Your post just supports my point. My point was there merely pointing out that the graphics are dated says nothing meaningful, not that graphics don't matter (which is how you seem to have interpreted my post). There are plenty of older games, which might technically have "dated graphics", but still look beautiful due to excellent art direction.

Besides, I don't even agree that BW has dated graphics. To me, "dated" doesn't simply mean old, but it has a lot to do with how well the game has aged visually and whether the visuals hinder the game's ability to convey what it needs to. Otherwise, almost every single game has "dated graphics" because it's being replaced by something newer and shinier (just another reason why I find that phrase utterly meaningless). There's a reason why BW has aged so well and why hundreds of thousands of people still find it to be a great spectator sport. BW's visuals are timeless (just like Super Mario, Tetris, Heroes of Might and Magic 2/3, and countless other classics).

Now I have to go install HoM 3 , I miss that game very much ..

SarR

476 Posts

December 13 2011 06:51 GMT

#63

On December 13 2011 10:37 DarkMatter_ wrote:
Besides, I don't even agree that BW has dated graphics. To me, "dated" doesn't simply mean old, but it has a lot to do with how well the game has aged visually and whether the visuals hinder the game's ability to convey what it needs to.

Oh for god's sake...no one uses 256 color images anymore....no game, no operating system, no software written in the last 5 years uses such a limited color scheme. It has nothing to do with how well the images were used or how well you can recognize a marine or any of that.

BW is a wonderful game I've come to love but its graphics are dated. When you all keep saying its not dated, you are allowing your love for the game and its heavy history to affect your assessment of it by making claims that aren't true. Understand that no one is saying that BW is not a wonderful game worthy of admiration for its strategical depth and near perfect balance. This however will never change the fact that its rendering system is a relic of a bygone era, glorious as it was is comparatively primitive by modern standards.

When you say its not dated, you trick people into believing that this game looks like something that came out within the last five years which just isnt true. You guys need to stop saying this and focus on what really makes BW great. Show them a Boxer replay of his finest dropship play, or Breeze[Akuta]'s amazing shuttle/HT/Reaver play, which demonstrate without words the true greatness of BW. Its not the graphics that make it great. Once upon a time its graphics were cutting edge but not anymore, it has become dated.

Newbistic

China2912 Posts

December 13 2011 07:03 GMT

#64

Brood War's graphics weren't even that advanced when SC first came out. I remember watching an interview somewhere where one of the Blizzard staff talked about how they were for whatever reason limited to only 8 colors maximum per sprite, so they were forced to make the sprites as clear as possible.

Funnytoss

Taiwan1471 Posts

December 13 2011 08:55 GMT

#65

On December 12 2011 23:12 Wohmfg wrote:
How was Brood War so balanced then? Can't Blizzard just do what they did with Brood War to make Starcraft 2 magical also? No, because

competitors will always stretch the game to the absolute limit in order to win

Patrol micro is not something Blizzard put in the game. Muta stacking is not something Blizzard put in the game. The razor edge balance of the timings in ZvT, the initial M&M forcing the zerg to sunken up, the mutas keeping the terran contained while zerg takes his third, the push supported by tanks and vessels to pressure the zerg, who hopefully gets his hive tech just in time to thwart him, was something that could never be planned. The recent trend of terrans 1 rax expanding against tosses in response to 12 nexing tosses gaining an eco advantage is not something any game designer could ever foresee.

These are all things the players have come up with in order to get an advantage over his opponent. When Blizzard made Brood War they created a top quality and fun game with great substance. Then they let the players run free with it. Of course it's not as simple as this as there have been plenty of balance changes made by Blizzard over the years. But it's not like what they're doing with Starcraft 2, which is essentially telling people how to play the game. They're narrowing the framework in which the game is balanced, by giving each unit and each action by the player a defined consequence. It was a great chance that Brood War turned out to be so balanced after more than 10 years of thousands of players trying to exploit every single advantage of the 3 races to gain an advantage over another.

I feel this is a point that should be emphasized more strongly. As many posters above have noted, the graphics do not detract from what makes the game great, even though many modern players will be unable to instantly see the appeal, visually, like they might a game like Skyrim. As such, its greatness comes *primarily* from its gameplay, as such the *players*. Allowing players to push the game to the limit has created the BW we know and love today, and while the several BW balance patches were needed (hell, the BW expansion itself), it's nowhere like what Blizzard's been doing with SC2, shaping gameplay in that fashion.

You didn't really see Blizzard thinking, "how do I make X unit more useful in BW" and then nerfing the stats of another unit or buffing this one. There were several major ones that are remembered precisely because of how infrequent they were (Zealot life from 80/80 to 100/60, for example), or turrets from 100 minerals to 75, but for the most part they changed stuff for fairly concrete reason, like spawning pool cost. In SC2, it's all over the place. Pros aren't really given the chance (to the same extent that BW pros were able to) really push the game to its limits.

Take the Arbiter. Long regarded as absolutely worthless because of its cost. Eventually, someone figures out, or we should say, *creates* a way to use it in PvT, and the game is changed brilliantly. If the same thing happened with today's Blizzard, we'd see complaints about its cost, or the weakness of Protoss late-game options, and maybe they'd nerf it to 100/250, and then people would start using it frequently, and perhaps there'd be cries of imba (imagine cheaper Arbiters in BW PvT), and then perhaps Blizzard would remove it completely or nerf it again? Almost every major change in BW over the past 10 years has been created by player innovation, and thus everything works because it has survived the test of time and experience. The zealot/dragoon combo is viable not because Blizzard necessarily designed the units to be so, but because that's what works (so far)! On the other hand, unit combos in SC2 are to a much larger extent *created*. A was designed to counter B, B designed to counter C, and so forth.

Long story short... let 'em play, as we would say in Hockey. Unfortunately, because Blizzard is intentionally investing in this as an "eSport", I fear that it is actually harming SC2's development. Blizzard pretty much not giving a fuck about complaints or viability of eSports in BW allowed it to develop into the game we know today (think of pre-FE PvZ), but now with so much profit on the line, they feel they can't *wait* for something to happen, and they try to force the issue.

And that's a damn shame.