Failure. Now, before you start flaming, realize that this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

So why? Because for a futurist war game with alien races, plasma technology, huge ass space battleships, and so on, the game looks more cartoony than warcraft 3. Warcraft 3 had a right to look the way it did: it was more fable fiction than "realistic" science fiction. Everything looks like it was made with tubes or legos than actually looking like units. I might even venture to say Army Men RTS was more visually appealing. And all they had was color-coded (one color) plastic men. And visually appealing != lots of crap flying around all over the place and != every inch of a unit has to be doing something and... yeah. The terrain supply depo looks like an ez bake oven, ffs. Look at the turrent's rockets or the ships propulsion fire... it's just... sad?

And while I'm at it, on practically the same level, this might as well as be some type of official war3 mod. Nothing new. Different units with different abilities. Instead of "spell o' firey death" we have "technology o' massive lasers". Still the same old basic supply system... same resource system... can't we try to invent something new? Or even take something someone has already done in another rts and improve on it? How about units don't just pop out of thin air and you have to manage a growing civilization? Or metal, fuel, glass, etc doesn't just come from minerals and some strange fumes coming out of the ground and one peon doesn't get to mine them all... you have to build transport tunnels and what not? How about something like Battalion wars (and a few other games) where not only is there the entire RTS system, you can take control of a unit and command it like a FPS. Micromanage that unit at it's finest: dodge those rockets. I don't know... SOMETHING. Milk the cow for what it's worth, I guess.

And does every unit have to have a special ability and more? Flying rocket men that plant bombs? I hope to god we have some type of plasma shield dome we can build over our bases.

Yeah I'm going to buy sc2, yeah I'm probably going to enjoy it like hell... but I wanted something sexy. Not like this.

I don't see in any way how SC2 looks cartoony.

Blizzard will probably fix the plactic looking units.
Also, I think we have enough resources. Minerals, gas, yellow minerals, and supply are enough.

Around the middle of the speech I think you're being too realistic. Yes, space minerals don't provide everything needed for a galactic war, but we need a standard resource. SC2 can't have SCV's gathering minerals, gas, glass, metal, plasma, and so on.

Starcraft 2 was made to be an RTS game, it is possible to put in a FPS element but it will dull the RTS feel a bit. Blizzard wants players to buy SC2 and enjoy every bit of RTS gaming they can get out of it.

Finally, blizz can't please everyone. So try to enjoy your "Flying Rocket Men" a bit more.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2007, 12:18 pm by FlyingHat.

Personally, I'm pleased that Blizzard isn't trying to reinvent multiple aspects of the genre. It's still recognizable as StarCraft (according to people who played the demo at BlizzCon at least). As I see things going right now it appears that Blizzard is trying to diversify the game as much as possible without making it seem a different game, probably so they don't scare away the purist fans who are the root of StarCraft's continued popularity but not be criticized for just making StarCraft 3D (the way StarCraft was originally "WarCraft II in space").

As for your gripe about special abilities, I agree that some appear a bit over the top and some are ripped from other games (CnC and WCIII...). I don't think the graphics are too cartoonish, I think the style allows the units to stand out enough to be instantly recognizable; more realistic looking units might interfere with that. I just wish every unit didn't have a "pew pew" laser. T_T Large missiles are significantly more manly and would accentuate the rough feeling of the battles (if that makes sense...?). "Pew pew" lasers feel as if they should remain in Star Wars.

~Ayra

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2007, 3:05 pm by Ayra.

i agree with IP on sometings, the longbolts ( if their stilled called that in sc2) look pathetic and so do the ghosts. they made ghosts look liek they carry a rail gun but then again thats the problem with 3d =/ blizz should of used the "realisticness" of diablo or somehting but miniturized for massunit wars.Blizzard isnt all to blame tho cuz like look at the bc it looks gay (imo) but to get its true hammer head look they would of hade to make it longer and i guess that wouldve killed the game with super big units and what not

I think the spells is great tho becuz it might not be soo good for u in p1 mode but it will be great for the UMS community

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2007, 4:16 pm by MadZombie.

Well with the recent innovation of modern game technology you have to see that SCII is like 10 years from SCI so of course everything will be different. As you can see the campaigns are complicated and we wont get that old classign style game that'd abe expected of us. Anyways expect complications... BW was released in 1998, SCII 's going out in 2008

I'm not complaining that it's "different"... I'm complain that it all feels the same and it just looks more unrealistic than ever. SCI looks better than SC2. I understand that being 3D makes things more difficult on the art side... but c'mon... The banshee is a couple blocks with 3 fans attached to it. The tank = a long rectangular stick for a cannon on top of some more blocks. Yeah, sure, "it's not done, they can fix it." Hopefully that's the case.

They could have non-melee/campaign spells attached to each unit as they have extra units available to ums:


The only thing I really seemed to like is the Jungle terrain... for what it is (not sexy realistic terrain). The other terrains look bland and boring.

I also agree with IP in some cases, yes the ghost looks retarded, and yes maybe moving photon canons around your base is kinda cheap, but hey, its all going to be counter balanced. The real problem here will be the creep that the zerg produce. Can you imagine how it would look? I think i do, think of Warcraft 3's blight, now turn it purple, the end. And also, you must know that zerg buildings are organic (LIVING) they must move in some way, what if blizzard makes it look like starcraft alpha (seriously, go to starcraft legacy and look up the evolution of starcraft and you will see) However, Starcraft 2's Supply Depot looking like a EZ BaKe OveN, no way, its cool! We once dreamed of a wall of supply depots, so we stacked them, now, screw stacking, we have one that moves! Same with protoss, once we dreamed of walling people with cannons, then we did it, now, we just need like 5 cannons and a crap load of pylons, and we rule! (Cannon Hit N RuN)

starcrat didn't do anything new the first time either, they did a little bit of what everyone else was doing to PERFECTION. No other company could make a 2D RTS title like SC so the went back to the drawing board and came up with 3D.

I think that's what they are doing here. They are going to make the defining 3D RTS. Afterwards, the other companies will give up and take a new route in the RTS genre. Like say the first MMORTS(don't ask me how)

I personally felt that was what blizzard was up to all this time to warrant such a delay. I'd rather them create a new RTS sub-genre, but then they wouldn't b blizzard.

wait what? the first massively multiplayer online real time stragety game? isnt that what starcraft was? o.O

Truly this isn't the time to discuss this its in alpha for god sakes lol.I mean if gets in beta and the 3d graphics haven't hardly changed thats when we can start going ok blizzard our sc isn't sc anymore .

I'm 100% with IP.

Looks on a lot of units are horribly cartoony. Since I have to buy a new video card for it anyways, why not give me GOOD graphics? Visually, SC2 has failed. Balancewise...it's ok but I dislike how they're going about it. Giving the Terrans a gay Mechwarrior was amongst the worst I have seen to date.

I am as a whole, very dissapointed by Blizzard in a lot of areas.

Actually I think they need to make the lasers more explosive and much bigger(Like the hugeass units in Iskatumesk's ITAS mod).
Humanity can't stick with bullets forever !

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2007, 12:14 am by FlyingHat.

I believe SC II is going in a good direction. The Graphics in SC II seems to be like Wc3; though in my opinion I believe thats a good thing. Starcraft was never intended to be a game focused towards visual designs. The Game was suppose to be focused heavily on Gameplay, which it did. Starcraft II is no different. Blizzard also have alot of time in their hands for developing the game; though they SC II may be already playable, it still haven't reached into Alpha stage yet and it won't be for awhile.
The ONLY THING i'm concerned about SC II is if it will have SC I Sprite Properties. Bassically Every unit in SC I is a Sprite and they contains properties of a sprite. One of the Sprites properties in SC I is uniformal position. This is when you group your soldiers to attack move and they formed themselves in a uniformal group, thus it was what help created complex microing: such as the Medic wall and the the Vulture Dash. In Starcraft II it appears units have a certain formation that they follow when you select them, and if it remains so perhaps the map won't be too focused on microing skills any longer.
This is ONLY ONE of the Properties of SC Sprites.

I think, scII looks not as much cartooney, like it probably just seem's that way because it's 3D, when I look at the gameplay trailor, i see the same graphic's as I did in scbw Just 3D, and sence they have to add more color maybe thaz affecting what your seeing I don't know, im not an artist, but keep in mind, they always can make a sc3 hehehe

It looks like they are focusing on (crappy) visuals when pixels are flying everywhere... in circles... in lines... bouncing around with different colors...
I agree... but it doesn't sound like they are just using placements for units, they are defining their art now.

Units are cartoony, agreed. Not all of them, many of them are fine, but a few are. Hopefully, this will be fixed.

As for the other complaints, I think that sticking with the same basic mechanics and resources was a good move, as why mess too much with perfection? Too many new mechanics and it could be far more easily fucked up.

I agree with isolatedpurity 100%. Looking at the new SC almost made me puke, those stupid cartoony ass graphics are disqusting. Not only that but everything is now exagerated (like the HUGE marine guns) The graphics IMO are horrible. I think blizzard should have just made a really really state of the art 2D game with amazing TRIPPY graphics like the old game. I think the old SC tried very hard NOT to be cartoony and to look as cool and sci-fi as possible. The new sc looks like a freakin kids game, but set in the ultra cool universe of SC... There is nothing desireable to me about the graphics of the game. I don't understand why all videogames are trying to go this way, I know they could have made a much cooler and interesting visual experience for Starcraft 2, quite frankly, the graphics suck so bad that if blizz doesnt overhaul the engine completely I'm simply not going to buy it.

Oh yeah, in regaurds to a MMORTS, I have designed quite a few in my head, if they used simpler graphics, it could be made where there were many different planets (the SC universe is perfect for such a game) where different factions or clans were in controll of whatever they took over, you could launch attacks on different factions, planets, moons, systems, whatever it would be awsome. The problem with video game innovation is that all the rich nerds who get the awsome jobs of designing the games are stupid capitalists who either have no imagination, or just want to turn a profit. Seriously, the only ones withthe really cool jobs are the CEO's sons or somthing.

Blizzard doesn't like crisp graphics, though cartoony graphics go well with fantasy settings, like WarCraft. In the end, it's harder to get good art design than good graphics, and Blizzard is more than capable of getting good art design. I mean, that's why the graphics on Twilight Princess are enjoyable, even though the resolution is low and things like antialiasing leave a lot to be desired. I don't know what these new super units (Thor, Mothership, etc.) will mean for the game, but it sounds like Blizzard is taking elements from some newer titles while keeping the chemistry of finite resources alive. That's what I liked about Company of Heroes though - the game forced you to rush the map for resources instead of base building, and I can't wait for World in Conflict to come out with what I understand to be a complete lack of base building whatsoever. Blizzard is just trying to satisfy both the rabid fanboys and everyone who says they don't want another StarCraft 1 at the same time.

If the guys at blizzard can get good artists, I dont see why they cant make an awsome 2D game since in 2D all the graphics and sprites are artwork. I'm so sick of corporations sticking with the status quo. Blizzard has failed us.

Also cartoony graphics RUIN fantasy settings, I'd much rather play a fantasy game with awsome graphics than stupid cartoon characters...