|
I suppose we can't argue taste, you're free to find it charming. 
I didn't want to name you as the paranoid poster because, well.. you're FA! I feel bad criticising you but it's true you've lost 2 points in my book. Don't worry, you've got about a billion left and they're piling on fast.
It's good to speak up if you see something wrong, I was arguing about the method of complaining. Seems to me being thorough and objective is more convincing than plain crying out with no explanations, but I can address that to your passion for the game. You do make up for it when the dust settles and the blood pressure lowers. 
Oddly enough, the pandaren and the goblin are, to me, the most infuriating models in war3, haha. Also, robots attaching themselves to the CC? That's even better!
|
teh-names of sc2 units r still gey
|
|
|
The Thor and the Sensor Drone are still super lame.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Ok, some head bashing to come.
1) Graphics in SC suck/gameplay is superior to graphics.
In short, this is bullshit. Play DoW for a while, then play SC. Then, memorize this mantra: "graphics are one of the core factors that form gameplay". It's quite easy to understand, actually. Every single unit must be easily distinguishable from the other. They must have different colors, sizes and movement patterns. Once again, try DoW, field a 100-man Ork army, then look at it for 1 second, close your eyes and say how many units of any kind you've seen. Hint: it's impossible in DoW. SC has genius graphics because a quick glance on an enemy army will give you pretty accurate info on the composition/formation. I've yet to see another RTS that can sport this. The "wow" factor comes when you realize that it's done with 150 colors (SC has 256, and about 100 of them are used to code technical stuff like transparency and team colors) and it works on Pentium 60. Moreover, besides being distinguishable, units are also cute. Half of the people on this site will kill themselves for a metal figurine of their favorite unit. This is because units are drawn well-enough to be loved. So, no, SC graphics are a masterpiece. Doing THAT with 8-bit 640x480 is just insane. Not to mention that korean would never make anything like televized progaming had SC gameplay not looked that appealing. Visually appealing, mind you.
2) New protoss stuff.
Honestly, I didn't like the new HT from the very first time it surfaced on Karune's avatar. It just looks like a WoW warlock, so Uber and calm. Much like the Stalker's attack animation is just painfully resemblant to crypt fiend. Not only in reminds me of a game SC2 should have NOTHING from, tell me the truth, would you really throw an energy weapon? You're most likely to experience a recoil, ffs.
Archons have legs. NO WAY. Warcraft again? Infernals?
DT doesn't look good enough. I can't say why, they are just sub-par to everything.
3) Terran stuff.
To be honest, I had the dreaded gulp of death first witnessing the new terran units. I thought "that just can't be true", but, hell, now it's confirmed info. Now, first they say they don't wanna change the racial concepts. Ok.
Terran in SC: turtling, ranged and extremely high-dps. They don't have the best spells, and they are quite fragile (at least on ground), but they do insane damage at range on themselves, without any spellcasting or melee. Consequentially, the masters of field tactics and rough terrain usage. Also, although high-damage, their units feel expendable, which is grossly reflected in tactics. 30% of a terrans army dies to friendly fire in TvP, marines die in large groups to lurkers and noone cares.
Terran in SC2: transformer robots with giant battle transformer robots and super jetpack soldiers. Don't forget the awesum flying fortress.
I don't know what to say, this is officially the worst update on SC2 since launch. Seeing that Thor thing makes me cry: STOP THIS IS NOT SC! I really hope they will change to the old fragile, raw firepower and expendable units. No Optimus Prime plz.
On a second thought, depots are cool. ^^
|
On July 18 2007 13:46 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Looool, I just remembered seeing dots on the minimap while watching a bunch of reps I downloaded =[ I swear it shows up.
Actually I'm gonna go find out right now! Hm, I just watched a rep and it didn't show up, now I'm absolutely confused where I saw it =
I am almost certain that the dot shows up in replays. Maybe it is tied to having the "Show Full Map" Toggled on, to make up for the fact you cant see the fog of war 'opened' on the mini.. Did you (whoever it was) have that on, or off when you tested it..
Infact I absolutley know that i have seen the dot recently. 100%. And I have not had a maphack on my system since like 2000 when i first started playing =/
On a side note, i dont understand how people are saying SC is the ugliest game ever, wtf. The graphics are crisp and clean and beautiful. 1998! FFS. We have every right to dislike the models looks and not only that SC2's lead designer ASKED us to PLEASE post about things we dont like. It is much appreciated feedback. Dang I forgot how wicked HT portraits are..god thats depressing after looking at the new 'uber cool! omg' model..
|
There's a difference between feedback and bitching about units and concepts we know nothing about and complaining the models suck from a blurry scan of a magazine article.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 18 2007 19:12 quasi -QS- wrote:
There's a difference between feedback and bitching about units and concepts we know nothing about and complaining the models suck from a blurry scan of a magazine article.
We've also seen the dark templars in the IGN screenshots (that screenshot is a travesty tho, so I guess it's possible they look better from some.. other angle, but the point remains - the new look, which has nothing to do with resolution, blur or anything, is a million times lamer than the old one).
|
On July 18 2007 19:12 quasi -QS- wrote:
There's a difference between feedback and bitching about units and concepts we know nothing about and complaining the models suck from a blurry scan of a magazine article.
I agree. Im not backing up the unit concept complaints or anything pertaining to how a unit will act in gameplay when no statistics have been revealed.
I am however complaining about the dark templar design/High templar design, I also dont find the scan particularly blury. Its quite clear what the current unit model looks. And you assume people are commenting specifically on the magazine scans. Dark templar are also apear in screenshots.
And the HT model is seen quite clearly in many screens, and even their animation in gameplay videos. Now maybe you arnt aware of those - but your ignorance doesnt justify you saying my [and any other persons] perfectly valid complaints/opinions are "bitching". Not appreciated.
EDIT: And its true what FA says about the screenshot being shit. It is hard to tell whats going on under all that flashy stuff. I will say however that before I knew the unit in that screenshot was a dark templar (before i saw these mag scans) I initially thought, 'wow that model looks like crap'.
|
archons always had legs
see? legs, they just don't walk on them
i have no real insight into the OP, but someone pointed out that the zoomed image of the marine was unrealistic, in the same way those templars and dark templars (especially the dark templar) and ghost are zoomed in and not very high resolution, so take it with a grain of salt
|
On July 18 2007 19:45 caution.slip wrote:archons always had legs see? legs, they just don't walk on them
Just an observation that came to mind when looking at that archon. They are seemingly nude. Whats with the spikey armor lookin stuff on the new archons. (I know they are different units in SC2 with possibly a different use and w/e dont give me shit). I think they look neat, bodies floating in a blinding pool of energy^^. I like the old design
EDIT: just remembered that DA have armor. Guess that kind of explains that design choice
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 18 2007 19:42 nofAcedAgent wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2007 19:12 quasi -QS- wrote:
There's a difference between feedback and bitching about units and concepts we know nothing about and complaining the models suck from a blurry scan of a magazine article. I agree. Im not backing up the unit concept complaints or anything pertaining to how a unit will act in gameplay when no statistics have been revealed. I am however complaining about the dark templar design/High templar design, I also dont find the scan particularly blury. Its quite clear what the current unit model looks. And you assume people are commenting specifically on the magazine scans. Dark templar are also apear in screenshots. And the HT model is seen quite clearly in many screens, and even their animation in gameplay videos. Now maybe you arnt aware of those - but your ignorance doesnt justify you saying my [and any other persons] perfectly valid complaints/opinions are "bitching". Not appreciated. EDIT: And its true what FA says about the screenshot being shit. It is hard to tell whats going on under all that flashy stuff. I will say however that before I knew the unit in that screenshot was a dark templar (before i saw these mag scans) I initially thought, 'wow that model looks like crap'.
Before I saw the magazine scans in this thread I didn't think it was a unit.
In fact, I didn't even see it. And I'm not kidding or exaggerating, I heard people talk about a DT and had no idea what unit in that picture could possibly be one.
Oh and I actually, objectively speaking (ie not from an 'oh noes looks different from sc' perspective), really like the new archons look, BECAUSE they remind me of the infernals in war3 and those were completely badass yo.
So it's like you take the most badass unit in SC (not best, not most fun, just most badass, cause they are) and add some nice features from one of the coolest war3 units (fineeee, maybe I just have a thing for gigantic golems like the night elf stone giant - that was the name right - the ogre or the infernal :[) and you get this completely awesome new archon!
I mean, maybe they look somewhat.. less unique than the old one, but they are definitely one of my favorite units that we've seen so far, when it comes to how they look!
Btw, maybe it's not really something you could tell from my posts but I'm actually hugely positive about sc2.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Sensor Dome: With one of these you can see enemy units on the map, even if they are moving in undiscovered territory.
LOL
MAPHACK
|
On July 18 2007 19:42 nofAcedAgent wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2007 19:12 quasi -QS- wrote:
There's a difference between feedback and bitching about units and concepts we know nothing about and complaining the models suck from a blurry scan of a magazine article. I agree. Im not backing up the unit concept complaints or anything pertaining to how a unit will act in gameplay when no statistics have been revealed. I am however complaining about the dark templar design/High templar design, I also dont find the scan particularly blury. Its quite clear what the current unit model looks. And you assume people are commenting specifically on the magazine scans. Dark templar are also apear in screenshots. And the HT model is seen quite clearly in many screens, and even their animation in gameplay videos. Now maybe you arnt aware of those - but your ignorance doesnt justify you saying my [and any other persons] perfectly valid complaints/opinions are "bitching". Not appreciated. EDIT: And its true what FA says about the screenshot being shit. It is hard to tell whats going on under all that flashy stuff. I will say however that before I knew the unit in that screenshot was a dark templar (before i saw these mag scans) I initially thought, 'wow that model looks like crap'.
My comment was more in response to peoples complaints about how SC2 has ruined Terran because of units we know nothing about.
I like the High Templar and Twilight Archon model. They improve on the unit concepts. I'd rather see these units reinvisioned than just SC in 3D, but I guess I'm one of the few here. I don't like the Dark Templar model mostly because from a design stand point it doesn't match the concept. DT's are supposed to be dark, stealthy, fragile, but incredibly strong. The current DT model looks too heavily armored, and bulky to be a cloaked stealth unit.
The Archon is supposed to be an incredibly strong unit, and the current model only improves on this. It's walking animation just looks powerful. The old Archon doesn't appear that powerful to me. A floating ball of blue just doesn't scream powerful and frightening.
The High Templar is also a good design, but I think the original from BW is great too.
|
On July 18 2007 19:58 quasi -QS- wrote:
The current DT model looks too heavily armored, and bulky to be a cloaked stealth unit.
Yeah absolutley. They old one looked so cool. And that handheld weapon too. Just seems lame IMO. What happened to the energy blades based from the wrist? That thing reminds me of like starwars double lightsaber or something..'uber cool' for the next 'bigger badder' SC.. Less is more..
|
Then again I don't think I've seen a clear shot of the Dark Templar in proportion to other units.
|
BluzMan makes a good point about graphical clarity the importance of being able to tell what's going on with only a quick glance. Like I mentioned in another thread, please keep in mind that BW is best but it's not perfect in this area either. Most armies and most units are clear, but an army of carriers with its swarm of interceptors, the dark swarm and the distruption web are either confusing or cluttering and can use improvement.
Also keep in mind your dedication for the game throughout the years has accustomed your mind to deciphering what is onscreen, maybe making it seem more clear than it objectively is.
|
the viking looks way too BULKY
and the high templar looks like an evildoer straight from a disney movie
the ghost looks bloody gay like some termite exterminator
and the marine looks like an astronaut
-_________-
w t f
|
On July 18 2007 12:02 tripleoptiks wrote:
they musta had ladiesman217 working for them
No matter what people say, Transformers was a hell of a good movie. I even have it in my house already. Anyone want to come and watch it?
Sorry for the off-post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.rpgclassics.com/subsites/starcraft/images/archon.gif)
