Review: StarCraft II

[dghjdgdjf]

http://www.youtube.com/user/HuskyStarcraft#p/u/3/N77gDrYNMRQ

I'll link you that instead of a picture out of it. Remember this is youtube quality you are looking at. The game DOES look better when actually playing it yourself.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Other RTS's have managed to make there units stand out with ease due to having advanced graphics and high unit detail.

NB. My computer runs the game on full specs, thus it is not a graphically strong game.

Advanced graphics and high unit detail has absolutely NOTHING to do with how easy it is to read the map at a glance. Effective use of color, vibrancy and instantly identifiable unit silhouettes is absolutely key in a game as much about quick-thinking as Starcraft is.

Also, your last statement is a bit of an odd one (or, at least, is worded wrong). I can run Dawn of War 2 and Supreme Commander on maximum specs; does that mean they aren't graphically strong games?

 

[Reveras]

I saw someone post EXTREMELY early beta pictures and then a husky vid (husky sucks, HDStarcraft has a MUCH BETTER pc) so I will reply with this little video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPEyOESDaNk

 

[Eliam_Dar]

I bougth it, directly from Blizzard, it cost me 60 USD, and I can only say that it worth every dollar I spent on it. Bravo Blizzard, bravo. A true materpiece

 

[Jimbo1212]

Other RTS's have managed to make there units stand out with ease due to having advanced graphics and high unit detail.

NB. My computer runs the game on full specs, thus it is not a graphically strong game.

Advanced graphics and high unit detail has absolutely NOTHING to do with how easy it is to read the map at a glance. Effective use of color, vibrancy and instantly identifiable unit silhouettes is absolutely key in a game as much about quick-thinking as Starcraft is.

Also, your last statement is a bit of an odd one (or, at least, is worded wrong). I can run Dawn of War 2 and Supreme Commander on maximum specs; does that mean they aren't graphically strong games?

My point is that I have never had to have my units lit up with neon signs saying where they are in any RTS, so I do not see why so many people have wanted Blizzard to do this with StarCraft.
The gpu I have is a 5770, so to be able to play a brand new game at ultra settings at 60 fps is some what surprising. Seeing that my gpu does not run SupCom or Dow2 at a solid 40+ fps shows the difference graphics seeing that those games are starting to age. Even if the lower fps is to do with my proc. bottlenecking as RTS's tend to strain the proc. just as much, this shows the simplicity of StarCraft 2.

 

[JeanLuc761]

1. My point is that I have never had to have my units lit up with neon signs saying where they are in any RTS, so I do not see why so many people have wanted Blizzard to do this with StarCraft.

2. The gpu I have is a 5770, so to be able to play a brand new game at ultra settings at 60 fps is some what surprising. Seeing that my gpu does not run SupCom or Dow2 at a solid 40+ fps shows the difference graphics seeing that those games are starting to age. Even if the lower fps is to do with my proc. bottlenecking as RTS's tend to strain the proc. just as much, this shows the simplicity of StarCraft 2.

1. The original Starcraft had brightly labelled units as well, and as has been said before, Starcraft II was designed with fans of the original Starcraft in mind.

2. SC2 was designed to work on an extremely wide range of PC's in order to appeal to a broader audience.

I'm still baffled as to why you and Matzy are so adamant about the graphics in Starcraft 2. So they don't have the unit detail of Total War and they don't have the grittiness of Dawn of War? So what?

 

[Jimbo1212]

1. My point is that I have never had to have my units lit up with neon signs saying where they are in any RTS, so I do not see why so many people have wanted Blizzard to do this with StarCraft.

2. The gpu I have is a 5770, so to be able to play a brand new game at ultra settings at 60 fps is some what surprising. Seeing that my gpu does not run SupCom or Dow2 at a solid 40+ fps shows the difference graphics seeing that those games are starting to age. Even if the lower fps is to do with my proc. bottlenecking as RTS's tend to strain the proc. just as much, this shows the simplicity of StarCraft 2.

1. The original Starcraft had brightly labelled units as well, and as has been said before, Starcraft II was designed with fans of the original Starcraft in mind.

2. SC2 was designed to work on an extremely wide range of PC's in order to appeal to a broader audience.

I'm still baffled as to why you and Matzy are so adamant about the graphics in Starcraft 2. So they don't have the unit detail of Total War and they don't have the grittiness of Dawn of War? So what?

If the graphics are not that great, then why has it received scores of 100% etc? That is my main gripe with the graphics, and that they could have easily put in options to make it look great, and still perform on a wide range of PC's.

 

[Xocrates]

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

Battleship?

I would believe you were talking about the Battlecruiser, but that can't be it as those can be taken down fairly quickly by lower tier units a fraction of the cost.

 

[dghjdgdjf]

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

I'm supposing you are referring to the battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are in no way OP at all. They are countered by a number of units, void rays for example. Void rays are T1 flying units in the protoss setup, whilst Battlecruisers are T2 flying units in the terran setup. Heck, most ground to air units counter the battlecruiser.

And I noticed how you guys are ignoring the videos we linked (Look at the HDstarcraft one linked below mine, HDstarcraft does in fact have a better computer then Husky, my bad.) where the graphics are SO MUCH better then the crappy VERY early beta patch picture you linked and keep referring to.

 

[ThePirateMan]

...The graphics ARE poor. Artistic style is utterly subjective and I think it looks like angry micro machines covered in bloom. But the graphics are poor - the textures are low quality, low poly models and so on. That technical aspect is not up for debate.

I have everything set on ultra and it looks good to me

Compared to what? Donkey Kong or Dawn of War 2?

The graphics look good to me too, compared to both Dawn of War 2 and Donkey Kong.

 

[JeanLuc761]

If the graphics are not that great, then why has it received scores of 100% etc? That is my main gripe with the graphics, and that they could have easily put in options to make it look great, and still perform on a wide range of PC's.

Personally, I think the graphics look perfectly fine. It has an appealing artistic style (in my opinion), it runs extremely well, and it makes units easily identifiable. Then again, I didn't buy this game for the visuals; I bought it for the gameplay.

If games had points knocked off for not looking as photorealistic as possible, I guarantee you we'd see almost a universal drop in scores for games.

 

[Wicky_42]

All that's missing is an Escapist B.Net user name share so we can "Escapisize" our Friends Lists on B.Net. At least I haven't seen the thread yet.

Hope to be playing you!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Escapist-Starcraft-2-Players there u go!

OT, I'm shocked by just how adamant Matzy and TB_Infidel are being about this game looking bad - even though one of them claims to be able to run it on max settings! This game looks beautiful, with unique and characterful unit designs that set it WAY apart from most other RTS games out atm.

Oh, and complaining about the game not being 'gritty and realistic' makes to facepalm epicly. Yeah, cos everyone loves generic gritty shooter #9087, obviously RTS games should go down that route too XD

 

[JeanLuc761]

Uhuh....Sadly you may need to go to the opticians as DoW2 is way more technically advanced than SC2.

The in-engine cutscenes would beg to differ.

That said though, I need to ask. Why does this bother you so much? Both you and infidel are acting like the game failed miserably because the graphics aren't on the level of Total War or something.

 

[Xocrates]

Then what's the point of the Battle Cruiser if it can be smashed by units that cost half the price...? Broken unit much?

It's called scouting, countering, and army composition. A surprise Battlecruiser in the right place at the right time can be devastating, a scouted Battlecruiser is easily countered, a Battlecruiser supporting your army can be invaluable.

It's that nasty strategy thing you claim SC2 doesn't have.

Though personally I'm more amused how you changed from "it's OP" to "What's the point?"

 

[mike1921]

...The graphics ARE poor. Artistic style is utterly subjective and I think it looks like angry micro machines covered in bloom. But the graphics are poor - the textures are low quality, low poly models and so on. That technical aspect is not up for debate.

I have everything set on ultra and it looks good to me

Compared to what? Donkey Kong or Dawn of War 2?

Compared to every game I have ever played barring crysis and keeping in mind it's an RTS.

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

Battleship?

I would believe you were talking about the Battlecruiser, but that can't be it as those can be taken down fairly quickly by lower tier units a fraction of the cost.

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

I'm supposing you are referring to the battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are in no way OP at all. They are countered by a number of units, void rays for example. Void rays are T1 flying units in the protoss setup, whilst Battlecruisers are T2 flying units in the terran setup. Heck, most ground to air units counter the battlecruiser.

And I noticed how you guys are ignoring the videos we linked (Look at the HDstarcraft one linked below mine, HDstarcraft does in fact have a better computer then Husky, my bad.) where the graphics are SO MUCH better then the crappy VERY early beta patch picture you linked and keep referring to.

Then what's the point of the Battle Cruiser if it can be smashed by units that cost half the price...? Broken unit much?

Nah, just situational and needs an escort unless you're sure the opponent has no decent counters for it. It is pretty powerful against anything that doesn't directly counter it.

The only units I think you can even argue are OP are the marauder,void ray, and infestor.

 

[ThePirateMan]

...The graphics ARE poor. Artistic style is utterly subjective and I think it looks like angry micro machines covered in bloom. But the graphics are poor - the textures are low quality, low poly models and so on. That technical aspect is not up for debate.

I have everything set on ultra and it looks good to me

Compared to what? Donkey Kong or Dawn of War 2?

The graphics look good to me too, compared to both Dawn of War 2 and Donkey Kong.

Uhuh....Sadly you may need to go to the opticians as DoW2 is way more technically advanced than SC2.

Maybe it is graphicly, but Starcraft 2 still looks good to me in comparison, I'm not saying that it looks better it just doesn't feel worse. Maybe it's just my fanboyism.

And I can't see how you find the graphics POOR, but I guess I just care so little for graphics that don't do any of these 3 things
1) Look absolutely fantastic.
2) Look increadibly shitty and half-assed for no good reason.
3) Come in the way of the gameplay.

.

Snip

Then what's the point of the Battle Cruiser if it can be smashed by units that cost half the price...? Broken unit much?

They are very good support units, they arn't supposed to go out alone, can take a decent amount of damage and have quite a powerful ability called "Yamato Cannon". Trust me, they are not worthless.