How does StarCraft 2's graphics compare to other RTS games? (image heavy)

6 actually. It's because I make insightful and good posts.

You have yet to show an iota of of evidence contradictory to anything I said. Just saying that I am wrong without giving reasons or proof is not how a good argument is formed.

 

MarineCorp: Speaking of not making sense, I was not able to figure out what that PS said. Something about paragon not making sense, that was all could glean.

paragon: It annoys people when you argue something just for the sake of proving that you're right. Their fantasies will increase hype, any maybe sell more games... or something, just let them think what they will. At any rate, you're not going to make a dent (no, not even a dent) on the skewed views people will hold about this game. Pick your battles, stuff that isn't so subjective, and remember that arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics....

 

If we didn't have respectable whiners like Paragon complaining about every inch of the games that's being developed as we speak, they would suck. It's called feedback, a really cool word seeing as it is also a DA ability from SC1 that deals damage equal to Energy level of the target caster. Awesome, innit?

And even though I don't particularly approve of Paragons style of complaining, he's at least right in what he says. Starcraft 2 doesn't look as good as the RTS games we got today... but here's the thing also - It's not supposed to...

 

I think he meant top quality graphics alone don't make a good game. Many FF fans consider Final Fantasy IV and VI superior to the recent FFs, and those games were released on the SNES. I personally prefer Star Ocean 3 over any FF due its gameplay; I enjoyed the game and put far more hours into that game than any other FF I've laid my hands on. Good graphics certainly contribute to a greater overall experience, but alone they can't sustain a good game.

The PS3 is considered a current generation console now, and as a gaming console the hardware is optimised for gaming. Even so, games released on both consoles and PCs look better on high-end PCs, because the latest graphics cards are able to handle more than the ageing graphics cards of consoles. Crysis is coming out very soon -- assuming there are no delays -- and I highly doubt console games will "own" that.

 

yes they can. whats the disc crisis is using by the way?..dvd. heheh.

what are high end pcs? anyway current or next gen consoles (ps3 xbox 360) clearly owns pc games in terms of graphics. the pc needs the 1gig video card game requirement before it can compete against this uber consoles. most pc games today are comparable to the ps2 only. hahah.

 

yes actually. lmao.


*edit* Zera I cant believe you said that. Look at R6: Vegas. Look at Company of Heroes. Look at Call of Duty 2 (which looks the exact same on a non-HD xbox 360 as it does on my shitty p4 with 2.4 ghz and 1 gig of ram.)

Computer will always allow for more performance because it has more upgradeable options. The only upgrades for the consoles is maybe more memory capacity, and thats it. My new computer which is gonna cost me 3200 has a quadcore processor (thats 4 different processors all working to load things faster, each at 2.4 ghz.) 2 gigs of ram, a 756mb Nvidia 7800 3d card, that right there beats the shit out of the xbox360 and even the ps3. So dont tell me consoles rock comps on graphics thats the silliest thing i've ever heard.

 

The majority of PC owners have yet to own blu-ray or HD DVD drives, and besides, the capacity of a DVD has no real bearing on the quality of the graphics of a game as of yet. Crysis is released next month, and those graphics are easily comparable to any of the console games with top quality graphics (and they aren't even going to be released this year).

Any game released on consoles as well as PCs look better on high-end PCs. Do you really think a PS2 could handle a game like Oblivion? Oblivion is on the PS3 and Xbox 360 too. Real-time rendering of a human head using current top-end graphics cards: http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_humanhead_home.html

 

haha I don't really have much to say anymore after reading six pages of arguments. But really...

Can you have 200-400 (average of a multiplayer game i'm guessing) units at the same time in Company of Heroes or the other games you have listed? Yes, Company of Heroes and those other games you stated have all those graphical features. However, you are kinda comparing apples to oranges here. I'll say this: Starcraft 2's graphics we seen are unparalleled to what we seen before with the amount of units displayed at the same time. In my opinion, it is definetly a big step up. In addition, they are making it for a wide range of computers too so it'll look great for even the budget computers.

 

ok i will make it more clearer
I'm not saying that you're not right all i'm trying to say is that you are trying to make things sense that is all not saying you're wrong or anything

Your power level is 7 now ^_^

 

i'm still not following you.

and now it's back to 6 because markus power downed me because he didn't like the choices for the poll... "yes" or "no"...

 

Starcraft may not be as detailed or realistic as other games but I like the style it has minus the bright colors. Looking at the pictures you showed Starcraft really sticks out from the other ones.

Paragon you seem really aggressive in your posts. I am sorry if I made you mad DON"T HURT ME. I an new to this stuff.

Edit: If we are to assume that the picture under the name is who you actually are then Itsmyship must be Leonidas!

 

Hey welcome to the forums pajamasalad! Don't let the other members intimidate you. Enjoy, post your thoughts, and have fun!

 

especially paragon ;D

 

You seem to be forgetting about a race we haven't really seen yet. You can't realy state: "The graphics will remain the same" before seeing those guys.

 

They're still running off the same engine so if there is any improvement, it wouldn't be drastic.

 

Hell no! right now there are several games that can beat starcraft 2 in graphics, but it´s not done yet, we haven´t seen if they will implement something with direct x 10, and the first pictures are all from the crappiest position you could expect to show graphics, change the angle of the camera, make zoom, and THEN take a picture so we can compare graphics also the style of the models is just too different, terran are humans, and still they look diferent from say soldiers from c&c 3, they are like anime against comic, just different, what i think is cool is the "feeling" that each specific feature, lights shadows, maps etc.

 

@Matriarch - Quoting myself from the post before the post that you quoted

 

Imo the problem wyth current games is the graphics :/
developert want the game to look real or way too real and don't focus on gameplay, the efect f it is that a game from let's say 8 years a go you neede over 15h to finish it, and now most of the games have max 10h of playtime (single player time only) for me it's just lame :/

 

Sadly for you, CoH and WiC are both amazing games in terms of gameplay. So your argument is lost one them

Tie Fighter had 18 battles with 6-8 missions each with each mission taking about 30-60 minutes. For those who don't want to do that math. That's around 94.5 hours. Granted it only had single player. I beat it without cheats 3 or 4 times. While it did have super advanced polygonal graphics for it's time (1995) I got it in 1997.
It is #9 on IGNs top 100 games. StarCraft is #7. Super Mario Bros for NES is #1

http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html