On May 10 2010 12:14 Chill wrote: Guess I'm the only one not impressed with that game. Terran shenanigans dying to conventional macro. The lockdown was sick though.
I was not impressed either. A gimmicky nuke that did not even kill the first nexus. With beta for SC2 being out, I am starting to see the other side of the argument of how some SC people are too fanatical and have no perspective.
yes, sick game, but uh, people are going crazy off of nuke use? lol.
Brood war is more difficult than SC2 of course, but SC2 has lots of things that are difficult as well. This game probably is not a good example for bw > sc2 lol.
On May 11 2010 09:54 k!llua wrote: OK, let's try this again.
Notice there's a reason why nobody compares SC2 to SC1?
You know, that strategy game without lurkers, medics, corsairs, all those fun things?
Apparently SC2 has a few expansions on the way.
Oh and the actual game as well. Forgot about that.
Great argument. "Ok, it's a boring game, but in two years it will potentially change when there might come an addon. Blizzard knows about that, but they do not care if the game sucks until then."
If todays experience is "Starcraft without Broodwar sucks", why step back to make a game that is similar to Starcraft without Addon?...
difference is that sc1 was awesome when it first came out, but slowly over years become a masterpiece. sc2 started out a disappointment, ppl try too hard to make it awesome but they try to pattern it in a way on how sc1 had evolved, the game will die in a couple years tops. , i have both games and ive barely played 2 games of sc2.
On May 11 2010 13:37 whamm wrote: difference is that sc1 was awesome when it first came out, but slowly over years become a masterpiece. sc2 started out a disappointment, ppl try too hard to make it awesome but they try to pattern it in a way on how sc1 had evolved, the game will die in a couple years tops. , i have both games and ive barely played 2 games of sc2.
You played 2 games and concluded it was a disappointment?
1 game left for my ranking games, and the only games I've lost are too void ray rushes TvP
no one should doubt that BW is better than SCII, SCII is garbage compared to that legend. People will like SC2 for a bit and there will be tourneys and all of that for a bit, but then it's going to die cause it's just a rock paper scissors game, and theres no turn around micro....
On May 10 2010 09:49 mity wrote: well, BW has only had 12 YEARS to have people develop its strategies. While SC2 has had 2 months.
Dont forget the thousands of patches BW has had over the years.
there are no balance patches after 1.04 (?) in 2001 so half of your argument is invalid
as for the other half, when BW came out nobody knew what to do in an RTS game, now people know what they should look for, so 2 months are like 2 years for the time BW came out and you know what? in 2000/2001 BoxeR was already doing crazy stunts so yeah, ur argument is invalid
On May 10 2010 09:41 iloahz wrote: wow bw definitely has better graphics than sc2 in youtube/video forms.
yea overall I'm kind of dissapointed with SC2's graphics. It just looks to "cartoonish" and the buildings/units seem to have too much unneccessary colors/designs which makes identifying units/buildings more difficult. Some of the buildings (cybernetics core comes to mind) look like they were designed by a five year old who gets all giddy over pretty bright colors and crazy designs.. I don't feel like it's the right type of graphics if SC2 is going to become a spectator e-sport. I mean it definately says something when a lot of top players play the game on "low" settings purely for gameplay reasons. I wish they had just kept the same style of graphics as SC1 but just improved them. I have no problem with good graphics and attention to detail, it's just I hate that cartoonish look and it is possible to "overdo" it ..
On May 11 2010 13:37 whamm wrote: difference is that sc1 was awesome when it first came out, but slowly over years become a masterpiece. sc2 started out a disappointment, ppl try too hard to make it awesome but they try to pattern it in a way on how sc1 had evolved, the game will die in a couple years tops. , i have both games and ive barely played 2 games of sc2.
You played 2 games and concluded it was a disappointment?
Yes I guess supposedly 2 games was enough for him to determine that the game is no good...
seriously why do people who have barely even played the game think they are in a position to criticize or form an opinion on it?
It's over-mobility and hp/damage inflation as well as a limited high-ground mechanic that's killing Starcraft 2. Also, units tend to clump too easily, which is pretty annoying.
On May 12 2010 04:39 LunarC wrote: It's over-mobility and hp/damage inflation as well as a limited high-ground mechanic that's killing Starcraft 2. Also, units tend to clump too easily, which is pretty annoying.
I hate the fact that units move together, à la Warcraft 3. That just kills the game completely.
I think SC2 will be very limited because the game is too smooth and "intelligent".
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgbit.com/images/8b039724071243028981.jpg)
