Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Mazty:
How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?

Because I'm not a graphics whore, and therefore didn't invest those 60$ because of the graphics?

Mazty:
SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.

Oh, ok, 15 4-5 hours levels doing the same thing with a guy nagging you every 5 minutes to do it is better than 30 quick and interesting levels.

Everything else I've answered before.

technoted:

John Funk:

LAN would have been nice, but let's be honest, it's outdated technology and will one day be obsolete (if it isn't already).

The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.

I stil occasionally have LAN games which I enjoy, I mean theres nothing better than having fun with your mates whilst playing some Starcraft. However I don't see why everyone is complaining about the LAN not being there, you can still get friends round together and connect to the same internet connection and have some games, and from what I've heard there's pretty much no lag when you do this either.

And you say there's problems with B.net like the cross region play, I haven't played any online games yet since I didn't get a chance to play SC2 till late on Monday night and story comes first, are this problems really big or just minor irritants?

You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?

Also i dont feel like buying a copy for everyone in my house, why cant i play MY game that I PAYED FOR?

Easy answer, in Korea and Russia they setup a subscription program for online, So why would anyone pay for online when they would play lan through Garena btw Garena>B.net in skill and in quality

Xocrates:

Mazty:
How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?

Because I'm not a graphics whore, and therefore didn't invest those 60$ because of the graphics?

Mazty:
SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.

Oh, ok, 15 4-5 hours levels doing the same thing with a guy nagging you every 5 minutes to do it is better than 30 quick and interesting levels.

Everything else I've answered before.

Every single one of the missions in Supreme commander sucked. Repetitive as hell, ESPECIALLY with some guy saying the same thing over and over again every five minutes or so. I'd rather have variety, strategic choices and fun with SC2 then enduring throughout Supreme commander again... Geez..

"You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?"

Mobile internet, get it. Just because you are old and outdated doesn't mean technology should wait around for you. It's called progression.

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"
So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

Deeleted:
"You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?"

Mobile internet, get it. Just because you are old and outdated doesn't mean technology should wait around for you. It's called progression.

$20 per month for 500MB bandwidth? NTY

TB_Infidel:

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"
So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

It's not perfect, nobody here have proclaimed that. It's just really, really good. Except for the obvious problems with the story and battlenet 2.0, it's great!

ionveau:

Deeleted:
"You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?"

Mobile internet, get it. Just because you are old and outdated doesn't mean technology should wait around for you. It's called progression.

$20 per month for 500MB bandwidth? NTY

That's one of the reasons why I love living in Sweden. Cheap, fast bandwidth!

TB_Infidel:

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"
So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

Dont forget how they payed off the reviewers,

From what i see major reviewers are giving this game 10/10 while indie reviewers that you typically find on you tube give this game 7/10 or 6/10,

I dont know about you but i would rather trust a person with as much money as me and the same look on games rather then a person whos job involves talking about games all day,

Yes this game does feel like stealing from blizzard especially when you get a free computer with the game.

TB_Infidel:

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I think there's a very important distinction we need to make here. Starcraft II, to me, has always been a game designed to appeal to the fans of the first game. I'm pretty sure that was Blizzard's intent anyway. What you see as flaws, fans of Starcraft see as definitive of the series.

Don't get me wrong, I love the innovations games like Supreme Commander and Dawn of War have brought to the RTS genre, but if they were all implemented into a sequel to Starcraft, it wouldn't feel like Starcraft, if you know what I'm saying. It's the same reason why I loved Dawn of War but hated Dawn of War 2. DoW2 was innovative, certainly; I just didn't care for what it tried to do and it didn't feel like Dawn of War.

ionveau:

Dont forget how they payed off the reviewers,

From what i see major reviewers are giving this game 10/10 while indie reviewers that you typically find on you tube give this game 7/10 or 6/10,

I dont know about you but i would rather trust a person with as much money as me and the same look on games rather then a person whos job involves talking about games all day,

Yes this game does feel like stealing from blizzard especially when you get a free computer with the game.

Couldn't possibly be that all these reviewers were fans of the first game and genuinely love the game could it. No, HAS to be that they were paid off. I'll be frank with everyone here: I didn't much care for the original Starcraft. The mechanics were fairly solid but everything felt clunky. Starcraft II has polished everything to a mirror shine, and because of that, I love the game.

TB_Infidel:

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I could reply to all of that, but you'll just ignore half of it again. So let's do this simple like.

Your problem with Starcraft 2 isn't Starcraft 2.
Your problem is you wanted Dawn of War 3. (DoW 2 was a waste of my strategy dollars, by the by)
You wanted a different resource system.
You wanted a different style of graphics (or turn the settings up from nothing, for crying out loud)
You wanted an 'innovative' game. (Which doesn't make a good game, just a different game)
You wanted a different style of tactical combat.
Your problem with Starcraft 2 is you.

Because honestly, if you can't see how Starcraft 2 innovated how a RTS can tell a story by blending in aspects of different genres, then that's on you. If you can't see how they've advanced the Protoss and Terran race concepts, that's on you. If you can't see how they've completely updated their UI to modern day, cutting edge standards (not including B.Net), then that's on you.

Mazty:

I expect you to be able to say why you enjoy the game other than saying "Just 'cuz". Basically, why is SC2 more enjoyable than the plethora of more modern RTS' out?
How does base building and resource gathering, with generally slower gameplay make the game better than the competition.
If you were put in a room with all the RTS' of the last decade, what would make you pick SC2 up over all the others? What are the merits of SC2 that make it stand apart from the others and how are certain elements which are seen as dated work so well they are not a nuisance e.g. Slow as f**k build queues and tedious resource harvesting?

How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?
SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.
I'm not doubting the variation in the levels, its the core mechanics which I'm questioning.

Starcraft 2 is more enjoyable than the competition because it's a much tighter, much more polished experience while still offering more true variety and complexity than most of it's competition. It's also quicker to ramp up the pace than most of it's competition because time matters in this game more than you seem to realize for reasons I stated on page 6.

You know what pro Starcraft players do at the beginning of a match? They spam select boxes and clicks and jump their view around at a frenzied pace because that's the pace they have to be playing at in two or three minutes or they'll lose.

And resourcing in SC 2 is automated with just a few clicks. (Two to autoharvest a mineral patch, and a couple more to shift workers to vespene)

The graphics aren't dated. They just weren't trying to impress you specifically with a style you would prefer. Or get a new rig.

So read my last response to TB_Infidel because it basically applies to you too.

Rythe:

TB_Infidel:

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I could reply to all of that, but you'll just ignore half of it again. So let's do this simple like.

Your problem with Starcraft 2 isn't Starcraft 2.
Your problem is you wanted Dawn of War 3. (DoW 2 was a waste of my strategy dollars, by the by)
You wanted a different resource system.
You wanted a different style of graphics (or turn the settings up from nothing, for crying out loud)
You wanted an 'innovative' game. (Which doesn't make a good game, just a different game)
You wanted a different style of tactical combat.
Your problem with Starcraft 2 is you.

Because honestly, if you can't see how Starcraft 2 innovated how a RTS can tell a story by blending in aspects of different genres, then that's on you. If you can't see how they've advanced the Protoss and Terran race concepts, that's on you. If you can't see how they've completely updated their UI to modern day, cutting edge standards (not including B.Net), then that's on you.

Yet again, you do not answer my questions.

How is a cartoon graphics style good for a gritty game ?
Really?

And name me another RTS game that has not died out and still uses harvesters?

I have not said the story is bad, or the mission style, only that the core mechanics of the game is dated and I want to play an RTS, not an RPG, so I do not care to much about for the story or upgrading characters etc.
The UI does not have time management build into it, ergo it is not cutting edge.
Please tell me how StarCraft 2 IS innovative on an RTS element, as it is an RTS, rather then spouting phrases that you would find at a conference.

TB_Infidel:

Yet again, you do not answer my questions.

How is a cartoon graphics style good for a gritty game ?
Really?

And name me another RTS game that has not died out and still uses harvesters?

I have not said the story is bad, or the mission style, only that the core mechanics of the game is dated and I want to play an RTS, not an RPG, so I do not care to much about for the story or upgrading characters etc.
The UI does not have time management build into it, ergo it is not cutting edge.
Please tell me how StarCraft 2 IS innovative on an RTS element, as it is an RTS, rather then spouting phrases that you would find at a conference.

I don't know where you're getting that this game has a "cartoon" graphics style. It's colorful and vibrant, certainly, and it has lower texture detail so it's more accessible to a wide range of PC's, but it's not cartoony.

Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

ionveau:

You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?

Also i dont feel like buying a copy for everyone in my house, why cant i play MY game that I PAYED FOR?

Easy answer, in Korea and Russia they setup a subscription program for online, So why would anyone pay for online when they would play lan through Garena btw Garena>B.net in skill and in quality

I finished with school a fair few years ago now, I'd rather not finish with it again. Who has a LAN party in a park anway? With the amount of power being used the battery would die after about 1 - 2 hours, the glare from the sun would be annoying and what if it rains? I think in all honesty you're just being really awkward about things now, rather than just accepting that this game is good and LAN is completely outdated and isn't needed at all anymore you just pick up silly little things as to hate on a game because it's popular to hate on something successful.

TB_Infidel:

Rythe:

TB_Infidel:

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I could reply to all of that, but you'll just ignore half of it again. So let's do this simple like.

Your problem with Starcraft 2 isn't Starcraft 2.
Your problem is you wanted Dawn of War 3. (DoW 2 was a waste of my strategy dollars, by the by)
You wanted a different resource system.
You wanted a different style of graphics (or turn the settings up from nothing, for crying out loud)
You wanted an 'innovative' game. (Which doesn't make a good game, just a different game)
You wanted a different style of tactical combat.
Your problem with Starcraft 2 is you.

Because honestly, if you can't see how Starcraft 2 innovated how a RTS can tell a story by blending in aspects of different genres, then that's on you. If you can't see how they've advanced the Protoss and Terran race concepts, that's on you. If you can't see how they've completely updated their UI to modern day, cutting edge standards (not including B.Net), then that's on you.

Yet again, you do not answer my questions.

How is a cartoon graphics style good for a gritty game ?
Really?

And name me another RTS game that has not died out and still uses harvesters?

I have not said the story is bad, or the mission style, only that the core mechanics of the game is dated and I want to play an RTS, not an RPG, so I do not care to much about for the story or upgrading characters etc.
The UI does not have time management build into it, ergo it is not cutting edge.
Please tell me how StarCraft 2 IS innovative on an RTS element, as it is an RTS, rather then spouting phrases that you would find at a conference.

ok i could tell you to up your graphic to the maximum but in truth i cant do that my self since i have such a dated computer so ill just say this the campain is all thats it all i play and its still worth more then half the console games ive bought. Now id like to clearify something for all you youngins gears of war and halo were not compied by starcraft, starcraft was copied by them! it came out in 1998 both of those other games came out in the 2000s so stop with the flameing:)

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

snip

I don't know where you're getting that this game has a "cartoon" graphics style. It's colorful and vibrant, certainly, and it has lower texture detail so it's more accessible to a wide range of PC's, but it's not cartoony.

Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

Either don't post a reply or stop avoiding the question :
How is a colourful and vibrant art style good for a gritty RTS?
Bar masking poor graphics, Blizzard had no reason to do these, especially when EA had been criticised for doing this to the C&C series.

TB_Infidel:

Either don't post a reply or stop avoiding the question :
How is a colourful and vibrant art style good for a gritty RTS?
Bar masking poor graphics, Blizzard had no reason to do these, especially how EA where criticised for doing this to the C&C series.

If you want me to be honest, I don't know the exact reasons behind Blizzard's decision to utilize colorful and vibrant colors, but they do it in every single game they've ever made.

For a lot of people, it's colorful, it looks pleasant, the map can easily be read, and it allows for more versatility in art direction rather than differing levels of grit (Dawn of War).

The cutscenes (both CGI and in-game) can be gritty for the sake of delivering story, and they are exactly that. Playable graphics, however, I'll sacrifice the "grittiness" if it means the game is more appealing to look at.

Rythe:

Starcraft 2 is more enjoyable than the competition because it's a much tighter, much more polished experience while still offering more true variety and complexity than most of it's competition. It's also quicker to ramp up the pace than most of it's competition because time matters in this game more than you seem to realize for reasons I stated on page 6.

You know what pro Starcraft players do at the beginning of a match? They spam select boxes and clicks and jump their view around at a frenzied pace because that's the pace they have to be playing at in two or three minutes or they'll lose.

And resourcing in SC 2 is automated with just a few clicks. (Two to autoharvest a mineral patch, and a couple more to shift workers to vespene)

The graphics aren't dated. They just weren't trying to impress you specifically with a style you would prefer. Or get a new rig.

So read my last response to TB_Infidel because it basically applies to you too.

Which competition is it faster then? Sup Com and DoW? No, it's slower.
I'm not saying resourcing isn't automated - I'm saying why is it still included considering it just slows everything down and is a waste of units?
The graphics are dated. It has low res textures, low model detail, no native AA support apparently etc. It can be played on AGP cards - that IS dated.
It's not value for money to get poor graphics for an asking price of $60.

Let's do it like this - how is SC2 better than say DoW1 and Sup Com, both very fast paced base building RTS'?

Xocrates:

Mazty:
How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?

Because I'm not a graphics whore, and therefore didn't invest those 60$ because of the graphics?

Mazty:
SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.

Oh, ok, 15 4-5 hours levels doing the same thing with a guy nagging you every 5 minutes to do it is better than 30 quick and interesting levels.

Everything else I've answered before.

You still haven't said how it's value for money by getting dated graphics and yet still having to pay $60....Instead you cry "GRAFIX HOOR!".....

The same thing...? Mate you've barely played Sup Com so stop embarrassing yourself trying to pretend you know anything about the game.

Funny, I thought Funk would do the review for the game.

Anyway, good review I hope to have the game by next week.

Mazty:

Which competition is it faster then? Sup Com and DoW? No, it's slower.
I'm not saying resourcing isn't automated - I'm saying why is it still included considering it just slows everything down and is a waste of units?
The graphics are dated. It has low res textures, low model detail, no native AA support apparently etc. It can be played on AGP cards - that IS dated.
It's not value for money to get poor graphics for an asking price of $60.

Let's do it like this - how is SC2 better than say DoW1 and Sup Com, both very fast paced base building RTS'?

Two things: The fact that the game is accessible to a wide range of PC's means that the overhead gameplay isn't as photorealistic as other RTS games. But how can that possibly be a deal-killer when the game has an appealing art style to compensate? Really though, if you think the graphics are POOR, I think you need to re-adjust your priorities (and standards).

Secondly; why are you and infidel so hell-bent on demanding us explain why we happen to enjoy the game better than Dawn of War or Supreme Commander. It's called personal taste.

Mazty:

You still haven't said how it's value for money by getting dated graphics and yet still having to pay $60....Instead you cry "GRAFIX HOOR!".....

Because I don't pay for the graphics? I pay to have a good time and enjoy the gameplay. If the visuals are competent and the game has an appealing art style, I could care less if the game isn't as photorealistic as Total War.

TB_Infidel:

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

snip

I don't know where you're getting that this game has a "cartoon" graphics style. It's colorful and vibrant, certainly, and it has lower texture detail so it's more accessible to a wide range of PC's, but it's not cartoony.

Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

Either don't post a reply or stop avoiding the question :
How is a colourful and vibrant art style good for a gritty RTS?
Bar masking poor graphics, Blizzard had no reason to do these, especially when EA had been criticised for doing this to the C&C series.

Since when did Starcraft come out as a gritty, DEADSERIOUS, over the top, hardcore game? It's B-list space opera with A-list voiceactors. Always has been, always will be. The commercials, the news, the sarcastic humour of your units (James Raynor had a unibrow in Starcraft 1 for gods sake, how gritty is that?). I'm sorry, but it seems like YOU played Starcraft 1 for 10 minutes then decided to go do something else. Your badmouthing a game you barely know ANYTHING about.

Deeleted:

TB_Infidel:
snip

Since when did Starcraft come out as a gritty, DEADSERIOUS, over the top, hardcore game? It's B-list space opera with A-list voiceactors. Always has been, always will be. The commercials, the news, the sarcastic humour of your units (James Raynor had a unibrow in Starcraft 1 for gods sake, how gritty is that?). I'm sorry, but it seems like YOU played Starcraft 1 for 10 minutes then decided to go do something else. Your badmouthing a game you barely know ANYTHING about.

Space opera? Stop using buzz terms and try explaining what you mean.
Why is it vivid and colourful when it has a very serious story line and very serious fmv's?
StarCraft had a serious storyline, the fmv's were serious and sometimes had adult humour mixed into them, and the game graphics were dark and gritty.
Yet now the ingame is more flamboyant then Gay Pride and personally I find it breaks the immersion of the game, which is obviously something they want to maintain as they have such a strong emphasis on story telling.
A person did say that most Blizzard game had this colour style to it, however this is only really applicable to the Warcraft series as Diablo and StarCraft were never brightly coloured. At the time, the graphics StarCraft provided was the best possible to try to achieve a dark and serious environment.

JeanLuc761:

Two things: The fact that the game is accessible to a wide range of PC's means that the overhead gameplay isn't as photorealistic as other RTS games. But how can that possibly be a deal-killer when the game has an appealing art style to compensate? Really though, if you think the graphics are POOR, I think you need to re-adjust your priorities (and standards).

Secondly; why are you and infidel so hell-bent on demanding us explain why we happen to enjoy the game better than Dawn of War or Supreme Commander. It's called personal taste.

#

...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'm just intrigued as to what other RTS' you are comparing SC2 to. Almost all the hardcore RTS fans I know seem to say the same think that SC2 is dated and nothing but fan service. I'm just would like to know why it's apparently one of the best RTS' out there, especially considering that it apparently isn't balanced (Zerg OP in multiplayer so I've heard)

TB_Infidel:

Deeleted:

TB_Infidel:
snip

Since when did Starcraft come out as a gritty, DEADSERIOUS, over the top, hardcore game? It's B-list space opera with A-list voiceactors. Always has been, always will be. The commercials, the news, the sarcastic humour of your units (James Raynor had a unibrow in Starcraft 1 for gods sake, how gritty is that?). I'm sorry, but it seems like YOU played Starcraft 1 for 10 minutes then decided to go do something else. Your badmouthing a game you barely know ANYTHING about.

Space opera? Stop using buzz terms and try explaining what you mean.
Why is it vivid and colourful when it has a very serious story line and very serious fmv's?
StarCraft had a serious storyline, the fmv's were serious and sometimes had adult humour mixed into them, and the game graphics were dark and gritty.
Yet now the ingame is more flamboyant then Gay Pride and personally I find it breaks the immersion of the game, which is obviously something they want to maintain as they have such a strong emphasis on story telling.
A person did say that most Blizzard game had this colour style to it, however this is only really applicable to the Warcraft series as Diablo and StarCraft were never brightly coloured. At the time, the graphics StarCraft provided was the best possible to try to achieve a dark and serious environment.

Yeah, if you don't count the several games they did before Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo, then your right... *Sigh* And as for Diablo, Diablo 3 is just as colorful as Starcraft 2 is. And it looks wonderful. Color ISN'T a bad thing. Take a look outside, the world is full of it, yet thousands die every day. The world itself is gritty, this doesn't mean it HAS to look gritty or "realistic"(a brown filter these days..) As for cartoonish... What the hell? It's a space opera containing alien races. What did you expect? Realism?

This whole discussion isn't about a games faults or anything like that. What you are complaining about is personal taste. You don't like the game, we get that, fine. We, however, do. And so far, you have just replied to the personal touch that each and every comment here has. Not the facts they are putting right in front of you.

To be honest, I'm done here. This is like trying to explain for a religious fanatic that God doesn't exist. No matter how much proof you lay down he/she just nods his/her head and responds in a snarly, condescending way.

Mazty:

JeanLuc761:

Two things: The fact that the game is accessible to a wide range of PC's means that the overhead gameplay isn't as photorealistic as other RTS games. But how can that possibly be a deal-killer when the game has an appealing art style to compensate? Really though, if you think the graphics are POOR, I think you need to re-adjust your priorities (and standards).

Secondly; why are you and infidel so hell-bent on demanding us explain why we happen to enjoy the game better than Dawn of War or Supreme Commander. It's called personal taste.

#

...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'm just intrigued as to what other RTS' you are comparing SC2 to. Almost all the hardcore RTS fans I know seem to say the same think that SC2 is dated and nothing but fan service. I'm just would like to know why it's apparently one of the best RTS' out there, especially considering that it apparently isn't balanced (Zerg OP in multiplayer so I've heard)

The game is just as balanced as Starcraft 1 ever was. This is what makes Starcraft great. Three completely and utterly different races, yet with impressive balance. There ain't a race or a unit that's OP at all.

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'm just intrigued as to what other RTS' you are comparing SC2 to. Almost all the hardcore RTS fans I know seem to say the same think that SC2 is dated and nothing but fan service. I'm just would like to know why it's apparently one of the best RTS' out there, especially considering that it apparently isn't balanced (Zerg OP in multiplayer so I've heard)

I'll stop debating you on the graphics because clearly that isn't going anywhere. I have no problem with the textures, model quality, or the artistic style so that's not bothering me.

The game I think I'm comparing SC2 directly to would probably be Dawn of War. Now, I absolutely loved Dawn of War, it's in my top 3 RTS games of all time. I also love Starcraft 2. Everything about the game is polished, using the old mechanics that worked perfectly to begin with. Starcraft 2 really IS fan-service because they knew how popular the game was and continues to be. If they had added all of the innovations over the last decade or so, the game wouldn't have been Starcraft anymore; it would have been Dawn of War 3 in a different universe.

The fans, and Blizzard, wanted Starcraft-style gameplay and that's exactly what we got. I could care less if the mechanics are dated, they're just as entertaining as they always have been. It's the same reason I can play old games on the PS1; the gameplay is timeless.

Deeleted:

TB_Infidel:
snip

Yeah, if you don't count the several games they did before Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo, then your right... *Sigh* And as for Diablo, Diablo 3 is just as colorful as Starcraft 2 is. And it looks wonderful. Color ISN'T a bad thing. Take a look outside, the world is full of it, yet thousands die every day. The world itself is gritty, this doesn't mean it HAS to look gritty or "realistic"(a brown filter these days..) As for cartoonish... What the hell? It's a space opera containing alien races. What did you expect? Realism?

This whole discussion isn't about a games faults or anything like that. What you are complaining about is personal taste. You don't like the game, we get that, fine. We, however, do. And so far, you have just replied to the personal touch that each and every comment here has. Not the facts they are putting right in front of you.

To be honest, I'm done here. This is like trying to explain for a religious fanatic that God doesn't exist. No matter how much proof you lay down he/she just nods his/her head and responds in a snarly, condescending way.

"Diablo 3 is just as colorful as Starcraft 2 is"

Yeah, that is just a lie.
http://images.mmosite.com/answer/dict/upload/2009/06/09/a34b7f29cab15f361f20121cd89dc121.jpg
http://www.maximumpc.com/files/u45849/starcraft.jpg

Also, what the hell do you mean by space opera? Next you will be telling me about the synergy of the game....
Also, if you love this game so much then why are you posting rather then playing it?

Sounds exciting and awesome, but I fell out of love with RTS games a long time ago...too pointy-pointy clicky-clicky!

Oh christ, you people are still talking about this?

We get it, some of you don't like it, some of you do. Now as soon as you realize that nobody really cares if you like it or not you can go do something worthwhile instead of spending days arguing about the same topic.

This game isn't that good. They sell it with the excelent graphics, and luckily for them the public is dumb enough to be amazed by it and blinded from the FLAT and SAME gameplay as starcraft 1. Starcraft 1 was good in it's time, don't get me wrong, but they haven't changed a thing.

Some people see this as a posititve thing, but the game is just STALE and FLAT. They had to alter the units to make them less effective against certain units and stronger vs others etc to compensate for this, and hey it worked. The public is amazed. I weep for the future of RTS games.

Joshua Sosnowski:
This game isn't that good. They sell it with the excelent graphics, and luckily for them the public is dumb enough to be amazed by it and blinded from the FLAT and SAME gameplay as starcraft 1. Starcraft 1 was good in it's time, don't get me wrong, but they haven't changed a thing.

Some people see this as a posititve thing, but the game is just STALE and FLAT. They had to alter the units to make them less effective against certain units and stronger vs others etc to compensate for this, and hey it worked. The public is amazed. I weep for the future of RTS games.

I'm getting tired of having to say this. Starcraft II having the same gameplay was EXACTLY what the fans were expecting, and it's exactly what they got. I don't see why anyone was expecting the core mechanics to change.

OOOOMMMMGGGG! Is that what I think it is? A female Protoss??? I thought they didn't reproduce sexually, or, whatever? So why is there on gender or another? Or is it one of those things where they are just so advanced that they've adapted just by being in the presence of humans? Guess I won't know until I play the game O_o

TB_Infidel:
Yet now the ingame is more flamboyant then Gay Pride and personally I find it breaks the immersion of the game,

Personally I find that your immersion of a game is broken incredibly easily.. Seriously, you make it sound like it looks like Plant. VS. Zombies

Mazty:

JeanLuc761:

Two things: The fact that the game is accessible to a wide range of PC's means that the overhead gameplay isn't as photorealistic as other RTS games. But how can that possibly be a deal-killer when the game has an appealing art style to compensate? Really though, if you think the graphics are POOR, I think you need to re-adjust your priorities (and standards).

Secondly; why are you and infidel so hell-bent on demanding us explain why we happen to enjoy the game better than Dawn of War or Supreme Commander. It's called personal taste.

#

...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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 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