|
On November 04 2015 12:10 Fliparoni wrote:
I don't get why people are surprised that LOTV is doing so well in its preorder sales. People here seem to forget that the vast majority of people that buy and play Starcraft probably don't even know about the teamliqud forums or even go onto the bnet forums. They heard that Starcraft's final xpac is being released and thus they are getting it. They don't care about stuff like macro mechanics and mining changes etc etc that really only a handful of people here in the grand scheme of things give a shit about.
Yeah, this. The coolness of the cinematics with the proxy pylon possibly affects sales more than all the multiplayers tweaks together. 
|
yeah people have to think way more casually. people heard about stand-alone and co-op and the pre-order bonus missions and got the game, hots was the same price with none of those things
|
^^
All that plus a lot of my friends are really excited about archon mode. These are guys that skipped HOTS and are cmoing back for LOTV
|
On November 04 2015 10:44 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 20:48 ThunderBum wrote:On November 03 2015 20:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote:
I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Yeah it would be nice if we could compare "# of HotS pre-orders for the sake of SC2" to "# of LotV pre-orders for the sake of SC2" accurately by accounting for other non-SC2 reasons why one might pre-order either game (e.g., the Heroes's Artanis bonus). Were there other pre-order benefits for Heart of the Swarm too? I don't remember. Both pre-orders gained you beta access, at least. Ideally, it'd be a cool statistic to show something like "Despite the dissension over Heart of the Swarm and any new directions that SC2 have gone in, the number of players who bought SC2: LotV to play SC2 has stayed the same/ increased from SC2: HotS." I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. They will disappear as fast as they come like usual.
Agreed, but that's not so bad. As long as Blizzard keep selling games they'll keep making them. If the franchise is successful we'll keep getting support.
|
On November 04 2015 14:52 ThunderBum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 10:44 StarStruck wrote:On November 03 2015 20:48 ThunderBum wrote:On November 03 2015 20:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote:
I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Yeah it would be nice if we could compare "# of HotS pre-orders for the sake of SC2" to "# of LotV pre-orders for the sake of SC2" accurately by accounting for other non-SC2 reasons why one might pre-order either game (e.g., the Heroes's Artanis bonus). Were there other pre-order benefits for Heart of the Swarm too? I don't remember. Both pre-orders gained you beta access, at least. Ideally, it'd be a cool statistic to show something like "Despite the dissension over Heart of the Swarm and any new directions that SC2 have gone in, the number of players who bought SC2: LotV to play SC2 has stayed the same/ increased from SC2: HotS." I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. They will disappear as fast as they come like usual. Agreed, but that's not so bad. As long as Blizzard keep selling games they'll keep making them. If the franchise is successful we'll keep getting support.
Not necessarily true. If blizzard sees more profit in different games then they will invest there instead.
|
It should also be taken into account that they have advertised the pre-order pretty heavily. Maybe what we are seeing is just due to more of the players that would have bought it anyway chose to pre-order. So I don't think we can say that lotv sells better than hots until a bit (a week maybe?) into release.
Good advertising move I guess, as they now can advertise lotv as selling well, which can lead to more sales to "real" new customers, as opposed to just moving up the pre-decided customers to pre-order. 
|
On November 04 2015 16:06 goswser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 14:52 ThunderBum wrote:On November 04 2015 10:44 StarStruck wrote:On November 03 2015 20:48 ThunderBum wrote:On November 03 2015 20:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote:
I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Yeah it would be nice if we could compare "# of HotS pre-orders for the sake of SC2" to "# of LotV pre-orders for the sake of SC2" accurately by accounting for other non-SC2 reasons why one might pre-order either game (e.g., the Heroes's Artanis bonus). Were there other pre-order benefits for Heart of the Swarm too? I don't remember. Both pre-orders gained you beta access, at least. Ideally, it'd be a cool statistic to show something like "Despite the dissension over Heart of the Swarm and any new directions that SC2 have gone in, the number of players who bought SC2: LotV to play SC2 has stayed the same/ increased from SC2: HotS." I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. They will disappear as fast as they come like usual. Agreed, but that's not so bad. As long as Blizzard keep selling games they'll keep making them. If the franchise is successful we'll keep getting support. Not necessarily true. If blizzard sees more profit in different games then they will invest there instead.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that because ultimately what is 'Blizzard'. If you've ever been involved with higher ups in a business you know that they usually don't agree on where the best direction to go is. Often its best to have a mix, its good to continue what you're doing, stick with some tried and true cash generators and expend some effort on new and exciting ideas as while they could hit it big (like Hearthstone) there really is no way to know in advance and they could fail completely (like Titan).
I think Blizzard doesn't really have franchise teams so much as they have genre teams, we know that the SC2 team won't start work on SC3 but most likely some other strategy game franchise, maybe Warcraft maybe not, who knows but seeing as you have a good team for RTS it makes sense to keep making them if they still generate good enough returns and I'm pretty sure stuff like SC2 has done that, it's not D3 or WoW level by any means but its no doubt good enough and they have enough in the bank to keep all the operations going and need more resources on other projects, Blizzard has stated many times that they prefer smaller teams working on smaller projects like SC2, Hearthstone and D3 as opposed to going all out AAA and getting 300+ people working on one mega game, and I agree, its nicer for all of those involved and its not like those games don't rival standard AAA's for revenue!
|
On November 04 2015 16:06 goswser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 14:52 ThunderBum wrote:On November 04 2015 10:44 StarStruck wrote:On November 03 2015 20:48 ThunderBum wrote:On November 03 2015 20:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote:
I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Yeah it would be nice if we could compare "# of HotS pre-orders for the sake of SC2" to "# of LotV pre-orders for the sake of SC2" accurately by accounting for other non-SC2 reasons why one might pre-order either game (e.g., the Heroes's Artanis bonus). Were there other pre-order benefits for Heart of the Swarm too? I don't remember. Both pre-orders gained you beta access, at least. Ideally, it'd be a cool statistic to show something like "Despite the dissension over Heart of the Swarm and any new directions that SC2 have gone in, the number of players who bought SC2: LotV to play SC2 has stayed the same/ increased from SC2: HotS." I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. They will disappear as fast as they come like usual. Agreed, but that's not so bad. As long as Blizzard keep selling games they'll keep making them. If the franchise is successful we'll keep getting support. Not necessarily true. If blizzard sees more profit in different games then they will invest there instead.
I think that Blizzard will try to appeal to as wide of an audience as they can. Spread brand awareness, and allows them to release content more frequently while not hurting existing player bases. That's why they have games in different genres.
|
On November 04 2015 16:33 adwodon wrote:
but seeing as you have a good team for RTS it makes sense to keep making them if they still generate good enough returns and I'm pretty sure stuff like SC2 has done that, it's not D3 or WoW level by any means but its no doubt good enough and they have enough in the bank to keep all the operations going and need more resources on other projects, Blizzard has stated many times that they prefer smaller teams working on smaller projects like SC2, Hearthstone and D3 as opposed to going all out AAA and getting 300+ people working on one mega game, and I agree, its nicer for all of those involved and its not like those games don't rival standard AAA's for revenue!
Sigaty stated Blizz won't make anything to compete with SC2 for at least 10 years. Sigaty is now the executive producer for SC2. The RTS Team size will decrease in size down to maintenance levels after LotV is released. There won't be any big announcement though because they won't want to upset the fans.
|
On November 04 2015 02:08 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 01:12 Eviscerador wrote:
Well, if you are not a super korean mastermind, yes, Starcraft 2 is much better than Starcraft 1 at all levels. The only bad thing about Starcraft 2 is that the plot is much more brighter and it lost the dark of the original one.
But other than that, the campaign missions, the UI, the newbie help, the arcade, the MM, the graphics, the mechanics, everything is better. lmao. Everything relating to gameplay is MILES better in brood war ( I even started with Sc2 and switched to brood war after finding the former a massive disappointment). The arcade is horrible, can't even give a custom name to your game to give it some identity. MM = macro mechanics? Right.. everybody loves those. Brood war's graphics are even better than Sc2's. I'll elaborate: - Sc2's graphics are shit on any setting other than ultra. - Sc2's graphics are a cartoony mess, same with Sc2's models (infestors, vipers, protoss ball units or terran's flying shoes (liberator)). - Brood war's graphics are always great (there's no settings) - Brood war's models are vicious, creative, distinctive. Sc2's sounds and voices are also a HUGE letdown.
SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears.
SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail.
PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said.
|
On November 04 2015 17:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 16:33 adwodon wrote:
but seeing as you have a good team for RTS it makes sense to keep making them if they still generate good enough returns and I'm pretty sure stuff like SC2 has done that, it's not D3 or WoW level by any means but its no doubt good enough and they have enough in the bank to keep all the operations going and need more resources on other projects, Blizzard has stated many times that they prefer smaller teams working on smaller projects like SC2, Hearthstone and D3 as opposed to going all out AAA and getting 300+ people working on one mega game, and I agree, its nicer for all of those involved and its not like those games don't rival standard AAA's for revenue!
Sigaty stated Blizz won't make anything to compete with SC2 for at least 10 years. Sigaty is now the executive producer for SC2. The RTS Team size will decrease in size down to maintenance levels after LotV is released. There won't be any big announcement though because they won't want to upset the fans.
Sounded more to me like he wanted SC2 to still be around in 10 years and current had no plans to do anything new. He didn't seem to rule out the idea that a new strategy title could happen eventually. Even then it sounded more like he wanted SC2 to rein supreme among eSports, I think that still leaves room for a good rts with a more single player or even cooperative / casual focus. I doubt we'll hear anything for a long time though, this is Blizzard after all, but 10 years is too long to really rule anything out.
Hopefully they keep LotV in good shape but considering the state of the pro scene right now I'm concerned it won't even last 2-3 years let alone 10, but I'm hopeful, it would be a shame not to have any new single player rts content for 10 years though!
|
On November 04 2015 18:37 Eviscerador wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 02:08 B-royal wrote:On November 04 2015 01:12 Eviscerador wrote:
Well, if you are not a super korean mastermind, yes, Starcraft 2 is much better than Starcraft 1 at all levels. The only bad thing about Starcraft 2 is that the plot is much more brighter and it lost the dark of the original one.
But other than that, the campaign missions, the UI, the newbie help, the arcade, the MM, the graphics, the mechanics, everything is better. lmao. Everything relating to gameplay is MILES better in brood war ( I even started with Sc2 and switched to brood war after finding the former a massive disappointment). The arcade is horrible, can't even give a custom name to your game to give it some identity. MM = macro mechanics? Right.. everybody loves those. Brood war's graphics are even better than Sc2's. I'll elaborate: - Sc2's graphics are shit on any setting other than ultra. - Sc2's graphics are a cartoony mess, same with Sc2's models (infestors, vipers, protoss ball units or terran's flying shoes (liberator)). - Brood war's graphics are always great (there's no settings) - Brood war's models are vicious, creative, distinctive. Sc2's sounds and voices are also a HUGE letdown. SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said.
You'll always get "things were better back then" people, a few of my dads friends genuinely believe that music died in the 70's, wouldn't surprise me if you could find some people who think it died with Mozart.
It's quite difficult to compare SC2 to BW though, you can't be objective here but clearly more time, effort and thought was put into SC2 because its a newer game with a bigger budget. I think its a better game hands down and I enjoyed BW, but game design has come a long way since.
Everyone's an armchair designer, somehow gleaning more experience playing a few hundred hours of one game, as opposed to working in the industry for 20 years, the game doesn't have this and that, this game did it better than that game etc all statements made in isolation with no regard for the big picture and even when people could be right, its much easier to be correct in hindsight. I'm pretty sure if Blizzard could remake SC2 from scratch now it would be a very different game but you can't please everyone! Some people just can't move with the times.
|
On November 04 2015 18:37 Eviscerador wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 02:08 B-royal wrote:On November 04 2015 01:12 Eviscerador wrote:
Well, if you are not a super korean mastermind, yes, Starcraft 2 is much better than Starcraft 1 at all levels. The only bad thing about Starcraft 2 is that the plot is much more brighter and it lost the dark of the original one.
But other than that, the campaign missions, the UI, the newbie help, the arcade, the MM, the graphics, the mechanics, everything is better. lmao. Everything relating to gameplay is MILES better in brood war ( I even started with Sc2 and switched to brood war after finding the former a massive disappointment). The arcade is horrible, can't even give a custom name to your game to give it some identity. MM = macro mechanics? Right.. everybody loves those. Brood war's graphics are even better than Sc2's. I'll elaborate: - Sc2's graphics are shit on any setting other than ultra. - Sc2's graphics are a cartoony mess, same with Sc2's models (infestors, vipers, protoss ball units or terran's flying shoes (liberator)). - Brood war's graphics are always great (there's no settings) - Brood war's models are vicious, creative, distinctive. Sc2's sounds and voices are also a HUGE letdown. SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said.
Sorry to disappoint but I'm not trolling. I'm not blind, I can see the graphics are "outdated". Doesn't mean I can't think the graphics at their core (the style) and the unit models/designs are better than Sc2's.
And to reiterate, I discovered brood war less than half a year ago. I played Sc2 during the Wol period (for about 2-3 months, I left before master league was even added). I just went back to warcraft tft and heroes of newerth.
My point is, there's no nostalgia clouding my mind.
Sc2's models are not brood war's in HD. Sc2's inspiration for zerg has borrowed way too much from insects and changed the mood from scary and vicious to slimy and shocking. Some examples:
- zerglings metabolic speed upgrade
- infestors
- vipers
- swarm hosts
Starcraft 2 extractor
![[image loading]](http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/1/14440/1455259-extractor_sc2_rend1.jpg)
Spikes don't look menacing at all. These cyst-like sacs pervasive on a lot of zerg things also don't look good at all in my opinion.
Brood war extractor
![[image loading]](http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071102022006/starcraft/images/1/1e/SC1_Extractor.gif)
Quite the opposite: Spikes are very menacing, surface looks rough, not glistening. No cysts/sacs, but bone like structures present instead.
This trend is the same with other buildings.
|
Well the same with Diablo2 and Diablo3^^ Only the graphics from D2 keep me away to play. If Blizzard releases D2 HD then I never play D3 again.
If you still play with CRT monitor, Diablo2 looks good on it.
|
On November 04 2015 20:17 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 18:37 Eviscerador wrote:On November 04 2015 02:08 B-royal wrote:On November 04 2015 01:12 Eviscerador wrote:
Well, if you are not a super korean mastermind, yes, Starcraft 2 is much better than Starcraft 1 at all levels. The only bad thing about Starcraft 2 is that the plot is much more brighter and it lost the dark of the original one.
But other than that, the campaign missions, the UI, the newbie help, the arcade, the MM, the graphics, the mechanics, everything is better. lmao. Everything relating to gameplay is MILES better in brood war ( I even started with Sc2 and switched to brood war after finding the former a massive disappointment). The arcade is horrible, can't even give a custom name to your game to give it some identity. MM = macro mechanics? Right.. everybody loves those. Brood war's graphics are even better than Sc2's. I'll elaborate: - Sc2's graphics are shit on any setting other than ultra. - Sc2's graphics are a cartoony mess, same with Sc2's models (infestors, vipers, protoss ball units or terran's flying shoes (liberator)). - Brood war's graphics are always great (there's no settings) - Brood war's models are vicious, creative, distinctive. Sc2's sounds and voices are also a HUGE letdown. SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said. Sorry to disappoint but I'm not trolling. I'm not blind, I can see the graphics are "outdated". Doesn't mean I can't think the graphics at their core (the style) and the unit models/designs are better than Sc2's. And to reiterate, I discovered brood war less than half a year ago. I played Sc2 during the Wol period (for about 2-3 months, I left before master league was even added). I just went back to warcraft tft and heroes of newerth. My point is, there's no nostalgia clouding my mind. Sc2's models are not brood war's in HD. Sc2's inspiration for zerg has borrowed way too much from insects and changed the mood from scary and viscuous to slimy and shocking. Some examples: - zerglings metabolic speed upgrade - infestors - vipers - swarm hosts
You can disagree/agree on art direction for Zerg, for sure. I personally would argue that the more insect-like look of the Zerg was chosen because it is more believable. We see it on our earth a ton of times that insects transform into other forms, whereas growing an entirely different bone structure is pretty rare. But as I said, you can argue about it and the change in overall Zerg design is definitely something people can disagree with.
But just in terms of graphical fidelity StarCraft II is just better in every way.
Just take a look at some of the spritesheets (I'm not sure if I am allowed to link them here, a quick google search should you net the correct results though).
Zealot is a quick example. Where is the head and face? Does he even have one? And what about that attack animation? He's literally just putting his arms in front of him as if he was about to get cuffed and then twirls them around a bit.
+ Show Spoiler +
Then take a look at StarCraft II's zealot
+ Show Spoiler +
It's much more easily distuingishable, the animations carry a lot more weight and are believable. The model itself is also much more detailed, a lot more unique and in general more what Protoss actually looks like.
Look at some SC1 Concept Arts of Zealots
+ Show Spoiler +
The BW sprites do a terrible job representing those. Whereas the SC2 one is pretty damn close to what the concepts generally show.
I'm not one to diss older graphics, I personally love the look and feel of Brood War just as much as you do. But to argue that they're better designed or do a better job of representing the races is just plain wrong. SC2's models offer more detail, uniqueness and give a better feel of the race's identity than the Brood War ones.
|
I think I should switch to FO4 Preorderino
|
|
|
On November 04 2015 04:17 HerrHorst wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 04:06 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On November 04 2015 03:24 nighcol wrote:On November 03 2015 15:07 skatbone wrote:
As Activision/Blizzard profits, the discussion across a lot of the new Blizz games seems to be about sacrifices in quality to meet deadlines and make money. I am happy for Blizzard but I do feel some ambivalence about the pressure to churn out content at the expense of quality.
If that's what they're doing now it sounds like a short-sighted strategy that may give result in profit initially but will tarnish the reputation that Blizzard has worked long and hard to build. That's definitely on the way, known publicly since Diablo 3 release. When Diablo 3 was released Blizzard took a really Huge HIT to their reputation, for that reason. And they gave no sign that they were going to change, they clearly lied about why they were doing things regarding the real money auction house and how all the itemization and even stats in the games were designed to maximize transaction profit through it, likely purposely not even fighting bots cause that brings transactions on the auction house! The decision makers at the top of the company go after the money not the quality, and leave little space (possibly no space) to the dev team to do what they want/imagine. If you go after the money you can rake a maximum amount of cash in a shorter time by doing bad quality that is attractive in a superficial way to everyone, as much people as possible, MOBA players, noobs, people who just like special effects, people who don't like micro, etc. I think with SC2, the goal is to get these people to WATCH pro matches which is where blizzard's money is through broadcasting rights and advertisement. For shareholders that's financially quite fine because after pillaging the company for a while they can just move their money somewhere else if needed. We experienced fans pay the price, and in the long runs, the games are the shadow of what they could be. But Blizzard did change Diablo 3 massively and did improve the game a lot after they were cruzified by the community for their earlier decisions. If Legacy gets as much attention after Release as did Diablo 3, which was improved massivly and even got some cool new stuff like Kanai’s Cube recently, we could be happy.
This is what I am hoping for in regards to LotV in both features as well as multiplayer/competitive balance. But when D3 had to do that, they had to change the lead guy of that title and replace him and potentially shuffle or hire different talent to make Reaper of Souls what it is now. Blizz would have to probably fire or replace David Kim at the very least and hire someone else with the vision to make LotV a better product long after release.
|
On November 04 2015 20:51 KeksX wrote:But just in terms of graphical fidelity StarCraft II is just better in every way. Just take a look at some of the spritesheets (I'm not sure if I am allowed to link them here, a quick google search should you net the correct results though). Zealot is a quick example. Where is the head and face? Does he even have one? And what about that attack animation? He's literally just putting his arms in front of him as if he was about to get cuffed and then twirls them around a bit. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/w_SKXc22Pmg?t=183 Then take a look at StarCraft II's zealot + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/o1q_5TkC7dQ?t=136 It's much more easily distuingishable, the animations carry a lot more weight and are believable. The model itself is also much more detailed, a lot more unique and in general more what Protoss actually looks like. Look at some SC1 Concept Arts of Zealots + Show Spoiler +The BW sprites do a terrible job representing those. Whereas the SC2 one is pretty damn close to what the concepts generally show. I'm not one to diss older graphics, I personally love the look and feel of Brood War just as much as you do. But to argue that they're better designed or do a better job of representing the races is just plain wrong. SC2's models offer more detail, uniqueness and give a better feel of the race's identity than the Brood War ones.
I feel the same way as B-royal. Some graphics in SC2 are nice, but overall you can feel that there have been a lot lost in terms of style, mood and identity of races artistically. You take the zealot in particular, of course the definition in SC1 is pretty low so the zealot is represented in pixel art on a very small sprite but I like it a lot better than SC2 zealot because of the style. In SC1 the zealot looks like an unstoppable marcher standing straight, solid, tall and threatening. He strikes fast and straight without losing his solid stance. In SC2 the zealot looks like a human ninja making kind of like dancing moves and runs like a bit like a character in Naruto (really don't like the running stance of zealot in SC2 it's like he is posing for a photo lol). A lot of other things in SC2 are a bit like that, and the voices are really a lot less gripping. (and the music...............). There are things I like in the SC2 graphics, like the Protoss buildings are generally very nice I think. Some things in BW could maybe have been drawn a bit better but overall I think artistically it brings more emotion and style, less eyecandy. Even though it is executed more simply, it has deeper meaning, which is what really matters with art.
|
Nice. I haven't preordered, though I will get the game for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/5/52/Zealot_SC1_Art1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080619175900)
