Things we don't like in Starcraft2

Yes, I meant insectoids, not insects. I was thinking about insectoids, but wrote insects.

My bad ...

 

We're talking purely aesthetics here.

 

The zerg have an insectoid culture, that is as far as i would go calling them insects.

Although i agree that the new protoss designs have lost some of their original simplicity, i know blizzard wants to show off greater detail and new art styles but honestly, the ancient, resistant to change race is not the one you should change the looks off (talking about the returning buildings and units here) especially considering all the buildings are coming from somewhere else, being reused.

Plus zealots should not have their blades out while they move, they should be sheathed allowing them to walk with power and not look like they are preforming a ballet with your micro, also the attack should be the psi blade punch that screams awesome instead of swinging.

 

In my opinion the new Protoss design is far superior to the old design. It's simply so much more refined now, whereas earlier, it was just... Awful. Not only was each piece of concept art or portrait unrefined, but they were also different from every other piece of concept art or portrait. Seriously, you got Aldaris with some gaping hole in his face, Scouts looking as though they'd been injected with copious amounts of cake mix, and the Arbiter looking as though it's suffering from acute cerebral elephantiasis. Even the awesome portraited units looked totally different to one another.

The start of the new design came with Artanis, who was the first Protoss unit to have a 'sleek' appearance, and the rest followed suit. Seriously, Artanis was the first one to have a definitive and refined design. Why should the Protoss as a race continue looking completely different and unrefined? Granted, the current design has been tweaked yet again, but it's merely an extension from the Artanis-looking Protoss, with exaggerated features in order to unify them as a race.

As for the Zealots, it is so much more effective for them to slash instead of stab when taking into account their weapon on choice. If it was merely a regular sword or blade then yes, stabbing would be more efficient, but considering that they're using both weightless and frictionless blades, it's simply so much more efficient to slice. Having them stab would be like having Jedi's stab in their massive Jedi-duals in Star Wars. As for when they're running, that's debatable. I still would never say they look like ballerinas, but if everything that looked elegant looked like a ballerina I'd be in a bit of trouble, haha. But seriously, they look like the perfect warrior. The only reason would really be that there's no need to have them drawn while just standing and running, but surely that doesn't override the awesomeness.

 

I'm not talking about concept art, i'm comparing starcraft to starcraft 2.

If lightsabers were tied to the wielders arms and much shorter stabbing would work fine, they stabbed in starcraft and it worked looked great, you wonder why boxers punch instead os swinging their arms? You seriously never thought they could dance like ballerina's with micro? (hmm... sounds like a youtube video i could post once it's out ). I think the digitigrade zealots that just walked up, drew blades and punched you in the face was so much better.

 

Well as I'd said, it's the same with the portraits and stuff as well in StarCraft1.

And regardless of how short the blades are or how they're wielded, so long as they're weightless and frictionless, slashing will be better. The Romans were taught religiously to stab while fighting, but that was due to the fact that you only need to cut a couple inches in to land a fatal blow. Slashing strikes had a lot more to cut through, as well as being vulnerable to deflection and glancing the armour, as stabbing provides much greater pressure per square centimetre, etc. That doesn't apply to the Zealots. It's much more effective to slash and swing for them. And I think you can understand that boxing's very different, what with going for clean hits and again relying on force per square centimetre.

And since when did Zealots change to or from digitigrade?

 

Aiur was destroyed so the Protoss might as well improve the designs since the buildings were destroyed for the most part. Sure, they rebuilt on Shakuras with the same designs but I think you see my point.

Also, there's a discussion very much like this at BlizzForums.com if anyone is interested on reading that.

http://blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=22857

 

Actually I prefer the old blades of the arms and stabbing motion. Cause it was unique. Now they want to give them a sword or whatever it is and make them attack like the old SC Dark Templar. This I really don't like. Zealots are hard, strong brute killing machines. And the DT's are more sleek and graceful with their kills. I liked that difference. And it not being there is SC2 will be a bad thing for me.

 

maybe the sleek DT's will now do the stabbing thingie attack

 

Stabbing wasn't really that unique. I mean, sure, there might not be many that do it within WarCraft and some other games, but it's so common throughout any type of fighting, whether it's ancient warfare, more modern warfare what with the bayonets, fencing, boxing, etc. Zealots have one of the few weapons that allow slashing attacks to be more effective than stabbing attacks. Imagine the StarCraft2 opening, you know the one where CGI Zeratul's fighting off several Hydralisks. Now imagine if that was Zealot Fenix, or some other heroic Zealot, fighting them off, and imagine how it would look if they stood still to face each one individually and stabbed, or boxed, them instead. Which would look more natural? One of the only times that Zeratul physically stabs in that video, and for good reason, is when he's switched to using the Hydralisk's scythe, which no longer yields the advantages of the psi blade because it again relies on force per square centimetre. If he did that move with a psi blade, it wouldn't have become stuck half way though, he'd've cleave until hit hand physically hit the top of its head, preventing the blade from going in deeper.

Anyway, that's just my view. They're supposed to be elegant and skilled warriors, so there's nothing wrong with them looking graceful in combat. That, and, what with them being such skilled warriors, it's hard to explain why they'd use the least effective technique for wielding psi blades.

 

I would think they would of gotten something like a sholder plasma cannon like in the old predator movie (although i can see why DT got their blades because they can stealth.

 

Explain why it would be more effective. Not only does slashing leave you open to attacks and parries but takes longer to hit and is less precise.

on the contrary, i think the zealot fighting would look better and more natural, a stab to the head to bring down each hydralisk, it would certainly be grittier close fighting.

They're also supposed to be precise and war hardened, a stab to the brain is a much more effective method to kill than a slash. And why would slashing be more effective than stabbing for a gauntlet wielded weapon? A two handed weapon, yes slashing is effective however not so much for a wrist blade. Also, i highly doubt the blades are meant to be frictionless, they cannot cut through anything.

They would've warped out a lot of the structures to shakuras and colonies, not only that but they also have other planets with buildings to warp out.

 

True that's what logic would say but a lot of the lore behind certain buildings and units is that they could no longer make those particular things because of the destruction on Aiur.

 

I know the dragoon shrine was infested and they can't make them anymore which works fine with the purist protoss' shrine being 'defiled' but i'm sure the swarm didn't destroy every building on every inch of Aiur before they could be warped out.

 

The weapon is weightless, so is highly maneuverable and would not require a massive time to recover from each swing. The psi blades cannot be parried, as they're purely made of energy, and also cut through anything they touch, which means you'd deal much more damage swinging than you would stabbing, unlike swords, which would require a lot more effort if they were to cut as deep slashing as they would stabbing. Dual wielding means you've got a lot more covered, and, again, what with them being psi blades, they don't require a massive swing, so wouldn't necessarily take longer to hit and, in fact, strikes would be able to flow on from each other much quicker and easier. There's nothing to say that slashing would be a lot less precise, and regardless, it would hit a lot more. It goes along the same principle of twisting blades.

I don't see how punching Hydralisks that are coming at you from all angles would be more effective than slashing. Slashing flows, stabbing doesn't, and if it does, it turns into a slash. It's certainly not more natural, as it genuinely is more natural to swing. Just look at kids fighting, where they just swing their arms at whoever, amateur or tired boxers, whose punches degrade into poor hooks, anyone who's ever picked up a sword or played around with a stick. Even in WarCraft with units like the Footman or Knight. Now those are units that should stab, as it makes sense for them to, but they don't, presumably because their slashes look a lot more natural. Anyone learning any form of martial arts or boxing, anyone who fought with a sword, all of them had to be taught to stab. Taught because it's unnatural, but with the weapons they were using, weapons that rely on pressure, it's much more effective to stab.

...And a stab to the brain is a lot less effective than a slash to the head, granted we're talking about psi blades here. It's not how the weapon is wielded that determines which is more effective, but the fact that the psi blade has no weight, no friction on impact and does not rely on pressure. The blades are made of energy, not matter, so there's nothing for them to rub against or deflect off of or anything. The reason that some things wouldn't be able to be cut through would be because of the materials it's made out of.

 

Of course not. Just most of it Enough to warrant the implementations of new designs.

 

The graphics :/

reminds me wayyy to much of WC3. Although massing Rines vs Zerlings would look awosme!

 

The graphics are too WARCRAFTISH. I don't like the graphics : too fat unis, too fat structures, etc ...

 

The only thing that bothers me are the proportions and shapes when the camera is tilted at a different angle. From the default angle, everything looks great to me but (like in WarCraft III) once you start looking at the structures and units from different angles they start to look awful.

 

good view Tychus ! And on a video when you zoomed the camero on the units (Terran) you approached the battlecruiser so closely that it was horrible. Like a toy ! Like a nightmare .. As if you could take it in your hands and play with it