EPTBattle Report 2 NOW Available - Page 26
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 23 2009 06:28 Assault_1 wrote: did he say that line the first battle report also? In the first battle report he said "Terrible terrible damage" over and over and over and over... I think he specifically tried to not say it that much this time. | ||
|
Rob Air Guitar
United Kingdom32 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5653 Posts
On April 28 2009 19:05 Rob Air Guitar wrote: Has anyone noticed that in both Battle Reports Terran wins? I assume you have or you've been sleeping through them. According to an interview with a sc2 player in Blizzard some of them have Marauder builds that just can't be beat at the mo. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the Battle Reports but anyone who hasn't yet should check out the article 'Through The Nydus Worm'!!!! It's coool. R That's because Matt Cooper sucks and David Kim is OK-ish. | ||
|
arbiter_md
Moldova1219 Posts
This game doesn't look good to me for spectating, although I hope it's just the first impression and the thing that I'm not used to the game yet. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5449 Posts
On April 28 2009 21:22 arbiter_md wrote: It has too much animation for me, and this makes hard to understand what's going on. In SC:BW I don't know any unit shooting with straight lines, and the units that have high fire ration, like marines or hydras make almost no animation on shooting. That makes much easier to understand what's happening. And that makes the game good for spectating. This game doesn't look good to me for spectating, although I hope it's just the first impression and the thing that I'm not used to the game yet. I've also thought that to some degree in the past, but when I watched BR2 the second time I saw and understood everything well. If you think about it, it's unrealistic to assume seeing ONE game will make you understand exactly all the unit abilities, effects, etc. In a live game, the announcers, well, announce the game and help the crowd out, so we shouldn't have to worry too much. We should also expect that the people watching a video game at least have some knowledge of them; I wouldn't expect my grandparents to sit down and be able to follow a SC1 game at all, if you know what I mean. We're still a ways off where video games will be watched on TV in say, North America, like in Korea. It'll still be mostly gamers, who should be able to follow and understand the game just fine when you know what everything looks like. | ||
|
spkim1
Canada286 Posts
On April 28 2009 21:22 arbiter_md wrote: It has too much animation for me, and this makes hard to understand what's going on. In SC:BW I don't know any unit shooting with straight lines, and the units that have high fire ration, like marines or hydras make almost no animation on shooting. That makes much easier to understand what's happening. And that makes the game good for spectating. This game doesn't look good to me for spectating, although I hope it's just the first impression and the thing that I'm not used to the game yet. why are people trying to dull down the game so much? I'd rather the game be flashy and dynamic with good, detailed graphics, for a change. This is a next gen game, with a very advanced 3D engine graphics, so people, move on, don't try to find in it, and compare it with a 10 years old prequel! OK, it might alter the gameplay, but so what? boohoo! this is a brand new game, you should expect it, too bad. Besides, to what significant extent could a little flashier, animated graphics affect the gameplay? you still can do your 12overpool 12hatch ling rush, no big deal, you're STILL going to find HUGE familiarity in the game as it is. It's sad to notice the game has dulled down so much since the 1st gameplay presentation (Protoss). imo it was much better, graphics-wise and atmosphere-wise in the 1st SC2 presentation than the BR#1 and BR#2 | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On April 29 2009 00:34 spkim1 wrote: why are people trying to dull down the game so much? I'd rather the game be flashy and dynamic with good, detailed graphics, for a change. This is a next gen game, with a very advanced 3D engine graphics, so people, move on, don't try to find in it, and compare it with a 10 years old prequel! OK, it might alter the gameplay, but so what? boohoo! this is a brand new game, you should expect it, too bad. Besides, to what significant extent could a little flashier, animated graphics affect the gameplay? you still can do your 12overpool 12hatch ling rush, no big deal, you're STILL going to find HUGE familiarity in the game as it is. It's sad to notice the game has dulled down so much since the 1st gameplay presentation (Protoss). imo it was much better, graphics-wise and atmosphere-wise in the 1st SC2 presentation than the BR#1 and BR#2 The problem is, graphics and gameplay are usually in a trade off situation, as can be seen from the beautiful games that have been developed the past 10 years. At TL most prefer a game more suitable for progaming over a game that is bought a lot and lasts 1 year. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5449 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On April 29 2009 01:00 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: On April 29 2009 00:34 spkim1 wrote: why are people trying to dull down the game so much? I'd rather the game be flashy and dynamic with good, detailed graphics, for a change. This is a next gen game, with a very advanced 3D engine graphics, so people, move on, don't try to find in it, and compare it with a 10 years old prequel! OK, it might alter the gameplay, but so what? boohoo! this is a brand new game, you should expect it, too bad. Besides, to what significant extent could a little flashier, animated graphics affect the gameplay? you still can do your 12overpool 12hatch ling rush, no big deal, you're STILL going to find HUGE familiarity in the game as it is. It's sad to notice the game has dulled down so much since the 1st gameplay presentation (Protoss). imo it was much better, graphics-wise and atmosphere-wise in the 1st SC2 presentation than the BR#1 and BR#2 The problem is, graphics and gameplay are usually in a trade off situation, as can be seen from the beautiful games that have been developed the past 10 years. At TL most prefer a game more suitable for progaming over a game that is bought a lot and lasts 1 year. Yup. I think it should be possible for Blizzard to implement "cool" looking graphics/animations, but still have them be obvious as to what the effect is. As I mentioned, I missed some stuff in my first viewing of BR2 (the reaper mines especially), but rewatching it and paying attention, and I found everything to be pretty clear. It will be even clearer as I (and others) watch more games. The problem with War3 was BUFFS largely... it's hard to tell when a unit is slowed, for example, because it's a difficult to spot animation on their feet... But for other spell effects, like Flame Strike or something, were easy enough to see and understand. Fortunately, SC2 doesn't really have any buffs... Thankfully. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
rofl owned | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On April 29 2009 01:00 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The problem is, graphics and gameplay are usually in a trade off situation, as can be seen from the beautiful games that have been developed the past 10 years. At TL most prefer a game more suitable for progaming over a game that is bought a lot and lasts 1 year. Now, the precise balance of graphics vs gameplay and whether Starcraft 2 steps over the line is debatable. But, for these graphics/gameplay discussions, keep in mind that: (a) You have no clue as to exactly what type of resources Blizzard has at their disposal, their management abilities of those resources, and what exactly their limitations are. With WoW as a big money maker it's possible that the game will enough resources for both. Or it might not. You just can't know until it has come out. (b) The graphics simply need to be made up to date. If there is a great disparity between what is possible today and what the game has, not enough people will play the game to think that watching pros play it will be fun. Even Starcraft was pretty for it's time. (c) No matter what Blizzard does, you guys are going to dislike this game when it comes out. Every single change, graphical or no, is a point that can be contested and will be contested by some of you, whether you have a good reason or not. And you know what? SC2 will be a different game, and only time will tell if it will be a worthy successor. I don't mean that one month after launch either, unless somehow SC2 actually flops commercially We're talking a long term process.. As for spectators being able to understand the graphics, that's an art direction issue, not a straight graphical-technology-and-detail-over-gameplay issue. I don't like how Hydras have hardly any visual or audible cues for their attack myself, but that is a much easier issue to fix than, say, the issue of making the new macro mechanics fully workable. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5449 Posts
On April 29 2009 03:32 phyvo wrote: (c) No matter what Blizzard does, you guys are going to dislike this game when it comes out. Every single change, graphical or no, is a point that can be contested and will be contested by some of you, whether you have a good reason or not. And you know what? SC2 will be a different game, and only time will tell if it will be a worthy successor. I don't mean that one month after launch either, unless somehow SC2 actually flops commercially We're talking a long term process.. Not really appropriate. I agree that there is a lot baseless, non-constructive negativity that goes in this forum; but there are many, many others who are overall happy with how SC2 is going, and has some faith in Blizzard. Criticism can be a good thing; however, in (unfortunately) the majority of cases it's just idiotic bashing. At least some of the criticism is based (somewhat) on an actual topic... but too much of it is just "omg i will not buy this game" bullshit. Still, I don't think you should quote Nazgul when making that statement, as he wasn't really making any judgement like that. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
- The very "reaveresque" banelings. - The overall look of the zerg army - The Xel Naga tower. - Reapers - The "missile" of the nighthawk seems like a cool ability ( but it might be a bit imbalanced yet ). - Micro was more interesting than in BR1 ( fllanking seems to be really effective for example ). I would have liked to see more: - The players macroing. - The queen in action. I dislike: - Still too many explosions and pew pew imo. - The map had some nice features ( the Xel Naga tower and backdoor cliff chokes ) but i think it needed more large battlegrounds in the middle. - Overall they put the emphasis on micro only whereas macro is a really interesting part in RTS imo. It was way better than BR1 ( especially because i hate how protoss look like now and because the game was overall more interesting ) but it seems so imbalanced lol. Like baneling / ling / roach >>> marines / reapers early on. Then Upped rines + nighthawk >>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything zerg has. 6/10 and promising imo. ( I'm super picky :p ) BR1 was a 3/10. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
 | ||
| ||
