|
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 But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago.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.
I think the BW aesthetic/graphics hold up very well even to this day.
|
On November 04 2015 23:54 Ansibled 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. I think the BW aesthetic/graphics hold up very well even to this day.
Don't get me wrong, for a 1998 game, the graphics are great. I remember playing it in a 486 at 50 Mhz and 4 MB of ram. It is not that games could run faster on those toasters...
But saying that graphics are great for today's standards... well, that is a no.
|
I made my purchase in the first day possible.
I remember regret having stopped playing sc1, I will not make the same mistake again.
|
On November 04 2015 21:54 yoshi245 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 04:17 HerrHorst wrote: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.
DK is doing a great job. DB did a great job as well.. such a great job he got promoted to Vice-Prez while Rob Pardo was still at Blizzard.
Keep in mind all of Blizzard's tip-top, very best guys are not working on the RTS genre because it does not have the revenue potential of an MMO or the strategic value of Hearthstone.
When Morhaime, Sigaty and Pierce find some new, young, tip-top design talent the last thing they'll ever do is assign him or her to the RTS team.
Browder bolted at this first chance...and who can blame the guy .. he has got a family to raise and he wants at least the possiblity of giant bonus money.
|
On November 03 2015 15:00 FabledIntegral wrote:
Nice, I just put $500 in Activision. Not a ton, but if their stock jumps 10% tomorrow, that's $50 :D
lmao really? i find their acquisition of king games really stupid
|
On November 05 2015 01:50 Eviscerador wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 23:54 Ansibled wrote: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. I think the BW aesthetic/graphics hold up very well even to this day. Don't get me wrong, for a 1998 game, the graphics are great. I remember playing it in a 486 at 50 Mhz and 4 MB of ram. It is not that games could run faster on those toasters... But saying that graphics are great for today's standards... well, that is a no.
The aesthetic of BW was probably stronger in giving the races definition than SC2 in some aspects, particularly the sound design and death animations. It is pretty ridiculous to say that the bw graphics are better though. A lot of what made bw magical would turn potential new players off today, that's just something we old bw fans have to accept. Try getting your friends to play bw vs sc2, you would be lucky if they stayed past the low resolution and unit selection limitations, let alone play an actual match.
|
BW sounds were much more gruff, and visually the poor resolution and limited colour palette allows the player to use their imagination more to fill in the blanks. I preferred the sounds (and music) of BW but the visuals of SC2 are waaay better.
|
On November 03 2015 17:38 ThunderBum wrote:
Are you suggesting Blizzard should price their products to break even every release? I actually really enjoy the teasers, Blizzcon, financial support for tournaments, and other things Blizzard do. The way they balance everything within their business is clearly very effective and far more detailed than what you've outlined, and I hope they don't change it because it works so damn well with what they produce. For the amount of time I put into their games they are amazing value.
Nothing wrong with them making money. It's more about the margin they make. If you look at Apple and google (who some consider the devil's company) their equivalent margins are 28 cents in the dollar and 25 cents in the dollar.
|
On November 05 2015 08:34 Dracover wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 17:38 ThunderBum wrote:
Are you suggesting Blizzard should price their products to break even every release? I actually really enjoy the teasers, Blizzcon, financial support for tournaments, and other things Blizzard do. The way they balance everything within their business is clearly very effective and far more detailed than what you've outlined, and I hope they don't change it because it works so damn well with what they produce. For the amount of time I put into their games they are amazing value. Nothing wrong with them making money. It's more about the margin they make. If you look at Apple and google (who some consider the devil's company) their equivalent margins are 28 cents in the dollar and 25 cents in the dollar.
It's nothing to do with the margin they make, it's all to do with what people are prepared to pay. Value is in the eye of the consumer. If you think Blizzard are making too much money, feel free to not buy their products. Don't complain about it if you think it's worth it.
|
On November 05 2015 08:34 Dracover wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 17:38 ThunderBum wrote:
Are you suggesting Blizzard should price their products to break even every release? I actually really enjoy the teasers, Blizzcon, financial support for tournaments, and other things Blizzard do. The way they balance everything within their business is clearly very effective and far more detailed than what you've outlined, and I hope they don't change it because it works so damn well with what they produce. For the amount of time I put into their games they are amazing value. Nothing wrong with them making money. It's more about the margin they make. If you look at Apple and google (who some consider the devil's company) their equivalent margins are 28 cents in the dollar and 25 cents in the dollar.
Seems to me there are much more egregious examples of companies making a bigger profit margin. A simple online survey service can have a much higher margin than that yet I don't see people complaining.
|
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote:
I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on.
So for every $1 you pay to them
32 cents is profit
32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you
14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game
22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff"
or in other words
46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy
54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value.
EDIT: If only you can see this buy product.
This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If the customer wasn't getting value out of the money spent, they wouldn't spend it. Basic economics.
|
Probably the last product I will pre-order from Blizzard, and likely something that I will purchase from Blizzard for a while. $60+ CAD just for me to finally see how the campaign will go down
|
On November 05 2015 05:14 Kingsky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 15:00 FabledIntegral wrote:
Nice, I just put $500 in Activision. Not a ton, but if their stock jumps 10% tomorrow, that's $50 :D lmao really? i find their acquisition of king games really stupid
I do think it is not as stupid as it seems.
Candy crush is massive, and they have huge market in China as well despite a strong carbon copy chinese one exists
|
I'm almost certain that because they got so many pre orders is why they are releasing it so much sooner than was projected.
|
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote:
I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on.
So for every $1 you pay to them
32 cents is profit
32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you
14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game
22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff"
or in other words
46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy
54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value.
EDIT: If only you can see this buy product.
What makes you think that customers don't value the profits that allow Blizzard to stay in business?
|
The only thing i can NOT bear in starcraft 2 is the love story between Jim and Kerrigan...
Damn.
Transform the queen of blade back to human was bold and surprising, but yeah why not? I like to be surprised.
But how DARE they make her kiss anyone, say "I love you Jim", "Thank you Jim"?, and crying the (fake) Jim death...:'( SHE WAS THE F*****G QUEEN OF BLADES 2 WEEKS AGO, and now, she's Bella Swan il the galaxy...
I pre-order LotV,
I reaaally hope in LotV they will NOT win by "the power of love"...
glhf♪
Love.
|
On November 08 2015 03:58 Khalimaroth wrote:
The only thing i can NOT bear in starcraft 2 is the love story between Jim and Kerrigan...
Damn.
Transform the queen of blade back to human was bold and surprising, but yeah why not? I like to be surprised.
But how DARE they make her kiss anyone, say "I love you Jim", "Thank you Jim"?, and crying the (fake) Jim death...:'( SHE WAS THE F*****G QUEEN OF BLADES 2 WEEKS AGO, and now, she's Bella Swan il the galaxy...
I pre-order LotV,
I reaaally hope in LotV they will NOT win by "the power of love"...
glhf♪
Love.
I haven't played campaign for a long time but is that really what Kerrigan did...?
|
Am I the only one who is playing the campaign just to see the awesome cinematics??
|
eh lel, this is a standalone, hots wasn't, nice move blizzard, but you know the real answer what is
|
Wut. If you pay x for product y, then x is the price. Not y, not z, not a part of x, but instead all of x is the price. if x is the cost, then x is what it costs. Hope this cleared up some debates going on in here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
