Review: StarCraft II

[Shale_Dirk]

etc.

Holy derp? You just said SC2 was DX11 (which you corrected but sweet jesus, what a mistake) and that the prisoner going rogue at the end was not cliché....
Wtf are you unable to read? I was talking about Halo:CE in terms of regen health. Stay off the Lambrini and come back down to earth.
If you knew anything about optimisation you'd realise that rendering units does not have to be nearly as complex as say Crysis Warhead. However I've yet to find a SC2 fan that actually knows much about PC games let alone RTS'. Take SupCom 8 ways - how many units are there in a a large free for all? 1000 units each?
I was saying that claiming that you can just adapt units to counter others is bullsh*t and you know it, so don't pretend that everything is equally matched.
"Everything the FANS asked for" ergo the game is nothing but fan service. See how no matter what I say I'll be met with "Durh but like but itz bezt gaem evar! Blizzerd rulz!"
How has SC2 been pushed to modern technical standards? Does it have the complex mechanics of morale etc seen in DoW? No. Scale of SupCom or Total War? No. How is it modernised or you just talking about graphics because the core mechanics which is 99% of the game are identical.
The fact that you are unable to draw comparison to any other popular RTS shows your utter ignorance - what are you comparing it to when you claim it's good? Just SC1???? Yeah because that's not a bias outlook at all.

I mistakenly typed my video card specs in haste, realized my mistake, and corrected it. Big deal.

Your inability to:
a) make a clear reference, and
b) properly convey that you are speaking ironically,

are your problem, not mine.

Again, your continual strawman defense is only showing that you really are just a whiny brat, upset that other people are getting in on their RTS fun. You're acting like a hipster who's mad because his favourite band just got famous and other people are listening to them. Regardless of whether or not the band is actually good, you're just whining to anyone who will listen about how you were their only true fan, and they sold out. Trying to prove how '1337' you are by demanding spec information is parabolic to the hipster demanding that people tell him what community college the drummer went to for 3 months in the summer of 2003 because people say they liked the band's 'earlier stuff'. "If you can't tell me, then you're not a real fan, you phony!". Get over yourself.

I'm certainly not pretending that all units are evenly matched, but most of them in the early game can be adapted to a situation to increase their chances of winning. Marines v. Zealots for example heavily favour zealots, but stimpacks allow for offensive retreat, and even it out. Blindly stating that "you cannot make a lot of combinations work" is incorrect, and shows lack of creativity, adaptiveness, and tactical knowledge.

Fan service would have been an explicit sex scene with that Nova girl. Making a sequel that doesn't suck unfortunately doesn't qualify as 'fan service'.

Arguing about how other RTS's are 'soooooooo much better' (morale, scale, blahdeblah) doesn't defeat the fact that this game is good, its mechanics are good, and people enjoy playing it. You like other RTS's; power to you. Go have fun doing that while we enjoy this one. And tbh, I have played a few other RTS's in an attempt to branch out, but I became bored of them very quickly. I may try some of the ones that you are defending so vehemently though because there obviously must be something there to defend.

When I say 'modernized' I am specifically talking about graphics because as has been said repeatedly, the mechanics haven't really changed all that much. Supcom can do, as you said, 1000 units because the units and effects aren't anywhere near the same visual quality as those in SC2. It really has nothing to do with optimization...just higher quality textures.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

above post was stuck.

 

[metalhead467]

Is it just me, or have we gotten Mazty stuck in an infinite recursion loop?

 

[Shale_Dirk]

Care to say how my argument is a strawman or just happy to be a hypocrite?
It's actually like someone saying a film isn't all that it's made out to be, but people are claiming "bezt film evar".
Of course the game is balanced with a fair few of the units otherwise it'd be an unplayable mess...I don't see how that has anything to do with what I originally said as I was saying that a lot of the time most units can't be adapted to take out almost every other unit which still remains true.
I'd have said fan service is repackaging the same game, with a few layers of polish. Fact is this game could have easily been released 5 years ago as it shows no innovation etc.
How is the game good? On what arbitrary scale are you measuring 'good' on? Because you sure as hell are not comparing it to other modern, successful RTS'. Go go ignorance.
SC2 is DX9, ergo it's sh*t PC graphics. If you were a proper PC gamer, you'd know this. It's a shame that you have a DX11 card and certainly have no idea what constitutes good graphics as being a technical element, it's very easy to categorise.

Strawman -> "Anyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy with a hard-on for Blizzard. I shall insult them for their difference in taste."
ie,

It just sounds like SC2 fans are really, really bad at gaming in general if they play the same game day in day out for such a long time.

Plus sounds like you're not really a gamer, which I suspect with many SC2 fans.

90% of your comments are just flat-out nerd-rage.

This game wasn't released five years ago because World of Warcraft was released, but it is important to note that this game was under production five years ago. The dev team for SC2 was pulled to help out with WoW until things were a little more under control (read: Blizzard hired more developers). Innovation in the form of grandly changing the mechanics of the game would have been a terrible mistake on Blizzard's part. None of the pro players for SC:BW would have made the jump if the game was drastically different, and even now they're still resisting the jump as they get used to it. Their Korean/pro market would have been killed. Somehow they've managed to impress pro players, and make it an enjoyable experience for casual players, through the exact same mantra as SC1: easy to play, difficult to master.

This game is "good" because:
-The campaign mode offers a story that, even with a few cliches, continues the SC storyline in a very entertaining fashion. Expanding Raynor's character (as he is one of the original interesting 'grizzled hard-ass fighting for justice' characters in video games) and introducing a full ship of characters that he interacts with at one point or another is something rarely, if not never, seen in strategy games.
-The campaign has 29 distinct missions that are fun to play. Simple enough.
-The campaign uses characters from SC:BW, but also their equivalent in SC2, which for me was fairly successful in weaning me on to the new units for multiplayer.
-Having 50 non-ranking online matches encourages people to jump into multiplayer while still learning.
-Units are well-balanced and offer enough varying strategy to keep online interesting.
-I haven't had a chance to check out the map editor yet, but I've heard some pretty good things about it so far.
-Achievements, unlocks, secrets, Blizzard sense of humour, etc.
-Internal VoIP for party play.

My only gripe with the game so far is the lack of LAN, which could apparently be patched later on, or put in "tournament builds" which I'm sure will be pirated to no end.

Most games that run on DX9 in this day and age dabble with elements from DX10 for cards capable of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they are using shading from DX10, but this has been neither confirmed nor denied.

 

[metalhead467]

Why are we still arguing with this guy again? It's like arguing with a wall that thinks we're scum/horrible excuses for gamers because we happen to have different tastes than it.

I enjoyed Dawn of War. I enjoy Starcraft 2. OMFG OH NO

It's useless.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

"SC2 is AWEZOME"
"Compared to...?"
"AWEZOOOOMMMEE!"

Your argument is a logical fallacy. Enjoyment in something is subjective, firstly, and secondly does not need to be compared to something in order to be enjoyed. I could say that I enjoyed SC2 in comparison to cheese and it would logically be correct with your argument. One does not need to have ever played a fighting game, and could still enjoy Street Fighter the first time they play it. Sure there are subconscious comparisons to things that it is not, but the comparison is not directly correlative to the enjoyment.

Nobody here is saying "OMGIIIIIIESSSSS YOU GUUUUYYYYSSSS!!!!!1111 STARCRAFT 2 IS SOOOOOO COOOOOOOL, BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER PLAYED ANY OTHER GAME EVAAAAAAR LIKE IT". They're saying they enjoyed the game, which is again subjective. If they enjoyed it without ever playing another RTS, then they still enjoyed it regardless. Yet there are some people here who have played RTS's, and you're still treating them like the former.

You must be getting sore from sitting on your pedestal so long.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

And no, if a game is DX9, it has no DX10 elements, stop making junk up.

FLAGRANTLY INCORRECT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_X#DirectX_10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support

Any title that says "Enhanced for DX10", or describes specific extensions being added by DX10. It's not very well-known openly that alot of games that are claimed to run on DX10 are actually run on DX9 with extensions from DX10 for the sake of compatibility.

Most of your arguments either fall in line with my 'enjoyment is subjective' point, or are in agreement:

-The units are pretty much more of the same from a 12 year old game....Not sure how that is going to still be entertaining in a 6 months let alone a year.

And yet the 12 year old game is still entertaining today. Odd that good games have a 'timeless' quality. Time will tell whether you're right.

Why are we still arguing with this guy again? It's like arguing with a wall that thinks we're scum/horrible excuses for gamers because we happen to have different tastes than it.

I enjoyed Dawn of War. I enjoy Starcraft 2. OMFG OH NO

It's useless.

Unfortunately, our points are moot because he's yelling the loudest. That's how arguments work, right?

 

[abija]

Fact is this game could have easily been released 5 years ago as it shows no innovation etc.

This shows again that you have no idea what it takes to perfect something. Some games bring lots of features, others keep a basic set and make them work extremely well, tested over and over again and changes are made to improve it's flow.

How is the game good? On what arbitrary scale are you measuring 'good' on? Because you sure as hell are not comparing it to other modern, successful RTS'. Go go ignorance.

Has really well thought out and fun units, a lot of depth, balanced and polished for extended time, good graphics and excellent ergonomics.

SC2 is DX9, ergo it's sh*t PC graphics. If you were a proper PC gamer, you'd know this. It's a shame that you have a DX11 card and certainly have no idea what constitutes good graphics as being a technical element, it's very easy to categorise.

No, graphics can be great even with older tools. Gamers don't care about the technical element just the final result. Coders and game devs might care, but the main focus of a RTS engine is certainly not the renderer. Not to mention the effects aren't anything to sneeze at for a RTS(soft particles, true hdr, translucent shadows, parallax mapping, volumetric materials etc). It's not cutting edge but it looks good and fits the gameplay perfectly.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

Wow learn how DX works. You said a game can use hybrid DX - a game will only ever run in one DX mode. Take the latest AvP. When you start it up you have the option of either DX9 or DX11. You can't choose 9 then some parts of 11. You can't mix DX as you claim.

For all your talk of ignorance, you really are showing that you enjoy not knowing what you are talking about.

A significant amount of DX10 titles don't actually fully use the DX10 environment. They use the DX9 environment with tweaks from DX10. This is not a 'choose 9 then some parts of [other]' on the side of the user, this is a performance choice made by the developer for 'high' graphics settings.

Examples:
Lost Planet: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6171326/index.html
Bioshock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock#Game_engine
EVE: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=323

These are just three of the games from the list that I gave you that run in DX10, but don't use the entire DX10 system. Lost Planet for example used the DX10 engine to "increase stream output", and use the DX10 shadow features. They label the game as running in DX10, but is running DX9 in a DX10 shell. Very few games run completely natively in DX10.

Can't you see your utter, utter ignorance? If you do not compare something to something else, your opinion is utterly worthless.
The 12 year old game seems to be entertaining for people who have not played modern, successful RTS'.

Most of the people here have played other 'modern, successful RTS'', and still liked SC2. You don't like it, and power to you. Other people liking it doesn't mean you get to be all frowny when kids get invited to your clubhouse, a la indie music fan comments made earlier.

What I'm saying is that claiming it is a great RTS is utter bullsh*t because to make such a claim you have to explain why it's more enjoyable then the other RTS' out there and due to not having played them, you can't.

Incorrect. I can claim that it is a great RTS because I have enjoyed playing it, and it is an RTS. I can by no means say that it is the best RTS because of the reasons that you have given. You will notice that I have not made such claims, and neither has anybody else here. The people that have said they liked the game better than other RTS's are people that have played other RTS's. It seems like you're intentionally lumping the two groups together because of your stubbornness.

If someone goes and watches Starlight Express and then claims it's the best musical ever, after never having seen any other musical, the man is ignorant no? Or reads Twilight and claims it's the best novel ever because he simply hasn't read many other books.

Again, we're not saying that Starcraft 2 is the best RTS that has ever existed. Your point is moot.

Fact is you can say SC2 is great. But compared to what? Pong? C&C? Supreme Commander? If you don't compare it to the competition, your opinion is utterly, utterly worthless and your education system has failed you if you do not realise that.

SC2 is great. I have enjoyed it during the time I have played it. It didn't bore me, was challenging for me - an average RTS player - and was graphically pleasing. It did many things that a good game should do, not specifically a good RTS. Your persistent comparisons to other RTS's does not make it any worse of a game; it just means that in your opinion, other RTS's were more fun than it. I appreciate your tastes as a gamer, but your attitude is quite toxic.

 

[abija]

Well thought out & fun units compared to...? Pac man? What scale you figuring it out they are well thought out?
Depth compared to? A puddle? Bioshock? Total War?.....You've just said a load of meaningless statements unless you compare them to something.

With other RTS games ofc. Can you point problems to them? Cause sure as hell for me every unit seems to have a well defined place and none of the races seem to lack anything atm.
As for the depth, there are a lot of options and possibilities because every little thing in this game matters. Even the tiniest of upgrades can change the outcome of a fight.

Balanced? Dubious but I've yet to play the game enough to really comment (need at least a month to understand balance I'd say).

Oh, but you can comment on it's depth right?

Polished in what way? You're just saying a bunch of adjectives and not backing it up.

Did you meet any serious in game bug? Did you notice anything that looks or feels even remotely wrong or out of place?

How on earth can graphics be good with old graphics? Really? Low res textures and low polygons look good....Yeah...how? Don't mix artstyle with graphics.

First of all get your shit straight. Graphics = the sum of renderer and content.
Also, the textures are definitely not low quality in this game and the number of polygons is fine for the standard camera. Not like DoW2 for example (and other games with variable camera) doesn't "lod" the shit out of it's models in standard view, bringing them to a similar level. Blizzard decided it looks better if they go for a low poly model carefully done instead of relying on lod.

Gamers DO care about the technical element as, believe it or not, it has a large result on the performance and quality of the game. A game which looks photorealisitc is going to be far more immersive than a cell shaded game ran at 800x600 with no AA...

And how many photo realistic RTS games have you played? And don't even dare to say DoW2, the closest it gets to photo realistic is the environment which funny enough is not that different from what you get in SC2.

But this is all digression. SC2 = DX9 and therefore is not graphically impressive when compared to other PC games.

For me it's tied with DoW2 and better than anything else on the market so far.
Btw, remember when I asked you to give examples of DX10/11 effects that would seriously improve the visual appearance of SC2? How many you gave, ZERO?

How does the art style suit the graphics? The gritty cutscenes looks a world apart from the plastic, child-safe, clean terran buildings....

I said it fits the gameplay and I never referred to the cutscenes in any of these arguments.

 

[metalhead467]

And Funk was saying that as someone who HAD played other RTSes.

And again. It's all a matter of PERSONAL OPINION.

Why do you fucking CARE if people like different things than you?

The only reason we're still arguing with you is because you keep insulting us and strawmanning us as horrible gamers!

 

[MrHero17]

Hey Mazty, what other RTS's since SC:BW came out were comparable to SC in terms of how the gameplay was structured and functioned?