EPTSC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull****
Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it.
[Translation] StarCraft 2 - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ggfobster
United States298 Posts
SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull**** Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
d4d
Switzerland1066 Posts
On April 26 2007 16:22 ggfobster wrote: I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue! SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull**** Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it. My problem with 3d is not pacing, but unit response time, I have never seen a 3d rts with smooth unit response time. They always seem to set in motion and the do it. With 2d sprite this is immediate. Dawn of War is meant to be fast paced, yet when you give an order, it takes time for the unit to comply... | ||
|
ArC_man
United States2798 Posts
Anyways, War3 is partly "slow" because shit just don't die. Units have 500+ hp and most do under 50 damage. I think it was something that had to be done to balance heros and units, if you had units with too little HP, heros would be useless and could be ganked easily. If heros and units had too high HP, then heros would never die (and the game would be even more boring). Overall the concept was cool but it just doesn't make for fast paced action. Also the controls seem sluggish I think partly because of all the fancy animation going on. In SC, you tell a marine to shoot and he shoots without any delay. In War3, however, you tell a rifleman to shoot and he has to pick up his rifle, aim, and then shoot. Archers have to pick up their bows, pull back the string, shoot, and then their arrows have to fly to the enemy. While the unit response might be instant (and actually better than in SC), the whole process of the animation and the projectile actually traveling makes it feel really slow. I think as long as they can have instant attacking and the projectiles are instant or at least very fast, the game will seem a lot faster. | ||
|
Bladox
Canada763 Posts
| ||
|
ofclean
United States100 Posts
| ||
|
FusionCutter
Canada974 Posts
Why are you all judging the game before even seeing a single damned screenshot? Pathetic. | ||
|
StylishVODs
Sweden5331 Posts
...Have they ever made another game as good as Starcraft broodwar? | ||
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
| ||
|
sweatpants
United States940 Posts
On April 26 2007 16:22 ggfobster wrote: I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue! SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull**** Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it. People are worried about SC2 being in 3D is because 3D for RTS looks terrible right now, not because it has some affect on game pace. The drawn StarCraft sprites look a lot better than cubes with some ugly texture on each face as we see in Warcraft III. As an analogy, we don't want this: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1570/vlcsnap2690911js7.jpg) We want this: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://news.dreamwiz.com/origin/20060420/xportsnews/DSC_0608.jpg) 3D graphics should only be applied to RTS's when technology and user systems have progressed far enough to render smooth, realistic 3D. Not the flesh colored Transformers of War3. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On April 26 2007 18:00 sweatpants wrote: People are worried about SC2 being in 3D is because 3D for RTS looks terrible right now, not because it has some affect on game pace. The drawn StarCraft sprites look a lot better than cubes with some ugly texture on each face as we see in Warcraft III. As an analogy, we don't want this: + Show Spoiler + We want this: + Show Spoiler + 3D graphics should only be applied to RTS's when technology and user systems have progressed far enough to render smooth, realistic 3D. Not the flesh colored Transformers of War3. I dont give a damn about graphics. I want my units to listen to me. | ||
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
On April 26 2007 17:53 AnOth3rDAy wrote: To all you people saying "have blizzard ever made a bad game?"... I didn't read the rest of this thread, but did people seriously say that? Of course Blizzard has made bad games. Diablo 2 was terrible. WarCraft 1 and 3 were mediocre. And then there's World of WarCraft, which is the best MMO out there, I suppose, but that's like saying that I emit the best-smelling farts in the world: they're still unpleasant. Blizzard isn't infallible, but I'd be lying if I said that the prospect of SC2 didn't excite me. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On April 26 2007 18:21 DJEtterStyle wrote: I didn't read the rest of this thread, but did people seriously say that? Of course Blizzard has made bad games. Diablo 2 was terrible. WarCraft 1 and 3 were mediocre. And then there's World of WarCraft, which is the best MMO out there, I suppose, but that's like saying that I emit the best-smelling farts in the world: they're still unpleasant. Blizzard isn't infallible, but I'd be lying if I said that the prospect of SC2 didn't excite me. You have impossibly high standards for games, then. Diablo 2 wasn't awesome, but it was still a great game that happened to have the living hell abused out of it on Battle.net. Warcraft 1 was a milestone for RTS gaming, and Warcraft 3 is a pretty deep RTS in its own right. And for those that play MMORPG's, WoW was pretty much the best yet. You might not like the genre, but it's not Blizzard's fault. And people have a lot of fun with MMORPG - who are you to say that they are all misguided? Different preferences, man. I hate MMORPG's (and especially WoW) more than you probably, but I wouldn't say that they all suck, and I definitely wouldn't say that WoW was a bad game. What other company can you think of that has a remotely comparable track record with so many different games in so many different genres? | ||
|
tec27
United States3690 Posts
On April 26 2007 16:40 d4d wrote: My problem with 3d is not pacing, but unit response time, I have never seen a 3d rts with smooth unit response time. They always seem to set in motion and the do it. With 2d sprite this is immediate. Dawn of War is meant to be fast paced, yet when you give an order, it takes time for the unit to comply... Thats really not an issue with 3D, but an issue with each of those specific games. Those time delays tend to be programmed in or part of the units' animations. SC just happens to lack such a delay, whether or not it uses sprites really doesn't matter. I know it seems a bit weird that every single 3D RTS released would have such a delay, but its just one of those odd coincedences (and not helped very much by the views of RTS hoi polloi who seem to think that less micro and less APM requirement means a better game). | ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
that being said, sc might be thoguht of as a fluke... but then you look at all the small intricicies of the game - unit attack variations vs different unit sizes, splash damage, instant command response and truly useful unit upgrades. they left so much room for the gamer to develop the game into something special. look at what boxer did with his mnm and dropships, what grrr did with his reavers, july with his mutas, etc. the first time you play mnm vs lurkers you'd think lurkers simply own mnm.. then you are forced to be sneaky, be quick, and become effective. then it seems like marines have the advantage because of their mobility. then savior comes along and makes you realise there really is such a delicate yet brilliant balance between terran and zerg. i could talk about this crap for hours, but the reality of the matter is the game is simple at a glance. simple is good, it attracts new people. before long though you're exposed to the true depths of the game, and you become one of the impressed, one of the addicted. blizzard knows it's market very well. they know what people want from this game, yet they have also shown us that a certain degree of innovation at the right time can be very beneficial for both the gamer and the industry. i believe they will make the right choices for this game. they know gameplay is paramount for this one, they know the expectations, they know us. "just do it", blizzard!!! | ||
|
Sadist
United States7084 Posts
;( d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad? | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game ;( d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad? When people think their opinion is "fact"  . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life. The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth. | ||
|
LordofAscension
United States589 Posts
~LoA | ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
always these dscussions... i will play BW as long as it makes fun and i achieve some things... as soon as sc2 comes (if it comes) im sure i will test it.. due to me being addicted to this first genial game.. lets see | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On April 26 2007 21:00 [X]Ken_D wrote: When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life. The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth. Units in SC also don't turn instantly  Most units turn around 30-40 degree per frame, so for a 180 degree turn they need 4-5 frames(0.16 - 0.2 seconds on fastest game speed), so it's not because of the animation, but because of the intended the game pace On April 26 2007 17:44 ofclean wrote: what's the framerate of starcraft 1? isn't it 24fps? It's 24.8 per second on fastest game speed and 15 on normal. | ||
| ||
