On May 19 2007 01:06 Brutalisk wrote: Anyone of you remember Starcraft v1.0? So please stop crying "SC2 = imba", because any bullshit will be fixed before release or a few patches later.
I'm much more worried about the graphics, I just saw the in-game video and it looks like it will be a chaotic mess in a big battle. But we'll see how it works out in the final version...
Yeah one thing about fancy graphic of WC3 that I don't like is it tends to be too fancifully messy. When starcraft untis fight each other, you know what is going on. When lurker spines shoot up, You know marines will pop, zealots will flame, and dragoons will leak. But in WC3 you see arrows flying spells storming units bashing all over the screen and nothing happens. Then you go "erm wtf did those shinny things just do?"
On May 19 2007 01:06 0x64 wrote: Its like wacraft in space?
On May 18 2007 23:33 BG1 wrote: Guys remember this is how the first starcraft versions looked... Nothing is final, many things are going to be changed between now and the relase and after the release.
On May 19 2007 00:50 wanderer wrote: Starcraft got as big as it is because it was playable by just any computer -- people could get together with whatever computer, go in an internet cafe, etc. this game looks too good for my computer. i never got warcraft 3 for that reason as well — and as much as i like starcraft, i'm not going to buy practically a whole new computer just for it.
i want to be happy about the game... but man...
Well if ur comp can't even run Warcraft 3 then it's really time to upgrade anyways... You can't expect to play new games on a 5+yr old PC.
that's not the point — starcraft got big because practically -anyone- could play it without having to worry about fps and crap. the only reason that shit exists nowadays is because of this 3d stuff. i got back into brood war because it was practically the only game i could play with the peace of mind in knowing that itll run smooth. this new starcraft doesn't look like it'll be like that.
i hate how games are getting so high-end and 'pro'. just because its fancy doesn't make it good
Likewise, just because it's fancy doesn't mean it's NOT good.
On May 18 2007 23:25 boghat wrote: You guys are so fucking stupid, yeah let\\\'s assume it\\\'s imbalanced from 10 minutes of second hand bullshit. OMG I\\\'m sure they will make it as balanced as possible, stop being FUCKING IDIOTS!
On May 19 2007 00:50 wanderer wrote: Starcraft got as big as it is because it was playable by just any computer -- people could get together with whatever computer, go in an internet cafe, etc. this game looks too good for my computer. i never got warcraft 3 for that reason as well — and as much as i like starcraft, i'm not going to buy practically a whole new computer just for it.
i want to be happy about the game... but man...
Well if ur comp can't even run Warcraft 3 then it's really time to upgrade anyways... You can't expect to play new games on a 5+yr old PC.
that's not the point — starcraft got big because practically -anyone- could play it without having to worry about fps and crap. the only reason that shit exists nowadays is because of this 3d stuff. i got back into brood war because it was practically the only game i could play with the peace of mind in knowing that itll run smooth. this new starcraft doesn't look like it'll be like that.
i hate how games are getting so high-end and 'pro'. just because its fancy doesn't make it good
Likewise, just because it's fancy doesn't mean it's NOT good.
When did I say that? I'm saying the sort of "fancy" nowadays tend to be "Shinny glowing shits"
Look at the games... Look at WC3, look at this trailer, LoOK At AlL tHOSE shiNny shits flying everywhere... How are you suppose to see what's happening with glowsticks for bullets?
I love fancy, it is great. I think the way marines pop in sc1 is really fancy, how medic drops down to 4 pieces, and if you dissect each frame of a tank explosion, it looks wonderful.
On May 19 2007 01:15 Lycaeus wrote: pvt = ez, push with immortals, attack with units afterwards
not all attacks activate immortals, so it would seem you need the unit for specific situations and whatnot, which makes battles micro intensive and also tactically varied.
Oh, the ign reporter lied... SC2's graphics are a massive step above not only SC, but WCIII... Man, I hope beyond all hope it doesn't make me buy another computer ; ;
Jump pack dudes should go abit faster to emulate a vulturelike behavior, a hord of rampaging locoust I think...
Immortals are sorta bleh... might be good for flanking terran metal but hell maybe metal will be obsolete w/ SC2 hahaha...
OH DID U C THE PYLON? fucking insane... You can do cannon cliff with 100x effectiveness.
Also, you don't need to proxy gate anymore, just make a pylon and it's an instant nydus canal! Woah!
Imho they did a good job in making the untis very versatile, not saying it'll be balanced but they made even the smallest unit have a dramatic ability.
It's not like other shitty RTS where each unit has a spell... like one infantry has 1+ dmg spell and some other infantry has 2+ def spell... Not like that. They made the spell so the untis can literally shreds around the battlefield and makes great dynamics.
!! :D
I'm very excited. And No game doesn't look too messy in ingame play with his description.
My point is you are overly generalizing the dimentions of PvT, very narrow minded in thinking Terran in SC2 will opt a metal based army and will be trashed by immortals. Same mindset as those newbies who think carriers are invincible simply because they are effective vs. the normative unit combination.
But I do think when you typed that post you didn't take it too seriously and was half joking anyways so no biggie.
On May 19 2007 01:15 Lycaeus wrote: pvt = ez, push with immortals, attack with units afterwards
.... that's about as good as "carrier = instawin!"
your point being?!
his point is that it takes a lot of time to make a carrier, and even though carriers are instawins you hardly ever make the time or money to afford more than maybe one and still win the game (especially in 1v1 games).
if you say these obviously expensive immortal units are powerful and you can push them and then use units afterwards, you'll have to take a lot of time to save up for these expensive immortal units — and chances are they'll be like carriers in that you need to wait a while in order to get them available and much less make enough to do this strategy.
edit -- then again thost terran reapers really tore those fuckers up in the vid that mr.grizz posted earlier (outstanding posts, sir)
EPT![[image loading]](http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8966/pic1xl6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5293/96e3pic1yn1.gif)
