QUOTE(Cheesenium @ Feb 21 2010, 12:35 PM)
Finally a good replay,after dozen of rubbish.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessag...topic_id=112958SC2 seems to be a good replay watching game.
prolly cuz we cant play the damn game and we need replays fix to curb our sc2 needs
Added on February 21, 2010, 4:21 pmQUOTE(Cheesenium @ Feb 21 2010, 12:58 PM)
I dont give a damn about SC being the ultimate competitive RTS. The gameplay hasnt changed since 1998 and it's more or less the same after 12 years while it's competitors have improved upon SC1's successful formula by leaps and bounds.Im not talking about gameplay alone,even the graphics,sound,animations feels dated.
The reason why other RTS could not achieve what SC1 have achieved is because none of all these RTS companies(im looking especially at you,Relic) could provide a good long term support as most of them dont have infinite money in their pockets. If one of those RTS companies could give the support that SC1 enjoyed,SC1 would have lost it's reign.
Besides,the money in gaming are all in the hands of the casual gamers that only care about the campaign,stomping some AI and never bother playing online. If Blizzard fail to get these people, SC2 wont be successful.
Im only interested in SC2 because i enjoyed the first one a lot. If im one of those newer generation of gamers that never touched SC1 before,i wont even bother to look at SC2 at all.
Nice,even more replays.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessag...topic_id=112991blizzard didnt have infinite money at the beginning. in fact, they started out just like everyone else: small company, and as a matter of fact, they didnt even started out for pc, they did for console, in which they *kinda* faild. (well, not many actually know about this, right?)
WoW (the ultimate blizz cashcow) didnt even came out until 5 years ago. war3/sc was way before that.
its how blizzard makes their game - strive for perfection, and the passion behind it.
one could claim how blizz would've failed sc1 if other companies didnt suck too much, but fact is they did, and blizzard didn't. cant really argue around that. now them "taking advantage" for what they've achieved from sc1 (fan whining/b****ing of "omg sc2 is so 1998") is their decision. and fans will still dig it. simple as that.
Added on February 21, 2010, 4:23 pm» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
QUOTE(Gormaz @ Feb 21 2010, 01:13 PM)
I read quite a few user reviews on various sites and the impressions so far are mixed off.
Some loved it because it's close to the SC1 and have the gameplay balance that the previous one have.
Others are kinda wondering why it took Blizz so long to come out with the game because the gameplay is just exactly the same as the first one. Sure there are new units and all, but it's limited.
Like if SC2 was not SC2 but made by another company, people would just take one look at it, say "SC1 copy with better graphics" and just leave it at that.
I think Blizz actually may have some issues because of people expectations, some want a "SC1 reloaded" with the same gameplay at the first one, with new story, some new units and some new graphisms.
Others are just wondering where was Blizz since SC1 came out because RTS gameplay has evolved a lot since then but they still seems to be struck with their old ideas (like quite a few people mention de lack of high zoom, like SC1)
Kinda like what you get when making a sequel to some old classic movie everyone love, you going to get some flak from some people no matter what
QFT this.
Added on February 21, 2010, 4:24 pmQUOTE(f4tE @ Feb 21 2010, 01:15 PM)
seems like theres a lot of negative comments on SC2.. i expected it earlier since blizzard already said its similar to the original.. maybe i wont buy the game afterall.. wait few mor months for diablo3
d3 is EARLIEST 2011, enjoy the wait lol.
Added on February 21, 2010, 4:29 pmQUOTE(Cheesenium @ Feb 21 2010, 01:25 PM)
There is one thing i would say,if you have some good replays(not people camping outside their base),SC2 is a damn fun game,even you are just watching,as there are lots of suspense and the game is much more unpredictable from other RTS.Plus with the new units that give more mobility,it's feels that SC2 is have faster pace,compared to SC1.Now,i just want to play the game myself.
The sounds,models,and art style still bugs me.It's not like RA3's cartoony kind of graphics which i love a lot. SC2 looks like a cheap online game with those big blocky WoW inspired models,lousy monotonic sounds and kinda plain environments.
Added on February 21, 2010, 1:29 pmI know one guy wont like Blizzard's approach with SC2,Activision's CEO,Bobby Kotick,as SC2 is just the opposite of what he wants.SC2 seems more like a game that wont have yearly sequels,cost a lot to make due to the long time it require,and probably casual people wont be happy.I think,whats left of the appeal of SC2 for casuals is just single player campaign and custom maps.
Nope,the delays are caused by the single player and battlenet.Mainly battlenet,i think.Blizzard started with multiplayer design first before they start doing the single player.
thats the whole competitive esport right there that you "dont care about". and thats what made sc1/war3 the game it was back then. so far im already enjoying the replays myself though i have to agree with you: turtling games are terribad. war3 fixed that by having creeping and what not (a lesson learned from sc1), however sc2 seemed to bring that back since they dont have the hero element. i hope they can really fix this as this could be detrimental to the whole esport thing they are trying to bring. i mean, who the F would want to spend over an hour looking at the big screen with 2 people simply turtling up with base defenses? :/
as for the 2nd part, lol isnt that what MOST companies do except a few certain ones like blizz themselves?
Added on February 21, 2010, 4:36 pmQUOTE(Gormaz @ Feb 21 2010, 02:23 PM)
I dont know, from the screenshots I see I don't really see where are these "awesome graphics", it's neat and all, but a little bit too much "cartoonish" for me. I would say nice graphics but not "awesome" either, but that's personal impression.
Maybe it's better to see in action with explosions and all, but the smoke trails and other small details I see on screenshots are "okey" but nothing more.
Personally I think I will be getting it anyway, I play only Single player anyway and the campains sounds pretty interesting and long.
As for "of course Blizz will not change the MP gameplay a lot" then I am just wondering why it's taking them so long to bring it out and why they waited so long to develop a sequel, just really curious. They have the money with Wow so it's not that issue, I am sure they have enough developers and co and fans have been QQing for one sequel for many years.
people complained the same for war3, and they did for WoW, then they did for sc2/diablo3 (i lold most on d3, btw). those same people PROBABLY play/will play the damn games anyways. blizzard decided on their approach, and quite frankly im with them due to:
1) rather unique (who else does this? LOL)
2) due to this, its somewhat less taxing than other games? i mean, look at their min spec requirements LOL
yes, its not ENTIRELY OMGBBQ AWESOME like the recent games (remember crysis when its out? people literally had to upgrade their pc or even buy new ones just to play) however it isnt anywhere bad at all. and yes, you really really have to play the game/see it in action personally (not crappy youtubes lol) to REALLY appreciate it. screenshots does it NO justice.
one small detail even i myself missed out that my little sister spotted: the surrounding air from the protoss archons are sorta warped/condensed, which further "amplify" their presence. hell even after her pointing out i had to zoom in and went ZOMG DETAIL LOL.
This post has been edited by Quazacolt: Feb 21 2010, 04:36 PM 
Feb 21 2010, 02:23 PM
Quote
Time to pray people~
0.0306sec
0.49
6 queries
GZIP Disabled