Blizzards New Game
- Thread starter RazCotton
- Start date
inanefedaykin
New member
I like the terran but I suck with them so much. Now the zerg, they just meld with my play style.
Rashiminos
New member
If graphics are an important priority for the games you play, why are you here?
In my opinion, graphics that allow the game amazing speed are much better than eye candy. If you want the latter, go watch a movie (maybe one with a triple letter rating). Starcraft would not be starcraft without the high speed action.
In my opinion, graphics that allow the game amazing speed are much better than eye candy. If you want the latter, go watch a movie (maybe one with a triple letter rating). Starcraft would not be starcraft without the high speed action.
You're one of those guys who keep preaching on about how Pac Man is the best game in the world, right? No need for better graphics, a story line, sound effects or any other thing.
Diablo 2 wasn't pretty back in the days when it came out. I played it anyway.
Star Craft wasn't pretty. I played it anyway.
Star Craft 2 looks awful. I'm going to play it anyway.
But still I wish for better graphics.
So I don't see the point of your post...
And if you need amazing speeds, go buy a better computer. I for one have the funds to buy one. So naturally I want games who actually gives my horse powers a little competition.
I don't want to start a flame war about graphics or not.
I simply pointed out the graphics didn't look amazing, for a game announced in 2007.
Diablo 2 wasn't pretty back in the days when it came out. I played it anyway.
Star Craft wasn't pretty. I played it anyway.
Star Craft 2 looks awful. I'm going to play it anyway.
But still I wish for better graphics.
So I don't see the point of your post...
And if you need amazing speeds, go buy a better computer. I for one have the funds to buy one. So naturally I want games who actually gives my horse powers a little competition.
I don't want to start a flame war about graphics or not.
I simply pointed out the graphics didn't look amazing, for a game announced in 2007.
Amendir - I believe he's saying (like I do) that SC isn't about graphics. If we want better graphics, there are plenty of options.
Blizzard games (mainly SC) are based around gameplay. SC is a fast paced, fast control game where almost every action is critical. If you make a mistake at a vital part, it's pretty much over.
SC is SC because it doesn't rely on graphics to grab people. The differences between teams, the multitude of strategies, the fast-pacedness of it. (And an absolutely amazing IMO single player campaign.)
I think the graphics look too nice. They look too 3D, that it actually looks like (from the clips) that they've lost that which makes SC, SC. It looks like they've lost the unit control, the fast-paced play, and put it more towards a huge army style game.
That's what it looks like to me anyway, but I hope they managed to keep the micro/unit control/SC'ness about it.
Blizzard games (mainly SC) are based around gameplay. SC is a fast paced, fast control game where almost every action is critical. If you make a mistake at a vital part, it's pretty much over.
SC is SC because it doesn't rely on graphics to grab people. The differences between teams, the multitude of strategies, the fast-pacedness of it. (And an absolutely amazing IMO single player campaign.)
I think the graphics look too nice. They look too 3D, that it actually looks like (from the clips) that they've lost that which makes SC, SC. It looks like they've lost the unit control, the fast-paced play, and put it more towards a huge army style game.
That's what it looks like to me anyway, but I hope they managed to keep the micro/unit control/SC'ness about it.
Rashiminos
New member
I'm pointing out that the correlation between graphics and a good RTS game isn't that strong.
That being said, what I look for in terms of graphics is utility and style. Graphics should tie into the gameplay instead of distracting you (unless that distraction has something to do gamewise). Also, everything should look like it belongs together, as if designed by the same hand. Imagine how awkward photo realistic images would look in diablo 2.
Graphics for the sake of graphics are nice, but I'm playing a game, generally graphics get high marks if they contribute to gameplay and storyline. Game engines can't prioritize graphics because most of the cpu power is needed elsewhere, even when a gpu takes most of that responsibility over, the priority is frames, not high-quality renders. In starcraft 2's case, it has to approximate the fastest setting of a game that could run on a computer with these specs in 1998:
windows95+/windows NT 4.0+/mac system 7.6+
90+ mHz CPU (low for even that year)
16+ MB RAM (probably about average) / Mac: 32 MB for MP plus virtual mem
80 MB hard disk space (easy to come by then)
4x CD-rom (if you had one, it probably worked) : 2x without seeing cinematics
SVGA video-card (no video memory specified)
direct-x 2 compatible (windows), default mac card
These were low settings for 1998, and for good reason. Chances were that people interested in SC already had suitable computers to use and didn't have to worry much about buying a new one (expensive) and learning about the growing need for cooling systems. Therefore Blizzard's consumers had one less obstacle for buying the game, meaning blizzard would probably stay financially solvent when releasing it (it didn't enjoy a cash cow like WoW back then).
The problem with ramping up the graphics in a RTS can be seen by running WC3 on lightly seasoned computers when it was released. Get a significant number of units on screen, the game slowed to a halt. Get enough in the game, a server split occurs and players get disconnected because their computers can't keep synch with the server. Don't ignore that SC2 won't be able to monopolize enough of the cpu, as operating systems and necessary software must run at the same time.
One could always buy a new computer, but that means setting several thousand dollars aside, and pissing off the people who don't want to replace the computer they got 1-2 years ago. Not everyone can afford to buy appropriate gaming rigs. Blizzard would lose money by setting the graphics unnecessarily high (by default...), which doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint.
The other problem is that limits are being reached on how much hotter the oven (case) can get with all of that "horsepower". Liquid-cooling isn't cheap. Phase-shift cooling is downright expensive. More importantly, not everyone who uses a computer realizes how important cooling is, why make a game that could start a house-fire from hardware requirements. (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but it's noisy fans or cooling education, too much computer literacy for some people). That being said, your "horsepower" is actually going to be pushed to its limit, just not doing what you think it's doing.
I'll comment on this
That being said, what I look for in terms of graphics is utility and style. Graphics should tie into the gameplay instead of distracting you (unless that distraction has something to do gamewise). Also, everything should look like it belongs together, as if designed by the same hand. Imagine how awkward photo realistic images would look in diablo 2.
Graphics for the sake of graphics are nice, but I'm playing a game, generally graphics get high marks if they contribute to gameplay and storyline. Game engines can't prioritize graphics because most of the cpu power is needed elsewhere, even when a gpu takes most of that responsibility over, the priority is frames, not high-quality renders. In starcraft 2's case, it has to approximate the fastest setting of a game that could run on a computer with these specs in 1998:
windows95+/windows NT 4.0+/mac system 7.6+
90+ mHz CPU (low for even that year)
16+ MB RAM (probably about average) / Mac: 32 MB for MP plus virtual mem
80 MB hard disk space (easy to come by then)
4x CD-rom (if you had one, it probably worked) : 2x without seeing cinematics
SVGA video-card (no video memory specified)
direct-x 2 compatible (windows), default mac card
These were low settings for 1998, and for good reason. Chances were that people interested in SC already had suitable computers to use and didn't have to worry much about buying a new one (expensive) and learning about the growing need for cooling systems. Therefore Blizzard's consumers had one less obstacle for buying the game, meaning blizzard would probably stay financially solvent when releasing it (it didn't enjoy a cash cow like WoW back then).
The problem with ramping up the graphics in a RTS can be seen by running WC3 on lightly seasoned computers when it was released. Get a significant number of units on screen, the game slowed to a halt. Get enough in the game, a server split occurs and players get disconnected because their computers can't keep synch with the server. Don't ignore that SC2 won't be able to monopolize enough of the cpu, as operating systems and necessary software must run at the same time.
One could always buy a new computer, but that means setting several thousand dollars aside, and pissing off the people who don't want to replace the computer they got 1-2 years ago. Not everyone can afford to buy appropriate gaming rigs. Blizzard would lose money by setting the graphics unnecessarily high (by default...), which doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint.
The other problem is that limits are being reached on how much hotter the oven (case) can get with all of that "horsepower". Liquid-cooling isn't cheap. Phase-shift cooling is downright expensive. More importantly, not everyone who uses a computer realizes how important cooling is, why make a game that could start a house-fire from hardware requirements. (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but it's noisy fans or cooling education, too much computer literacy for some people). That being said, your "horsepower" is actually going to be pushed to its limit, just not doing what you think it's doing.
I'll comment on this
Rashiminos
New member
Obviously graphics were not keeping from enjoying these great games, so for me to get a better perspective, what computer (mention console and you will go straight to a bad place) games have you played in the last several years that had awesome graphics (at the times they were announced).
The graphics are not spectacular, but I really don't think they need to be for this game. (Or any game worth paying $60 for).
Ditto for Sound FX. I love Pac-Man. It's a simple game for short breaks. (Please remember to breathe, lighten up, make a joke, smile...)
Speaking of breathing, I think that's the first time of of my posts went over the character limit. What's the matter with me?
The graphics are not spectacular, but I really don't think they need to be for this game. (Or any game worth paying $60 for).
Ditto for Sound FX. I love Pac-Man. It's a simple game for short breaks. (Please remember to breathe, lighten up, make a joke, smile...)
Speaking of breathing, I think that's the first time of of my posts went over the character limit. What's the matter with me?
I'm sure it will play just like the original. It's a remake of a classic it seems they won't do anything to spoil that. That's why there are are no new races, no heroes, no environment (like day/night), no new resources... I could go on.
One thing I noticed that I don't like though - WC3 like aura effects (those spinning / fading patterns). Now I hope this is either just temporary or there isn't too much of it because that's totally unlike SC.
One thing I noticed that I don't like though - WC3 like aura effects (those spinning / fading patterns). Now I hope this is either just temporary or there isn't too much of it because that's totally unlike SC.
Rashiminos
New member
Not building a new game from scratch is probably an important consideration from a Korean progamer standpoint.
WhiteAlien
Banned
Well, of course they have not announced game release date. I think even they dont know when exactly game will be ready.
BUT they are going to offer Tychus Findlay marine statue (for 250$ :shocked
which will be available from October. From commercial point of view it is stupid to sell game tropheys before game release. So I guess it will hit the stores in August or September, latest is October. @V7iktor - you have never played Starcraft, right? There are heroes, there is new storyline, there are new units and same 3 races. What else you could want , it is still Starcraft.
I dont understand why people already criticize game graphics that no one have yet seen game play video. Be patient guys, tomorrow, tomorrow
)Btw, I like to play with terrans. I just cant leave with nuclear missiles :grin: In 3D environment it should be very spectacular.
Always liked to see people terrified faces in LAN parties after message: "Nuclear lunch detected" :laugh: Everyone search for little red dot :O
stuslegend
New member
i enjoyed this little quote in their FAQ about people using cheats in the new sc2
"We've taken an aggressive stance against cheating in all of our games"
ALL of them???? are you sure....:scratch:
"We've taken an aggressive stance against cheating in all of our games"
ALL of them???? are you sure....:scratch:
By heros, I believe Victor meant WC3 heros. Heros that upgraded, and were more powerful/levelled up throughout the maps. There are heros, but they are just characters, and don't level up like in WC3.Whitealien said:@V7iktor - you have never played Starcraft, right? There are heroes, there is new storyline, there are new units and same 3 races. What else you could want , it is still Starcraft.
I dont understand why people already criticize game graphics that no one have yet seen game play video. Be patient guys, tomorrow, tomorrow
We've seen gameplay graphics. The nukes look pretty swell. Only short parts of gameplay. Check youtube, Blizz website already has some small gameplay showings to download from the website.
Just follow the links posted earlier (page 9'ish), and check out the YouTube user who posted the video. He has uploaded two of them.
AnimeCraze
New member
Try Final Fantasy. It will satisfy your graphics needs (and it have great gameplay/story too, well, most of them anyways).
And......, I love mobile pylons.
