Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 19 NEXT
 

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'?

SupCom 1 *crawled* compared to StarCraft 2. Moving your army around SupCom 1's huge maps took forever, unless you took the time to airlift everything which would have been a pain for an army in the hundreds. You also had to build two to four times the amount of base infrastructure than in SC 2. Waiting on factories and mines to tech up was slow. Also, unit balance was terrible between experimentals and regular stuff. Satisfied?

The speed difference between DoW 1 and SC2 is based on playstyle. The unit cap in DoW1 is much smaller than SC 2, so your army was full so much quicker. However, you actually have waaaay more you can do with your units in SC 2 battles. If your play style is fill your unit cap and go rampaging, DoW 1 is faster. If you avail yourself in everything SC 2 offers and expects of you, then SC 2 is larger and much more hectic. For early, mid game stuff, they're about the same pace ignoring the part where SC 2 demands much more of you.

As for model detail, it depends on the unit in SC 2. The big, cool stuff blows everything else out of the water. The small, plentiful stuff was made simpler so the game didn't bog down all to hell. 20-30 marines with full support is suppose to be a walk in the park for SC 2. 20-30 troops is the unit cap for DoW 2. Tyrannids were the exception, and their unit detail was nothing to write home about. SupCom graphics don't count, because their units are basically big chunks of geometry with shiny textures and effects. SC 2 units had to look much more organic for the most part, which puts the detail strain elsewhere. Lastly, style beats out feature lists any day of the week. You seem to think a feature list makes good graphics, it doesn't. SC 2 doesn't use the latest and greatest techniques because it doesn't need to. It pulls off a compelling, richer visual experience with fewer tools and less of a need to lean on your graphics card than the competition. That makes it have excellent graphics. That is why it has much better graphics than C&C or SupCom. DoW 2 is a harder comparison because the graphics engines are trying to do very different things and have very different stresses to deal with. I still believe the attention to detail in SC 2 is much higher, however. And that's before we get to the out of mission models and environments, where SC 2 simply destroys any similar aspects in any other RTS. And that's why the graphics in SC 2 are easily worth $60.

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.

Because the only person calling it a gritty RTS is you? Because it makes the units pop out more from the background, and that is TREMENDOUSLY important in a game designed to be competitive in multiplayer. If an opponent comes at me, I need to be able to tell immediately what he's got so I know how to counter it (barring him, y'know, doing something strategic like holding forces back). I can't do that if they're obscured by smoke and clouds and GRIM GRITTY GRRRRRR.

Why CAN'T a game be colorful? What's bad about colors? SC2 looks like StarCraft, not like Dawn of War. That's what it should look like. If EA was criticized for changing the art style of the C&C series than you can hardly point the exact same finger at Blizzard for just making a game that looks just like the original did, only in 3D.

paketep:
I have a games-more-than-ready PC, and I'm not buying this.

Not until they support LAN, at the very least.

You are going to be waiting a long time then.

It's funny how you keep posting early beta pictures of the game where the game looks far from complete even though we explained to you it is. The newer pictures from Diablo 3 has alot more color in it and Starcraft 2 looks 10x better then the picture you linked of it.

Do your god damn homework before you start complaining about something you don't even know anything about.

John Funk:

TB_Infidel:
snip

Because the only person calling it a gritty RTS is you? Because it makes the units pop out more from the background, and that is TREMENDOUSLY important in a game designed to be competitive in multiplayer. If an opponent comes at me, I need to be able to tell immediately what he's got so I know how to counter it (barring him, y'know, doing something strategic like holding forces back). I can't do that if they're obscured by smoke and clouds and GRIM GRITTY GRRRRRR.

Why CAN'T a game be colorful? What's bad about colors? SC2 looks like StarCraft, not like Dawn of War. That's what it should look like. If EA was criticized for changing the art style of the C&C series than you can hardly point the exact same finger at Blizzard for just making a game that looks just like the original did, only in 3D.

So the first was not gritty? It too was bright and as colourful as a rainbow? I think you need to get your copy of StarCraft and play it again as well as realise the limitations of graphics back in those days.
Other RTS's have managed to make there units stand out with ease due to having advanced graphics and high unit detail.
Either way, you can not claim the game has 5/5 for graphics when the game has an art style that looks like it has been designed to help downy kids play it rather then look the best it can compared to other RTS's.
And again, are the fmv's grim? Yes? Is the original 10 years old and looks terrible so copying this game is going to be a graphical disaster masked with tonnes of bloom?
So it is perfectly expectable to go to super bright and kiddy simple when C&C where criticised for doing this only because Blizzard made it, so lets warp reality and say that simple = designed to help people play it as people have been waiting 10 years for the game.

Deeleted:
It's funny how you keep posting early beta pictures of the game where the game looks far from complete even though we explained to you it is. The newer pictures from Diablo 3 has alot more color in it and Starcraft 2 looks 10x better then the picture you linked of it.

Do your god damn homework before you start complaining about something you don't even know anything about.

Lets see some pictures then if they look so different.
NB. My computer runs the game on full specs, thus it is not a graphically strong game.

http://www.youtube.com/user/HuskyStarcraft#p/u/3/N77gDrYNMRQ

I'll link you that instead of a picture out of it. Remember this is youtube quality you are looking at. The game DOES look better when actually playing it yourself.

TB_Infidel:

Other RTS's have managed to make there units stand out with ease due to having advanced graphics and high unit detail.

NB. My computer runs the game on full specs, thus it is not a graphically strong game.

Advanced graphics and high unit detail has absolutely NOTHING to do with how easy it is to read the map at a glance. Effective use of color, vibrancy and instantly identifiable unit silhouettes is absolutely key in a game as much about quick-thinking as Starcraft is.

Also, your last statement is a bit of an odd one (or, at least, is worded wrong). I can run Dawn of War 2 and Supreme Commander on maximum specs; does that mean they aren't graphically strong games?

I saw someone post EXTREMELY early beta pictures and then a husky vid (husky sucks, HDStarcraft has a MUCH BETTER pc) so I will reply with this little video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPEyOESDaNk

I bougth it, directly from Blizzard, it cost me 60 USD, and I can only say that it worth every dollar I spent on it. Bravo Blizzard, bravo. A true materpiece

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

Other RTS's have managed to make there units stand out with ease due to having advanced graphics and high unit detail.

NB. My computer runs the game on full specs, thus it is not a graphically strong game.

Advanced graphics and high unit detail has absolutely NOTHING to do with how easy it is to read the map at a glance. Effective use of color, vibrancy and instantly identifiable unit silhouettes is absolutely key in a game as much about quick-thinking as Starcraft is.

Also, your last statement is a bit of an odd one (or, at least, is worded wrong). I can run Dawn of War 2 and Supreme Commander on maximum specs; does that mean they aren't graphically strong games?

My point is that I have never had to have my units lit up with neon signs saying where they are in any RTS, so I do not see why so many people have wanted Blizzard to do this with StarCraft.
The gpu I have is a 5770, so to be able to play a brand new game at ultra settings at 60 fps is some what surprising. Seeing that my gpu does not run SupCom or Dow2 at a solid 40+ fps shows the difference graphics seeing that those games are starting to age. Even if the lower fps is to do with my proc. bottlenecking as RTS's tend to strain the proc. just as much, this shows the simplicity of StarCraft 2.

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

Rythe:

SupCom 1 *crawled* compared to StarCraft 2. Moving your army around SupCom 1's huge maps took forever, unless you took the time to airlift everything which would have been a pain for an army in the hundreds. You also had to build two to four times the amount of base infrastructure than in SC 2. Waiting on factories and mines to tech up was slow. Also, unit balance was terrible between experimentals and regular stuff. Satisfied?

The speed difference between DoW 1 and SC2 is based on playstyle. The unit cap in DoW1 is much smaller than SC 2, so your army was full so much quicker. However, you actually have waaaay more you can do with your units in SC 2 battles. If your play style is fill your unit cap and go rampaging, DoW 1 is faster. If you avail yourself in everything SC 2 offers and expects of you, then SC 2 is larger and much more hectic. For early, mid game stuff, they're about the same pace ignoring the part where SC 2 demands much more of you.

As for model detail, it depends on the unit in SC 2. The big, cool stuff blows everything else out of the water. The small, plentiful stuff was made simpler so the game didn't bog down all to hell. 20-30 marines with full support is suppose to be a walk in the park for SC 2. 20-30 troops is the unit cap for DoW 2. Tyrannids were the exception, and their unit detail was nothing to write home about. SupCom graphics don't count, because their units are basically big chunks of geometry with shiny textures and effects. SC 2 units had to look much more organic for the most part, which puts the detail strain elsewhere. Lastly, style beats out feature lists any day of the week. You seem to think a feature list makes good graphics, it doesn't. SC 2 doesn't use the latest and greatest techniques because it doesn't need to. It pulls off a compelling, richer visual experience with fewer tools and less of a need to lean on your graphics card than the competition. That makes it have excellent graphics. That is why it has much better graphics than C&C or SupCom. DoW 2 is a harder comparison because the graphics engines are trying to do very different things and have very different stresses to deal with. I still believe the attention to detail in SC 2 is much higher, however. And that's before we get to the out of mission models and environments, where SC 2 simply destroys any similar aspects in any other RTS. And that's why the graphics in SC 2 are easily worth $60.

Sorry you clearly were really, REALLY bad at SupCom if you think it was slow and the super units were overpowered. Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad? Compare it to the Aeon Galactic Colossus - it has zero anti-air meaning if you weren't smart, a bunch of bombers would reduce it to rubble before you got to use it. How is that not balanced?
The unit detail is worse than almost every other RTS out there. Don't argue this point, it's like arguing the sky isn't blue. How is then having a contrasting style (Dark in FMV's, bloom-fest in game) a good idea? Imagine if the Team Fortress cutscenes were done in photo-realistic graphics. You'd be asking yourself what the hell is going on.

TB_Infidel:

1. My point is that I have never had to have my units lit up with neon signs saying where they are in any RTS, so I do not see why so many people have wanted Blizzard to do this with StarCraft.

2. The gpu I have is a 5770, so to be able to play a brand new game at ultra settings at 60 fps is some what surprising. Seeing that my gpu does not run SupCom or Dow2 at a solid 40+ fps shows the difference graphics seeing that those games are starting to age. Even if the lower fps is to do with my proc. bottlenecking as RTS's tend to strain the proc. just as much, this shows the simplicity of StarCraft 2.

1. The original Starcraft had brightly labelled units as well, and as has been said before, Starcraft II was designed with fans of the original Starcraft in mind.

2. SC2 was designed to work on an extremely wide range of PC's in order to appeal to a broader audience.

I'm still baffled as to why you and Matzy are so adamant about the graphics in Starcraft 2. So they don't have the unit detail of Total War and they don't have the grittiness of Dawn of War? So what?

JeanLuc761:

TB_Infidel:

1. My point is that I have never had to have my units lit up with neon signs saying where they are in any RTS, so I do not see why so many people have wanted Blizzard to do this with StarCraft.

2. The gpu I have is a 5770, so to be able to play a brand new game at ultra settings at 60 fps is some what surprising. Seeing that my gpu does not run SupCom or Dow2 at a solid 40+ fps shows the difference graphics seeing that those games are starting to age. Even if the lower fps is to do with my proc. bottlenecking as RTS's tend to strain the proc. just as much, this shows the simplicity of StarCraft 2.

1. The original Starcraft had brightly labelled units as well, and as has been said before, Starcraft II was designed with fans of the original Starcraft in mind.

2. SC2 was designed to work on an extremely wide range of PC's in order to appeal to a broader audience.

I'm still baffled as to why you and Matzy are so adamant about the graphics in Starcraft 2. So they don't have the unit detail of Total War and they don't have the grittiness of Dawn of War? So what?

If the graphics are not that great, then why has it received scores of 100% etc? That is my main gripe with the graphics, and that they could have easily put in options to make it look great, and still perform on a wide range of PC's.

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

Battleship?

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

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

The graphics look good to me too, compared to both Dawn of War 2 and Donkey Kong.

TB_Infidel:

If the graphics are not that great, then why has it received scores of 100% etc? That is my main gripe with the graphics, and that they could have easily put in options to make it look great, and still perform on a wide range of PC's.

Personally, I think the graphics look perfectly fine. It has an appealing artistic style (in my opinion), it runs extremely well, and it makes units easily identifiable. Then again, I didn't buy this game for the visuals; I bought it for the gameplay.

If games had points knocked off for not looking as photorealistic as possible, I guarantee you we'd see almost a universal drop in scores for games.

.Ricks.:
All that's missing is an Escapist B.Net user name share so we can "Escapisize" our Friends Lists on B.Net. At least I haven't seen the thread yet.

Hope to be playing you!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Escapist-Starcraft-2-Players there u go! :D

OT, I'm shocked by just how adamant Matzy and TB_Infidel are being about this game looking bad - even though one of them claims to be able to run it on max settings! This game looks beautiful, with unique and characterful unit designs that set it WAY apart from most other RTS games out atm.

Oh, and complaining about the game not being 'gritty and realistic' makes to facepalm epicly. Yeah, cos everyone loves generic gritty shooter #9087, obviously RTS games should go down that route too XD

ThePirateMan:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

The graphics look good to me too, compared to both Dawn of War 2 and Donkey Kong.

Uhuh....Sadly you may need to go to the opticians as DoW2 is way more technically advanced than SC2.

Xocrates:

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

Battleship?

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

Deeleted:

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

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

Uhuh....Sadly you may need to go to the opticians as DoW2 is way more technically advanced than SC2.

The in-engine cutscenes would beg to differ.

That said though, I need to ask. Why does this bother you so much? Both you and infidel are acting like the game failed miserably because the graphics aren't on the level of Total War or something.

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

It's called scouting, countering, and army composition. A surprise Battlecruiser in the right place at the right time can be devastating, a scouted Battlecruiser is easily countered, a Battlecruiser supporting your army can be invaluable.

It's that nasty strategy thing you claim SC2 doesn't have.

Though personally I'm more amused how you changed from "it's OP" to "What's the point?"

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

Xocrates:

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

Battleship?

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

Deeleted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

ThePirateMan:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

The graphics look good to me too, compared to both Dawn of War 2 and Donkey Kong.

Uhuh....Sadly you may need to go to the opticians as DoW2 is way more technically advanced than SC2.

Maybe it is graphicly, but Starcraft 2 still looks good to me in comparison, I'm not saying that it looks better it just doesn't feel worse. Maybe it's just my fanboyism.

And I can't see how you find the graphics POOR, but I guess I just care so little for graphics that don't do any of these 3 things
1) Look absolutely fantastic.
2) Look increadibly shitty and half-assed for no good reason.
3) Come in the way of the gameplay.

Mazty:

Xocrates:
.

Deeleted:

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

Snip

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

They are very good support units, they arn't supposed to go out alone, can take a decent amount of damage and have quite a powerful ability called "Yamato Cannon". Trust me, they are not worthless.

JeanLuc761:
Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

Then it does not deserve 5/5, 10/10, 95+% scores.

It is a good game, I'll give it that, but it is, at its core, a facelifted SC1. A graphical update does not, in any way, shape, or form warrant near-perfect scores.

A game that, and a community that horribile dictu PRIDES itself in being as uninnovative as possible, is doubly undeservant of the constant, fellating praise.

Look, I get it, you wanted SC2 for years, now you got it, and you are sky-high on eupohira. Good for you. Just accept that the rest of the world will not bow down befroe what you see as the second coming of christ, and we see as a completely and utterly run-of-the-mill RTS with an overbloated budget and fanbase that you could sell SC2 branded canned shit to.

Hubert South:

JeanLuc761:
Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

Then it does not deserve 5/5, 10/10, 95+% scores.

It is a good game, I'll give it that, but it is, at its core, a facelifted SC1. A graphical update does not, in any way, shape, or form warrant near-perfect scores.

A game that, and a community that horribile dictu PRIDES itself in being as uninnovative as possible, is doubly undeservant of the constant, fellating praise.

Look, I get it, you wanted SC2 for years, now you got it, and you are sky-high on eupohira. Good for you. Just accept that the rest of the world will not bow down befroe what you see as the second coming of christ, and we see as a completely and utterly run-of-the-mill RTS with an overbloated budget and fanbase that you could sell SC2 branded canned shit to.

I actually didn't play the first Starcraft so let's remove that assumption shall we?

The whole point of Starcraft 2, and this is something that many reviewers have touched upon, is that it uses the mechanics that worked so well a decade ago, brought them back, and refined them. That's exactly what I (and presumably, most of the fans) were expecting. I'm all for innovation but Starcraft 2 doesn't need to be innovative to be a fantastic game. It just needs to be Starcraft.

Why people were expecting Starcraft 2 to be like Dawn of War or Company of Heroes when Blizzard repeatedly demonstrated it was holding to the original formula is absolutely beyond me.

I. Have. Not. Expected. SC2. To. Be. Dawn. Of. War.

That slow enough for your brain?

I was just saying that a game that includes nigh-zero innovation should not be clothed in naught but laurel leaves and gold, especially since its predecessor, while being relatively shallow in the innovation concept itself, introduced a number of interesting, and very influential (for better or for worse) concepts.

SC2 is, for me, 80-85%, at best, and with this I'm forgiving as to how it looks (like someone throw up colors on my units). Its not 100%. No game can ever be 100%.

Hubert South:
I. Have. Not. Expected. SC2. To. Be. Dawn. Of. War.

That slow enough for your brain?

I was just saying that a game that includes nigh-zero innovation should not be clothed in naught but laurel leaves and gold, especially since its predecessor, while being relatively shallow in the innovation concept itself, introduced a number of interesting, and very influential (for better or for worse) concepts.

SC2 is, for me, 80-85%, at best, and with this I'm forgiving as to how it looks (like someone throw up colors on my units). Its not 100%. No game can ever be 100%.

Good thing we gave it five stars and not 100%, then. :) That's why numeric reviews are silly.

And a lack of innovation doesn't get in the way of it simply being a fantastically designed game.

Xocrates:

Though personally I'm more amused how you changed from "it's OP" to "What's the point?"

They've changed their arguments so many times at this point that it's honestly more amusing than anything else.

Hubert South:
I. Have. Not. Expected. SC2. To. Be. Dawn. Of. War.

That slow enough for your brain?

I was just saying that a game that includes nigh-zero innovation should not be clothed in naught but laurel leaves and gold, especially since its predecessor, while being relatively shallow in the innovation concept itself, introduced a number of interesting, and very influential (for better or for worse) concepts.

SC2 is, for me, 80-85%, at best, and with this I'm forgiving as to how it looks (like someone throw up colors on my units). Its not 100%. No game can ever be 100%.

Fair enough. No need to be a jackass with the "Superior than Thou" implications at the top of your post though.

Hubert South:

Then it does not deserve 5/5, 10/10, 95+% scores.

It is a good game, I'll give it that, but it is, at its core, a facelifted SC1. A graphical update does not, in any way, shape, or form warrant near-perfect scores.

It is not just a graphical update. It was improved in every possible aspect and everything was polished as much as possible.
I tried to play SC1 when first phase of beta ended and I couldn't stand it. And no, the problem wasn't that it looked aged, everything else (control, ui, ai) just felt wrong and clunky.
The point of iterating through a franchise is to improve the game, not to innovate for the sake of innovation. And that's exactly what they did.

It gets huge review scores because... gasp.. reviewers had a great time playing it, with it's top notch presentation and the best mission design the genre had to offer so far.

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

That's how I feel about all the controls they have put into place with the game as well as that whole /maps folder being on a server...

mike1921:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

Xocrates:

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

Battleship?

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

Deeleted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

mike1921:

Mazty:

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

Xocrates:

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

Battleship?

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

Deeleted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mazty:

After watching the game and having grabbed a guest pass, I understand how the game is more tactical than I had wrongly presumed, but it looks like it has a major problem that if your first attack doesn't work, it's game over. Seems very ruthless almost to a degree that your first move just has to be a lucky one e.g. you start making marauders only to see halfway through that you're up against an entire zergling rush.

You only lose in the first engagement if you way over committed with the wrong build. The key is to scout. Send a worker into their base early and have it hang out seeing what they are building. After a bit of experience you will see patterns that give away what their plan is. I'll use Zerg as an example. Fast gas? They want to tech. Don't expect a bug rush, although Speedling (speed upgraded Zerglings) pressure is a given. Try and see if they go Lair fast, since with fast gas that means Mutalisks are coming. If they get a really fast Spawning Pool, and aren't getting many workers, Zergling rush incoming. Wall off your base with buildings so they can't run in, and play defensive. With Terran it's easy, put a Barracks and Supply Depot blocking the entrance to your base, with an SCV or two to repair once they are moving in on you. Put some Marines behind the wall, and they will all die trying to get through, and you will be far in the lead since they sacrificed economy to rush you, while you continued as normal. If you REALLY need the scout, each race has means to do so. Protoss can send in an Observer, the Zerg can sack an Overlord or drop a Changling in their base, and the Terran can use their Orbital Command (which you SHOULD have ASAP) to drop a scan in their base. Scouting is really important in SC. Never commit to a build or attack without having an idea of what to expect.

As for your earlier comment about Battlecruisers, they are FAR from OP. Despite what they appear to be, they are not to be used as a figurehead to be flaunted. They are to be used to punish someone with little anti-air. You hide them until you have three or four, and then push with them fast before the enemy finds them and prepares for them. In the time it takes for them to build good enough counters, the Battlecruisers will ravage the enemy army with the support of your current force. It works best with Terran Mech builds (Hellions, Siege Tanks, Thors) since the counters for mech and BCs don't really overlap.

This all comes with experience.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 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