said the stuff about hacking pick up your cell phone and down load an athenticator its free for fucks sakes and ive yet to see anyone get hacked who uses one.
As always people there is no spell check so please dont waste my time complaining about spelling:)

Mazty:

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

You need a last generation PC to properly play this game on Ultra and even then it chokes in 4v4 if the fights are done at high food count. Yet you complain they didn't use more demanding tech and more detail on units?
It doesn't need to be compared with 15 year old games, it stands it's ground very well with current ones. Here's again an actual game screenshot you probably missed: http://a.imageshack.us/img844/1382/screenshot2010080802593.jpg

As for the "value for your money" and "60$ game" arguments you spout around: http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/061302_wc3.x
Snippet from it:

Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos will be available at retail chains worldwide for Windows® 98/ME/2000/XP and Macintosh® formats, at a price of approximately $55-$60. The game will also be available directly from Blizzard at 800/953-SNOW and www.blizzard.com. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos has received a Teen rating from the ESRB.

There's plenty of value for your money and on top of the actual game content there's one huge factor: stability. If you like the game you don't need to be affraid that next year you won't have people with whom to play it, or the servers close, or the game massively changes and you won't like it anymore, or they irremediably break balance and forget about the game. SC2 is here to stay for the next decade, so you can invest time to get better at it without worries.

Mazty:

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

Respectfully, shut up.

Chances are you're falling into one of two categories if you can honestly say this-
1) You don't own the game. You've maybe played it once. You probably don't even realize how demanding the game can get. There's a bevvy of custom maps I fundamentally can't play without getting single digit frames-per-second and thats bearing in mind that I dropped 1000 bucks on a computer last year.

2) You own a fairly powerful rig. In which case, you must be new here. No one seriously buys Blizzard games expecting to be dazzled by graphics. Blizzard isn't trying to be Crysis. They're not trying to push the envelope and make you run graphics cards you can cook dinner on. Blizzard has always done a phenomenal job taking semi-dated graphics and making them look spectacular.

You might not like it. Most of us do. Most of us are not going to with hold 60$ on a game that's more or less guaranteed to get the millage for it's price on the basis that it doesn't look pretty.

As for the game itself?

I love it. Ok, so I can't play certain brands of custom maps and anything larger than 3v3 makes my laptop hiccup. Single Player is fun, and its probably one of the rare cases where I'm actually re-playing the single player campaign because the missions are fun and the difficulty doesn't feel petty in a kind of, "HUR DUR MY UNITS ARE JUST BETTER!" kind of way.

DRM? Darn, the game I wasn't going to share with my friends because I don't want them giving away my CD key again I wont be giving away anyways since its bound to me specifically.

No LAN? Ok, so I'll admit, I don't like it much but B.net 2.0 more or less replaces it seamlessly. With the exception of large-scale LAN parties (supposedly Blizzard is already working on something to fix it, mind you) your basic 20$ router with wireless internet will be able to get you and your buddies playing over B.net on the same internet connection boasting near-LAN pings.

Oh, and yes, you can play offline. The only draw back is that you can't play against other people and your achievements wont get recorded- not horribly dissimilar to other systems.

This is probably the one game I've bought in years that has adequately felt like it was actually 60$ well spent.

I've been reading the argument for a while now and have been laughing my ass off. Let me say this now. Starcraft 2 is good BECAUSE it's a refined version of SC1. In a series that tends to be what devs do. They take an existing formula and refine and improve it.

Also everyone griping about graphics needs to get off their goddamn high horse. I want my games to be accessible. You people talk about gritty? Fine, mod the game yourself and make it that way. I can guarantee that SC2 is going to just look like one giant mess compared to the units that are easy to tell apart in the current game. Isn't that what we want? Graphics that don't hinder gameplay which is what really matters. I don't want ridiculously high end graphics in my RTS. Not everyone has a high end gaming PC. I want to be able to play regardless of my rig.

But I'm sure my argument will be quoted and whined about and blah blah blah. Don't care. If Starcraft 2 bugs you so much then don't buy it. If you did and still hate it then sell it and use the money you get to buy whatever makes you happy. Go for it. You have my permission.

Mazty:

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.

Playing against the computer even in skirmishes is a very different breed than playing against actual people online, just saying.

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.

No, it absolutely was intended to be like that. Again, you're assuming SC2 is meant to be a very different kind of game. SC2 is meant to eliminate as much randomness as possible - it's why there's no "provides 80% chance to miss when active" or whatever abilities, because it shouldn't come down to the RNG. Plus, flagging morale just adds another slippery slope element to a game making it hard for someone losing to come back.

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.

It absolutely does provide someone with an advantage - as much as it might provide an advantage in an actual battle, one could argue. Positioning is very important, and that's why things like the speed upgrade for zerglings are so crucial, because it gives you an extremely mobile unit to flank with and force an enemy to react to threats on both sides.

If you're winning fights just based on Excel flowcharts, the enemy doesn't have a good solid mix of units in their force. Just sayin'.

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.

To a point, yes. But again, this comes down to the sort of game SC2 is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a game where at any one time, I can have a reasonably good estimation of what my opponent is up to; there are finite possibilities and it's all how you use them that matters (this is specifically why Dustin Browder said they didn't add all that many more units compared to SC1 because otherwise it got a bit unwieldy). Hard-coding even more systems in the game for the sole purpose of having them in the game to live up to the expectations of some mythical "RTS design continuum" would just belabor the purpose.

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.

Well, here's where we get into a complete difference of opinion. I think that the art style looks great, personally; I think it looks like StarCraft and it looks like the typical Blizzard art style while still popping off the screen and giving every unit a distinct look. It's interesting that you think of child-safe with rounded structures; I tend to think of rounded edges as looking very sleek and future-ish. But it's a bit of a moot point, since that's really how the Terran buildings looked in the first game, so...

ionveau:

I'm so sorry
"Dustin Browder said that he is sure that there will also be additional content available via the Battle net."
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,692694/Starcraft-2-DRM-DLC-screenshots-and-trial-version-but-no-co-op/News/

They also added that its not clear whether its going to be free or not, seeing the treatment MW2 got its clear what the answer is

You mean, the PC Games Hardware people added that from completely unbased speculation off of one quote about additional content available? Like, I don't know, the patches that Blizzard has been doing for SC1 and Diablo 2 and WC3 for decades now? Or, perhaps he meant the custom maps that are available through B.net?

You're reaching. You're reaching incredibly hard.

Denamic:

The graphics are excellent.
The in-game cutscenes are the best I have ever seen, bar none.
And the actual gameplay graphics are amazing too.
No low res textures, no blocky models, excellent use of effects like light, smoke, and other shaders to create very distinctive environments.
And the units themselves are pretty much perfect.
They're very distinctive, and if you zoom in, they actually have a surprising amount of detail as well.
In fact, even if you go looking for visual blemishes in the game, you'd be hard pressed to find any at all.
They've managed all this while keeping a distinctive mix of stylised and realistic look and keeping the requirements low to make it accessible.

Also, $60 is unheard of?
Are you kidding me?
EU gamers often get to pay well over $80 for their games.
Stop sitting there with your silver spoon, complaining about how slightly less than average your ambrosia tastes like.

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.
The game has fmv's in it that look great.........because it is an fmv.
The pre-mission area on the ship are now fairly average graphics as they are at the same level as games such as Gears of War. However these graphics can be better as the character never controls movement or position thus lighting can be artificially placed onto the models. This is something they stopped doing after the ps2 era. The ingame graphics are dire. There is a reason why the zoom is so limited. Go to the editor and zoom in completely and you'll see what I mean. On top of this the unit detail is very low, again, use the wire mesh in the editor if you can not see that everything is painted low res textures, and lets not forget that the game is only DX9 so the graphics nowadays will be substandard from the beginning.

NB. What games are you comparing this too? StarCraft and Mario World?

Denamic:

Mazty:

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

The graphics are excellent.
The in-game cutscenes are the best I have ever seen, bar none.
And the actual gameplay graphics are amazing too.
No low res textures, no blocky models, excellent use of effects like light, smoke, and other shaders to create very distinctive environments.
And the units themselves are pretty much perfect.
They're very distinctive, and if you zoom in, they actually have a surprising amount of detail as well.
In fact, even if you go looking for visual blemishes in the game, you'd be hard pressed to find any at all.
They've managed all this while keeping a distinctive mix of stylised and realistic look and keeping the requirements low to make it accessible.

Also, $60 is unheard of?
Are you kidding me?
EU gamers often get to pay well over $80 for their games.
Stop sitting there with your silver spoon, complaining about how slightly less than average your ambrosia tastes like.

I'm an EU gamer and you're flat out lying saying we have to pay $80 for games. The only one in recent years has been MW2 which was set at $60 and I can't stand that game.

TB_Infidel:

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.
...
The ingame graphics are dire. There is a reason why the zoom is so limited. Go to the editor and zoom in completely and you'll see what I mean. On top of this the unit detail is very low, again, use the wire mesh in the editor if you can not see that everything is painted low res textures, and lets not forget that the game is only DX9 so the graphics nowadays will be substandard from the beginning.

NB. What games are you comparing this too? StarCraft and Mario World?

Got a core i7 950 with HD5870. After the first 4v4 game that didn't end in the rush phase, I toned down the graphics from ultra to high because it was crawling under 10 fps in big fights.
That's the reason why the models (especially for units with low food count) try to be as low poly as possible.

And btw, do you and Mazty even realize the editor you so eager give examples from is set to LOW video quality?
http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg editor zoomed in with better settings. Yes, very low details indeed.

abija:

Mazty:

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

You need a last generation PC to properly play this game on Ultra and even then it chokes in 4v4 if the fights are done at high food count. Yet you complain they didn't use more demanding tech and more detail on units?
It doesn't need to be compared with 15 year old games, it stands it's ground very well with current ones. Here's again an actual game screenshot you probably missed: http://a.imageshack.us/img844/1382/screenshot2010080802593.jpg

As for the "value for your money" and "60$ game" arguments you spout around: http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/061302_wc3.x
Snippet from it:

Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos will be available at retail chains worldwide for Windows® 98/ME/2000/XP and Macintosh® formats, at a price of approximately $55-$60. The game will also be available directly from Blizzard at 800/953-SNOW and www.blizzard.com. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos has received a Teen rating from the ESRB.

There's plenty of value for your money and on top of the actual game content there's one huge factor: stability. If you like the game you don't need to be affraid that next year you won't have people with whom to play it, or the servers close, or the game massively changes and you won't like it anymore, or they irremediably break balance and forget about the game. SC2 is here to stay for the next decade, so you can invest time to get better at it without worries.

I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Yeah read abija's post.

The game looks great maxed out and the effects are spectacular. Higher graphics would be relatively useless just because of the power it would take to run a 4v4 game or custom game with lots of units.

And great job comparing unit models on DoW2 where there are far fewer units in each match and the SC2 example was on low graphics settings anyways.

Mazty:

I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Gave you a link before how Warcraft 3 had the exact same pricing which you obviously ignored.
Also, short of going for SLI/Crossfire and the ultra expensive last minute CPU's my rig is pretty much top notch.
But hey, keep taking low quality zoomed in pictures of the editor and believing that's how the game looks like...

Mazty:
I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Wait, does that mean that despite playing PC games for about 20 years, and spending hundreds of € in PC games every year, I'm not part of a group who refuses to pay 60$ for a game because "my computer can run it", and "it's not equal to that other game I like, and therefore not innovative", and overall like to act as if games need to be created specifically to their tastes, while refusing to accept people have different tastes and priorities?

Whooo! \o/

Mazty:
I'm an EU gamer and you're flat out lying saying we have to pay $80 for games.

No I'm not.
You don't live in Sweden.

Denamic:

Mazty:
I'm an EU gamer and you're flat out lying saying we have to pay $80 for games.

No I'm not.
You don't live in Sweden.

Well that's just Sweden as it's considered a very expensive country. EU =/= just Sweden.

Xocrates:

Mazty:
I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Wait, does that mean that despite playing PC games for about 20 years, and spending hundreds of € in PC games every year, I'm not part of a group who refuses to pay 60$ for a game because "my computer can run it", and "it's not equal to that other game I like, and therefore not innovative", and overall like to act as if games need to be created specifically to their tastes, while refusing to accept people have different tastes and priorities?

Whooo! \o/

abija:

Mazty:

I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Gave you a link before how Warcraft 3 had the exact same pricing which you obviously ignored.
Also, short of going for SLI/Crossfire and the ultra expensive last minute CPU's my rig is pretty much top notch.
But hey, keep taking low quality zoomed in pictures of the editor and believing that's how the game looks like...

So why is at good thing to fix a price for a game which has shown very, very little improvement over the last, while still having dated problems and zero innovation?
Plus abiia the reason I flat out ignored that link is because it's EIGHT YEARS OLD. This may surprise you but things have changed in almost a decade and PC game prices have changed.
Sadly this thread is now down to people defending their purchasing decisions rather than talking about the game, so it's not going to go anywhere.
Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS? It seems like X2 all over again, but I doubt you'll understand that reference, so it seems like an engine which is hideously optimised for the higher end of it. Plus where are you finding out that the editor is low setting graphics? Just curious as I checked the graphics options and there was nothing about quality.

I tried to get into some topic but i saw so much flaming that i simply gave up!
For me bottom line is: STAR CRAFT 2= EPIC!
From the very moment i began installing to 3 days later when i finished the campaign i was totally sucked into the universe!

I found it very rude of blizzard to cut off the finale of the game like that...but since this is a planned trilogy it did make sense...but i just cant bear to wait for the second part to see what were all my efforts for!!!! And why did Tychos have to die :(((
and after everything im kinda wondering...did Valerian and his Dad actually plan this assasination plot....

And also yeah..who needs LAN>? thats ur complain? its the year 2010! Pretty much everybody is hooked up on the internet! And 85% of gamers probably have internet....there communities, MMOs and shit....its hard to imagine not having internet and being a gamer!
Also who would buy StarCraft simply for playing the single player part of it. The Campaign was a masterpiece!!! But the real shine is in the battle.net!
Althou in these first weeks it also feels like a dating site...
Everybody scouting out new friends to play with and build up a good F-List for some heavy marathons of gaming!

The Achievements add a very sweeet flavor to the game and some of the league achi`s are simply RAWR! I take pride in the Warp 9 units at the same time achi. It was so fun to do it. In the end i just swarmed my enemy with 50 Zealots and left them on atk mode in his base :D
But for now im doing them witheout planning (with few exceptions). 95% of my achi`s are done by pure luck and coincidence!
But later when i get into it ill start grinding some achievements down! :P
And oh gosh...i totally suck as zerg......how am i ever gona pull their side -_-`

@Mazty

You can see the pic I've taken from the editor in previous posts. And at the top of the pic you see some sort of info bar. Default settings for me was low.

And please, point out the game that does the same but better. You keep comparing apples and oranges. Do you expect just cause 2 to have the same details as Crysis?
Do you expect them to change the gameplay to accommodate the latest DX10 effects with ultra high poly models?
Gameplay should always dictate the graphics not the other way around. And considering the restrictions imposed by the gameplay they aimed for, I think they did a really great job.

Elite operatives called Spectres? That sounds like another game I've heard about.

adderseal:
Elite operatives called Spectres? That sounds like another game I've heard about.

Which one?

Because remember that they actually have two options to pick from. Ghosts are the traditional elite operatives for the series and Spectres are the new campaign-only option.

Percutio:

adderseal:
Elite operatives called Spectres? That sounds like another game I've heard about.

Which one?

Because remember that they actually have two options to pick from. Ghosts are the traditional elite operatives for the series and Spectres are the new campaign-only option.

I was thinking of the Mass Effect games. Doesn't look like it was too clear, sorry :)

abija:

Got a core i7 950 with HD5870. After the first 4v4 game that didn't end in the rush phase, I toned down the graphics from ultra to high because it was crawling under 10 fps in big fights.
That's the reason why the models (especially for units with low food count) try to be as low poly as possible.

And btw, do you and Mazty even realize the editor you so eager give examples from is set to LOW video quality?
http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg editor zoomed in with better settings. Yes, very low details indeed.

Well then this shows that the engine is horribly optimised for ultra settings. If that is your setup then you would know this as you could play games like Metro 2033 which are far far more demanding and look much better. Other clues to suggest a poor engine is that games such as Sup Com and TW have far more units on screen at once at higher detail, yet still manage to keep 30+ fps, as well as StarCraft 2 uses very little of your processor. RTS's should normally begin to bottleneck due to the processor limiting the amount of scripting going on, however as Starcraft 2 seems to use about 45% of my processors power at any point, this shows a bad engine. Also, lets not forget Blizzard did not even put an fps cap on it. Great going guys.

You are aware that you are zoomed in more on that picture more so then you can in the game? Maybe that is the reason why they look so poor?

Xocrates:

Mazty:
I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Wait, does that mean that despite playing PC games for about 20 years, and spending hundreds of € in PC games every year, I'm not part of a group who refuses to pay 60$ for a game because "my computer can run it", and "it's not equal to that other game I like, and therefore not innovative", and overall like to act as if games need to be created specifically to their tastes, while refusing to accept people have different tastes and priorities?

Whooo! \o/

I'm with you. I've been gaming for 15 years. I've owned Playstations, gamecube, Xbox, and above all a PC. According to Mazty, I guess I'm not a REAL gamer because I don't let slightly dated graphics bother me.

Gameplay > Graphics every single time for me.

Mazty:
So why is at good thing to fix a price for a game which has shown very, very little improvement over the last, while still having dated problems and zero innovation?

I could have stopped reading right there.
No one could say that while having played both SC1 and SC2 without lying through their teeth.
The improvement part, that is.
The game's improved in every way possible while still maintaining the core gameplay mechanics that makes StarCraft StarCraft.
About the innovation though, yes, you're right.
Blizz has even said multiple times that they're not going to on some grand innovation crusade.
They said they were going to make StarCraft 2, and that's exactly what they did.
And why is innovation put on such a high pedestal anyway?
Why does games get a bad rap because they use tried and true concepts, even when they do it better than anyone has ever done it before?

Also, what 'dated problems' are you even talking about anyway?

Plus abiia the reason I flat out ignored that link is because it's EIGHT YEARS OLD. This may surprise you but things have changed in almost a decade and PC game prices have changed.

Yes, the economy's changed and the dollar is much weaker now.
So the games are technically cheaper, even though they've got the same pricing.

Sadly this thread is now down to people defending their purchasing decisions rather than talking about the game, so it's not going to go anywhere.

That's funny, because you haven't really been talking about the game either.
You're mostly complaining about non-specific graphical issues and extraneous issues like pricing and people not being 'gamers' now.
The bit where you talked about the game actually made me very doubtful you've actually even played SC2 more than a few minutes, if at all.
I mean, seriously? Scouting doesn't work?
Pretty much everything you said is either wrong or plain stupid.
Yes, some units win over other units.
Isn't that the point of having more than one type of unit?
Anti-air wins over colossi, hellions win over lings, ultralisks win over everything but air units, etc.
That's what tactics is all about.
You're not gonna win over a protoss player using void rays by using roaches.
But that doesn't mean that just because you use a specific unit to counter your enemy's army, you're gonna win.
Planning, resources, macro, micro, harassment, pressure, speed, strategy; all of it are vital to win in multiplayer matches.

Besides, your statement about scouting not 'working' and just using units that's strong against the units your enemy's using kinda contradict each other, don't they? You think you've got time to build a force tailored to defeat your enemy's force in time to defend against an attacking force without any kind of information? Without scouting, they'd be in your base before you know what units they're using.

And yes, units scuffle around each other, trying to get into range of their enemies.
This is by design; it's not a flaw. The units do exactly what you tell them to.
They move toward a target and open fire the moment they're in range.
To get more units into firing range quicker, you need to micro them manually.
You can't just send your army to attack and expect to win.
A skilled player can annihilate an evenly matched army purely through skilful micro.

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS? It seems like X2 all over again, but I doubt you'll understand that reference, so it seems like an engine which is hideously optimised for the higher end of it.

Are you actually trying to be condescending?
Can't really comment on the graphical optimisation thing though.
I mean, as I get a constant 60 FPS on ultra settings, I wouldn't really have any reference to go by.

Plus where are you finding out that the editor is low setting graphics? Just curious as I checked the graphics options and there was nothing about quality.

File > Preferences > Video.
It's not rocket science, man.
It's automatically set to the same settings you have in the game, so it's no wonder you think the graphics are shit if you play with that.
Though I wonder why you complain about graphics when you play on low settings.
I mean, that's pretty much understood. It's called 'low quality' for a reason.

adderseal:

Percutio:

adderseal:
Elite operatives called Spectres? That sounds like another game I've heard about.

Which one?

Because remember that they actually have two options to pick from. Ghosts are the traditional elite operatives for the series and Spectres are the new campaign-only option.

I was thinking of the Mass Effect games. Doesn't look like it was too clear, sorry :)

Oh forgot about Mass Effect :D
Haven't played that for a while!

I am now much more entertained by the thought of Gabriel Tosh hanging out with Commander Shepard.

TB_Infidel:

abija:

Got a core i7 950 with HD5870. After the first 4v4 game that didn't end in the rush phase, I toned down the graphics from ultra to high because it was crawling under 10 fps in big fights.
That's the reason why the models (especially for units with low food count) try to be as low poly as possible.

And btw, do you and Mazty even realize the editor you so eager give examples from is set to LOW video quality?
http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg editor zoomed in with better settings. Yes, very low details indeed.

Well then this shows that the engine is horribly optimised for ultra settings. If that is your setup then you would know this as you could play games like Metro 2033 which are far far more demanding and looks much better. Other clues to suggest a poor engine is that games such as Sup Com and TW have far more units on screen at once at higher detail, yet still manage to keep 30+ fps, as well as StarCraft 2 uses very little of your processor. RTS's should normally begin to bottleneck due to the processor limiting the amount of scripting going on, however as Starcraft 2 seems to use about 45% of my processors power at any point, this shows a bad engine. Also, lets not forget Blizzard did not even put an fps cap on it. Great going guys.

You are aware that you are zoomed in more on that picture more so then you can in the game? Maybe that is the reason why they look so poor?

Sorry you lost credibility in my eyes when you said SC2 isn't CPU heavy and said they didn't have an FPS cap.

SC2 is mostly CPU intensive and the FPS cap was only broken on singleplayer in between missions, which was fixed.

TB_Infidel:

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you honestly bitching because the game runs well on your machine? Really? Really?

Wow. I've seen it all.

The game looks goddamn fine. Blizzard has never been about "OMG GRAPHIX HNNNNNNNNNNG," nor should they be. That's why so many other games fail. They make the game LOOKING good priority numero uno over the point of a fucking game; PLAYING well.

I love StarCraft 2. I've loved every second of it. The single player is great, the graphics look fantastic without making lower end machines have a stroke, a heart attack, then melt their processors and blow to pieces like Chernobyl.

I'll be digging in to the mulitplayer (custom games are <3) as soon as humanly possible. You can keep griping that the game doesn't run at 25 FPS on your machine at the Ultra setting- I'll keep cruising along at 60 FPS and crushing waves of Zerglings with my MMM ball, thanks.

Epictank of Wintown:

Denamic:

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you honestly bitching because the game runs well on your machine? Really? Really?

I didn't say that, TB_Infidel did.
:(

Denamic:

Epictank of Wintown:

Denamic:

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you honestly bitching because the game runs well on your machine? Really? Really?

I didn't say that, TB_Infidel did.
:(

...whoops. >.> My bad. LET ME FIX THAT.

EDIT: Fix'd.

Mazty:

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS?

You still don't get it, WE DON'T CARE, WE AREN'T BOTHERED BY GRAPHICS

ecoho:

Mazty:

mike1921:

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.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

ok i need to make this clear in a way that wont offend anyone hopefully. Ahem the reason the game costs $60 is because it had the ENTIRE multiplayer packge in it as well as the campain and i know other games do this and dont cost as much but think of it this way you pay $60 bucks for the first game but only have to play 20-30 bucks for the expantions in the long run it saves us money. Now if that doesnt end up being the case go ahead and start going nuts again but untill heart of the swarm is released lets just let this thread die.

Oh BTW for the guys who said the stuff about hacking pick up your cell phone and down load an athenticator its free for fucks sakes and ive yet to see anyone get hacked who uses one.
As always people there is no spell check so please dont waste my time complaining about spelling:)

Am I the only one who had trouble reading that but didn't even notice the terrible spelling until you mentioned it?

Denamic:

I could have stopped reading right there.
No one could say that while having played both SC1 and SC2 without lying through their teeth.
The improvement part, that is.
The game's improved in every way possible while still maintaining the core gameplay mechanics that makes StarCraft StarCraft.
About the innovation though, yes, you're right.
Blizz has even said multiple times that they're not going to on some grand innovation crusade.
They said they were going to make StarCraft 2, and that's exactly what they did.
And why is innovation put on such a high pedestal anyway?
Why does games get a bad rap because they use tried and true concepts, even when they do it better than anyone has ever done it before?

Also, what 'dated problems' are you even talking about anyway?

Plus abiia the reason I flat out ignored that link is because it's EIGHT YEARS OLD. This may surprise you but things have changed in almost a decade and PC game prices have changed.

Yes, the economy's changed and the dollar is much weaker now.
So the games are technically cheaper, even though they've got the same pricing.

Sadly this thread is now down to people defending their purchasing decisions rather than talking about the game, so it's not going to go anywhere.

That's funny, because you haven't really been talking about the game either.
You're mostly complaining about non-specific graphical issues and extraneous issues like pricing and people not being 'gamers' now.
The bit where you talked about the game actually made me very doubtful you've actually even played SC2 more than a few minutes, if at all.
I mean, seriously? Scouting doesn't work?
Pretty much everything you said is either wrong or plain stupid.
Yes, some units win over other units.
Isn't that the point of having more than one type of unit?
Anti-air wins over colossi, hellions win over lings, ultralisks win over everything but air units, etc.
That's what tactics is all about.
You're not gonna win over a protoss player using void rays by using roaches.
But that doesn't mean that just because you use a specific unit to counter your enemy's army, you're gonna win.
Planning, resources, macro, micro, harassment, pressure, speed, strategy; all of it are vital to win in multiplayer matches.

Besides, your statement about scouting not 'working' and just using units that's strong against the units your enemy's using kinda contradict each other, don't they? You think you've got time to build a force tailored to defeat your enemy's force in time to defend against an attacking force without any kind of information? Without scouting, they'd be in your base before you know what units they're using.

And yes, units scuffle around each other, trying to get into range of their enemies.
This is by design; it's not a flaw. The units do exactly what you tell them to.
They move toward a target and open fire the moment they're in range.
To get more units into firing range quicker, you need to micro them manually.
You can't just send your army to attack and expect to win.
A skilled player can annihilate an evenly matched army purely through skilful micro.

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS? It seems like X2 all over again, but I doubt you'll understand that reference, so it seems like an engine which is hideously optimised for the higher end of it.

Are you actually trying to be condescending?
Can't really comment on the graphical optimisation thing though.
I mean, as I get a constant 60 FPS on ultra settings, I wouldn't really have any reference to go by.

Plus where are you finding out that the editor is low setting graphics? Just curious as I checked the graphics options and there was nothing about quality.

File > Preferences > Video.
It's not rocket science, man.
It's automatically set to the same settings you have in the game, so it's no wonder you think the graphics are shit if you play with that.
Though I wonder why you complain about graphics when you play on low settings.
I mean, that's pretty much understood. It's called 'low quality' for a reason.

I've got a revelation to break to you - Starcraft is not the best RTS ever, and SC2 certainly isn't. I've just defeated Very Hard Zerg and Terran 1 vs 1 on my Guest Pass without having ever played SC2 and I haven't played the first in over a decade unless you want to count 1 hour a few nights ago...
That really isn't very good is it?
Dated problems include building units getting trapped between buildings, 800x600 ranges and units fumbling around in a awful attempt to track to the target. The fumbling isn't a good idea because it means ranged units instantly have a massive advantage as they just hold their ground and hand-to-hand cannot be focused on the smaller units.

If you really are trying to say the average PC game is $60 on release, you are trolling. It is simple as that.

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.
If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

The graphics seem really poorly optimised, or albia is lying. It's not unusual for a game to be poorly optimised on the top settings, but again fro $60, this is a bit of a bad joke.

The editor was actually on a mix of graphics, nothing was on ultra, but nothing on low, and textures were actually on high so next time you may want to check instead of trying to be smart and just, well, failing....Just looking at it set to Ultra - there is very little difference so I can't see why people are acting as if there is a huge difference between in-game and what I showed...The zerg look ace but as I've said I don't really have a problem with them.

John Funk:

Mazty:

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.

Well, here's where we get into a complete difference of opinion. I think that the art style looks great, personally; I think it looks like StarCraft and it looks like the typical Blizzard art style while still popping off the screen and giving every unit a distinct look. It's interesting that you think of child-safe with rounded structures; I tend to think of rounded edges as looking very sleek and future-ish. But it's a bit of a moot point, since that's really how the Terran buildings looked in the first game, so...

We aren't going to agree on the gameplay aspect so I'll leave that alone.
But just a few thing I want to ask.
Firstly how is the AI different from online? From what I've seen the AI actually looks far more challenging then a lot of the online players.
Secondly you say "The typical Blizzard art style". Blizzard doesn't have a typical art style...Look at Diablo, SC and Warcraft. None of them have overlapping artstyles so when you say Blizzard's art style I can't help but think what you mean is "World of Warcrafts art style" as that's the game it looks the most like. In the original the Terran buildings weren't smooth - they may of had a few rounded structures but they all had sharp edges and were clearly metallic, as were the Protoss buildings. But now with the WoW artstyle you can't tell the material either races buildings are made from. This difference is again highlighted in the cutscenes where you go from the inside of a gritty, dark ship to playing with plastic (?) buildings. Zerg on the other hand look fantastic, but that's 1 out of 3, and for $60, that's a bit of a bad show by Blizzard and just makes the game feel a bit childish and confused as what audience is it targeting with also quotes from adult films etc.

Mazty:

Denamic:

I could have stopped reading right there.
No one could say that while having played both SC1 and SC2 without lying through their teeth.
The improvement part, that is.
The game's improved in every way possible while still maintaining the core gameplay mechanics that makes StarCraft StarCraft.
About the innovation though, yes, you're right.
Blizz has even said multiple times that they're not going to on some grand innovation crusade.
They said they were going to make StarCraft 2, and that's exactly what they did.
And why is innovation put on such a high pedestal anyway?
Why does games get a bad rap because they use tried and true concepts, even when they do it better than anyone has ever done it before?

Also, what 'dated problems' are you even talking about anyway?

Plus abiia the reason I flat out ignored that link is because it's EIGHT YEARS OLD. This may surprise you but things have changed in almost a decade and PC game prices have changed.

Yes, the economy's changed and the dollar is much weaker now.
So the games are technically cheaper, even though they've got the same pricing.

Sadly this thread is now down to people defending their purchasing decisions rather than talking about the game, so it's not going to go anywhere.

That's funny, because you haven't really been talking about the game either.
You're mostly complaining about non-specific graphical issues and extraneous issues like pricing and people not being 'gamers' now.
The bit where you talked about the game actually made me very doubtful you've actually even played SC2 more than a few minutes, if at all.
I mean, seriously? Scouting doesn't work?
Pretty much everything you said is either wrong or plain stupid.
Yes, some units win over other units.
Isn't that the point of having more than one type of unit?
Anti-air wins over colossi, hellions win over lings, ultralisks win over everything but air units, etc.
That's what tactics is all about.
You're not gonna win over a protoss player using void rays by using roaches.
But that doesn't mean that just because you use a specific unit to counter your enemy's army, you're gonna win.
Planning, resources, macro, micro, harassment, pressure, speed, strategy; all of it are vital to win in multiplayer matches.

Besides, your statement about scouting not 'working' and just using units that's strong against the units your enemy's using kinda contradict each other, don't they? You think you've got time to build a force tailored to defeat your enemy's force in time to defend against an attacking force without any kind of information? Without scouting, they'd be in your base before you know what units they're using.

And yes, units scuffle around each other, trying to get into range of their enemies.
This is by design; it's not a flaw. The units do exactly what you tell them to.
They move toward a target and open fire the moment they're in range.
To get more units into firing range quicker, you need to micro them manually.
You can't just send your army to attack and expect to win.
A skilled player can annihilate an evenly matched army purely through skilful micro.

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS? It seems like X2 all over again, but I doubt you'll understand that reference, so it seems like an engine which is hideously optimised for the higher end of it.

Are you actually trying to be condescending?
Can't really comment on the graphical optimisation thing though.
I mean, as I get a constant 60 FPS on ultra settings, I wouldn't really have any reference to go by.

Plus where are you finding out that the editor is low setting graphics? Just curious as I checked the graphics options and there was nothing about quality.

File > Preferences > Video.
It's not rocket science, man.
It's automatically set to the same settings you have in the game, so it's no wonder you think the graphics are shit if you play with that.
Though I wonder why you complain about graphics when you play on low settings.
I mean, that's pretty much understood. It's called 'low quality' for a reason.

I've got a revelation to break to you - Starcraft is not the best RTS ever, and SC2 certainly isn't. I've just defeated Very Hard Zerg and Terran 1 vs 1 on my Guest Pass without having ever played SC2 and I haven't played the first in over a decade unless you want to count 1 hour a few nights ago...
That really isn't very good is it?
Dated problems include building units getting trapped between buildings, 800x600 ranges and units fumbling around in a awful attempt to track to the target. The fumbling isn't a good idea because it means ranged units instantly have a massive advantage as they just hold their ground and hand-to-hand cannot be focused on the smaller units.

Umm..you mean zealots and lings? You're saying zealots and lings, key to the zerg rush and proxy 4 gate are at a disadvantage?

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.
If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

No it isn't. Unit compositions, Unit placements, Taking full advantage of your casters (mothership and high templar) when to cut workers to make buildings (not really applicable to protoss), when to expand.

How about you go and play a real person online, not the practice leagues either.

A) You didn't happen to save the replay of that did you?
B)What pros exactly are you referring to? I think I've seen painuser with a thor

The graphics seem really poorly optimised, or albia is lying. It's not unusual for a game to be poorly optimised on the top settings, but again fro $60, this is a bit of a bad joke.

Dude , concentrate on trying to fault the gameplay. No one gives a shit about the graphics

The editor was actually on a mix of graphics, nothing was on ultra, but nothing on low, and textures were actually on high so next time you may want to check instead of trying to be smart and just, well, failing....

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1919/terrain001.jpg vs http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg
Clearly very little difference... Even if textures were on high in your settings, having everything else on low means no mapping/light effects were used. And keep in mind the game on ultra adds another 1 or 2 steps of processing.
Also, default is on low, regardless of the fact that it has checked to use game settings.

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-WW98JS38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOXWgi_5tGw

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEsxvHWbvbU

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 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
Register for a free account here