|
*My opinions, please if you want to be critical that is fine, I think it is important to have a strong point of view, even if i disagree.
The formula of broodwar was amazing. It has 3 races with completely different ways of attacking. All kinds of units, which allowed for the game to become how it is today.
To be honest, no unit seems to have been downgraded in their graphics or design in broodwar.
Of course the Reaver and a few units have been weakened to make gameplay more fair, I say each unit in the game is well worth its weight, including the scout.
In sc2 a lot of units seem to be, 2 dimensional even though it is a 3-d game. How can that be? Look at the graphics, the game engine, the sounds and the interface. Well for one, units in the game have been weakened so much that they barely do any damage including splash and explosive damage. It's like the game developers in order to keep up with balancing the game had to make each and every unit pathetic and too simplistic, not realistic.
The original concept ideas of starcraft 2 where great. Although each and every unit was a bit too strong, you could see where it was going.
Look at the viking for example. It shoots 2 heavy rockets air to air and can land in order to fight. If we all look at it, we will all be able to tell that this amazing anti air unit should have been able to shoot faster missiles into a flurry, but instead it has been turned into a boring anti air unit that shoots 2 heavy rockets slowly in order to be balanced..
The banshee should have been able to shoot 2 units at once or do splash damage.
The thor was a mega unit, although a bit gimicky in my opinion, I thought that it was an amazing giant grandam robot that had a hard time turning around, making it more realistic.
Nukes are weaker, and don't show as much genocidal effects as they did in bw.
Siege tanks in my opinion should not have been put into sc2, terran could have been an air dominating race and be tactical on the ground, although immobile on the ground, the air units could have been the bread and butter.
Marines just seem to be lacking in this war game. Give them bayonets to attack melee zerglings, maybe allow them to throw 1 grenade into a ball of units before kneeling down to shoot their rifles.
The zergling, should be more vicious and look like a parasite taking over its host from a distant.
The once proud hydralisk is fat, ugly and shoots needles... I say make it faster, squirmier and have stomach acid shoot out as the needles launch, and give it a melee attack like the bw cinematics.
Ultralisk, stomp units into the dirt! and and and and!
Mutalisk, eh..Don't like em in sc2
Void ray, I have mixed feelings about this unit.
Mothership, Eh. invisible units...okay
Invisible base...wtf?
This SC2 review a bit late you say?
Well...your probably right.
I'll probably buy HotS and love it and then try to delete this post to take back what I said and not embarrass myself. Is it too late to do all this??
Maybe, maybe we can have a group remake sc2 in the campaign editor and balance it out that way instead of having blizzard do it for us.
Maybe I'm just a crying gamer nerd who is just alone and alone and alone...Maybe that is true...But you guys are awesome TL!
Edit:Give some marines an eye patch and some zealots 1 cyber blade, cmon! makes the mix look cooler!
And some starships that have grafitti
  
|
Erm... what? I hope you're joking, here.
|
I'm just saying sc2 could have gone in a completely different direction and still maintained some sort of balance.
|
I agree BW > SC2 but I can't take this post seriously.
|
nukes need to be buffed ^_^ imo
|
one of the strangest posts on this topic
|
5/5 totally agree with you
|
straight up, are you drunk? be even and direct w/ me.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
lol, nice blog. While I agree BW is better in regards to unit design, some of your points are rather umm funny 
|
I appreciate that guys.
Didn't know it was funny until after I read it.
|
StarCraft 2 is most definitely not a 3D game... it just creates the illusion of 3D.
I'm having a very hard time wording a reply that isn't overly offensive. Let's put it this way, your solution to make StarCraft 2 more interesting is to make everything look cooler in the way that a 13 year old cod kiddy / michael bay fan would? Because overkill and more explosions and more weapons is always better? Instead of, I don't know, strategical and tactical depth? This is particularly confusing since you have made a BW blog so one would assume you have played BW and at least to a small extent are familiar with what was so good about it... I guess not.
If this is a troll then good job, you got me. ._.
|
On September 07 2012 21:38 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
StarCraft 2 is most definitely not a 3D game... it just creates the illusion of 3D.
I'm having a very hard time wording a reply that isn't overly offensive. Let's put it this way, your solution to make StarCraft 2 more interesting is to make everything look cooler in the way that a 13 year old cod kiddy / michael bay fan would? Because overkill and more explosions and more weapons is always better? Instead of, I don't know, strategical and tactical depth? This is particularly confusing since you have made a BW blog so one would assume you have played BW and at least to a small extent are familiar with what was so good about it... I guess not.
If this is a troll then good job, you got me. ._.
Why do you have to be so Romanian?
|
On September 08 2012 01:58 qtiehunter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 21:38 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
StarCraft 2 is most definitely not a 3D game... it just creates the illusion of 3D.
I'm having a very hard time wording a reply that isn't overly offensive. Let's put it this way, your solution to make StarCraft 2 more interesting is to make everything look cooler in the way that a 13 year old cod kiddy / michael bay fan would? Because overkill and more explosions and more weapons is always better? Instead of, I don't know, strategical and tactical depth? This is particularly confusing since you have made a BW blog so one would assume you have played BW and at least to a small extent are familiar with what was so good about it... I guess not.
If this is a troll then good job, you got me. ._. Why do you have to be so Romanian?
Lol I'm not gonna take this from someone with 1/4 my post count.
Also when you come into contact with as many stupid people as I do you begin to question what's genuine and what's not (trolling). ~_~
|
On September 08 2012 02:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 01:58 qtiehunter wrote:On September 07 2012 21:38 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
StarCraft 2 is most definitely not a 3D game... it just creates the illusion of 3D.
I'm having a very hard time wording a reply that isn't overly offensive. Let's put it this way, your solution to make StarCraft 2 more interesting is to make everything look cooler in the way that a 13 year old cod kiddy / michael bay fan would? Because overkill and more explosions and more weapons is always better? Instead of, I don't know, strategical and tactical depth? This is particularly confusing since you have made a BW blog so one would assume you have played BW and at least to a small extent are familiar with what was so good about it... I guess not.
If this is a troll then good job, you got me. ._. Why do you have to be so Romanian? Lol I'm not gonna take this from someone with 1/4 my post count. Also when you come into contact with as many stupid people as I do you begin to question what's genuine and what's not (trolling). ~_~
There is so much wrong about your post lol
|
On September 08 2012 02:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 01:58 qtiehunter wrote:On September 07 2012 21:38 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
StarCraft 2 is most definitely not a 3D game... it just creates the illusion of 3D.
I'm having a very hard time wording a reply that isn't overly offensive. Let's put it this way, your solution to make StarCraft 2 more interesting is to make everything look cooler in the way that a 13 year old cod kiddy / michael bay fan would? Because overkill and more explosions and more weapons is always better? Instead of, I don't know, strategical and tactical depth? This is particularly confusing since you have made a BW blog so one would assume you have played BW and at least to a small extent are familiar with what was so good about it... I guess not.
If this is a troll then good job, you got me. ._. Why do you have to be so Romanian? Lol I'm not gonna take this from someone with 1/4 my post count. Also when you come into contact with as many stupid people as I do you begin to question what's genuine and what's not (trolling). ~_~
My brother Charlie works in Romania. He trains dragons.
|
On September 08 2012 02:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 01:58 qtiehunter wrote:On September 07 2012 21:38 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
StarCraft 2 is most definitely not a 3D game... it just creates the illusion of 3D.
I'm having a very hard time wording a reply that isn't overly offensive. Let's put it this way, your solution to make StarCraft 2 more interesting is to make everything look cooler in the way that a 13 year old cod kiddy / michael bay fan would? Because overkill and more explosions and more weapons is always better? Instead of, I don't know, strategical and tactical depth? This is particularly confusing since you have made a BW blog so one would assume you have played BW and at least to a small extent are familiar with what was so good about it... I guess not.
If this is a troll then good job, you got me. ._. Why do you have to be so Romanian? Lol I'm not gonna take this from someone with 1/4 my post count. Also when you come into contact with as many stupid people as I do you begin to question what's genuine and what's not (trolling). ~_~
I can't let you respond to him that way as someone with only 1/3 of my post count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
