Starcraft 2 has got too much style?

This may sound like an extremely dumb complaint, but im not complaining, im just pointing something out.
Blizzard has put a lot of emphasys (or however you write it) in the style of thair games, like artwork and unit concept an all that. Its like they focus too much on the game's coolnes, like "blizzard style is LEET an d RoX!". But ive seen that there are awesome games like Halo, in which the units dont have such an extreme quality in terms of design (the scorpion tank is a brick, and the human ships and soldiers look like crap, but they make the game have its own style by making units that are simple, yet have a couple of cool details.
I know im comparing two different genres (FPS and strategy), but what do you think, should games be simple and quick, or a sea of details and cartoonish looks?

 

SC graphics are simple though. Thats why everyone is complaining. Because there is no realism the are no tread marks the tanks are superrealistic. There aren't really that many details

 

One company focuses on one thing, others focus on other things. At pre-alpha Starcraft 2 is years from coming out. Most of the time games that get this much hype don't see the light of day till a couple months before it's released. (Going with the FPS genre, GoW and Halo come to mind, no real previews till a couple months early) So graphics wise, I'm not worried at all.

 

your concern is justified, i would also like to see a "darker" setting to the game

 

dude its blizz they are known for good story and concept soo why would they change something that helps them rise above others

 

At the original release of the first demo's of SC2 Blizzard said they are going to do all the things they wanted to do with SC1 that they never got a chance to. That is bound to include an upgraded sense of "style", but you can already get a feel for the gameplay being unaffected by it. I suspect those who prefer playability to style will see through the flashy graphics and just enjoy the game.

Different levels for different types of players 8)

 

I agree with Lemmy to some extent, that is, that i wouldnt mind having star craft a little scarier, with units, buildings and terrain having a little edgier, sharper,darker, more realistic, scarier theme, and units not looking as if they were just taken out of the pacage, as much as they do now.

Although i really like the way the game looks now, but there is definately room for improvement.

 

Think about this: Warcraft II had its own style, but it was with Starcraft when blizzard took the path of rugged heavy muscular looking stuff, and it reached its peak with WC III. I belive Starcraft 2's aesthetics (if that how it is written) are releated more to WC3 than to Starcraft original.

 

If starcraft2 lost it's fast-paced gameplay like warcraft3 is considered "slower" than starcraft blizzard would lose one of their best customers, korea.

 

SC2 will not be slow by any stretch of the imagination

 

Diablo had a style which I think was perfect; not overly unrealistic yet still had a very dark atmoshpere during the enitre game. Diablo was of course in part made by a sub company of blizzard but imagine a M rated starcraft or warcraft series, In my opinion that'd be sweet. If you can remember the warcraft 2 artwork in the booklet and the game, it was very gorey and realistic, now its more flashy and cartoony. I wish they had kept that feel with their newer games. Starcraft 2 seems to be a little too flashy to me, but that's just my opinion. (I'm not gore obsessed either just wish blizzard would put out some games that mirrored the amazing style of their classics).

 

I don't think it's something to be complaining about. They're trying to make the game more accessible. It's not like in World in Conflict or Company of Heroes where you need an awesome computer to run it. It's just good marketing strategy. The more people can buy it, the more money they make. And the more people we have a chance to play as well.

 

gameplay > graphics

To be honest, most of the graphically awesome games out these days bore the hell out of me, i miss the days of Nintendo and SNES, oldskool games just seemed much more fun, its that or my age (21) that is starting to drift me away from games... i dunno.

Im happy with the SC2 graphics, fits it just fine. Just hoping (which im sure it will be) the gameplay will just be as fun as the first, if not better

 

The important thing is, a game would be good if gameplay is awesome even though graphics is way simple, but much better if graphics are great as the gameplay.

 

i would love to see more diablo2-ish feel to sc2 graphics, it is a little too cartoonish, its obvious the game play is there why not make it great looking so we can all eat some delicious desert.

 

A huge worry everywhere I think. It's a 9384923 page thread on battle.net and I'm sure it's here somewhere if you search for it. Blizzard is listening, and the units are not even all out yet, it would be stupid and counteractive to focus on graphics BEFORE units and balance. The meat (i.e. content)>Flashiness. Not that I'm not a graphics whore, but I'd rather have solid game play than an unplayable game with divine graphics.

Oh, and yes, it's aesthetic.

 

Blizzard will eventually balance it out, its numbers only after all, i want the game to look good.

I mean balance than looks, but i want both overall.

 

Really, if you wanted to see something with good graphics, go watch a movie. Anyways, graphics are ALWAYS less important than gameplay. You don't buy a CD just because of its cover, so why complain about this?

 

I personally like the cartoonish feel to it. I would rather have deep, beautiful graphics compared to simpleness. The game is going to be good no matter what the graphics look like anyway. (Halo proved that)

 

as long as the units can be distinguished easily i am happy, currently i feel there's slightly too much clutter when different types of units all gather together.