What's all the fuss about?

You're completely missing the point. TW looks better because it is further along.
You can't look at a finished house and compare it to a house under construction then complain the one under construction is ugly because it hasn't had time for the aesthetic touches yet and you haven't seen all of it.

 

The warp ray is still not DT themed at the official site. The marine has been updated from the model used at the official site. Long story short, don't trust the official site about anything.

Alpha stage can mean anything, depending on the company producing the software. I know a game that's been in alpha for about a year now and it has next to no bugs at all.

When SC2 goes final, you can compare it to other games. Until then, don't make SC2 look bad.

 

Do people from Blizzard view this forum, are there any members here? I would like to write them a very long letter but I don't want to bother if nobody official will see it.

 

Your logic if flawed. Period. You're taking a finished game and comparing it to a game still in development, still at least a year from release, and in the graphics department, no less. Ignore the fact that SC2's in limited internal alpha, ignore the fact that SC2's gameplay is probably superior to TW's at this point already, and yeah, you have a great argument. Stop wasting our time, stop wasting your time, and don't even try to waste Blizzard's time because there's enough idiots complaining on their official forums as it is.

 

Lurkers made a strong point about Sc2. Read the unit description.

Take a look at all the Sc2 units. They all have their own identity. They all have their own distinctive roles. In fact, every single SC2 unit has a deep lore behind it. That is the biggest difference when you compare Sc2 to other RTS games and is why Sc1 was so successful.

SC1 was a very easy and simple game to learn but extremely difficult to master. (Look at how competitive the Koreans are in Sc1). From the build orders, to the macro + micromanagements in the game. Every single game will be extremely different from the other. During battle, you almost never see 1 unit army. You have to mix them and control them to its maximum potential. Sc2 is going to continue and build on this concept.

Another thing that you are looking in SC2 that other company doesn't have is its constant support. Even after SC was released, Blizzard continuously patched the game to balance out the game. Blizzard has been patching SC for 10 years. This shows how much Blizzard cares about its games even though the game could be very old. Expect SC2 to receive the constant update with patches if the game isn't balanced. Look at every other RTS out in the market. Most of them are not even balanced at all. Heck, the companies creating those RTS are rarely patching the game. What does that turn out? An imbalanced game that isn't going to get patched continuously and players driven away from it because of the lack of support.

As for the graphics, Blizzard has stated many times that they don't make a game just for its graphic. They want to make a game that most people can afford to play on. From the looks of it, SC2 has very impressive graphics considering that Blizzard's main focus isn't about graphics. You should compare the screenshots from the announcement of SC2 to the newest screenshots. There's a huge difference. Not only that, this game is still in alpha stage. I suggest that you take a look at SC1's alpha, beta stages. If you haven't, then go take a look over here:
http://scunite.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/starcraft-alpha-version/

You can see that even in beta, the game has changed dramatically (Why doesn't the Zerg buildings need creeps to be build on? LOL). Now take a look at the alpha screenshots. It's a whole different engine.

So my conclusion about graphic, is that if you want eye candies and the best graphic out there, then I don't think Sc2 is the game for you. You might as well go play a FPS game because those are the type of games that are better suited with good graphics. RTS games aren't about graphics. It's about the gameplay and the balance between the different factions. But to be honest with you, SC2's graphic (even though Blizzard's intention of creating SC2 isn't about high ended graphic), has been pretty impressive to me. On top of that, Karune stated in the recent Q&A that they are continuously updating the unit models and tweaking the engine that the game is visually different every single week. So what you see now will be completely different by the time SC2 hits the shelves.

 

Many things you said are not related to anything I said or this topic, you are rationalizing.
Also graphics/gameplay is a very retarded false division.
Graphics and animation sustain and expand the gameplay.
And there is such thing called video settings in every game so everyone can tweak it according to their computer, you don't make much sense.

It is also not wise to invoke the "alpha stage" card, it is very clear what the concept decision is and the scope of terrain, units and physics will be. Pretty much non-existent and lacking compared to today's standard.

 

Did Blizzard write a letter to you stating their aims and what units and the physics will be like? If not then there's nothing you can base your opinion on, so you're running around in circles for no apparent reason, poor you.

 

Okay, Jack, well now you're either just going for attention or you're an idiot.

You can't ignore the "alpha card" as you put it. If you look at the screenshot I posted from C&C BETA (notice the beta and not alpha, which is the stage that SC2 is in) you can tell that the units are very undeveloped and, well, outdated. The units are built using modeled skins, not polygons as units in SC2 are.

The games are approached from two completely separate engines. So don't talk anymore about graphical ideas. Unless you can start producing statistics and data about the conversion between the pixel ratios of the terrains of the two games, and other data regarding digital conversion, shut the <insert word here> up about the graphics. Now. Or I will lock this thread AND give you some power downs.

Another point that you've failed to counter is the fact that SC2 has three distinct races, not three linear factions like C&C or WC3. Blizzard has already delved into the realm of that with WarCraft. StarCraft is about three balances races, something EA would never attempt because they couldn't develop a balanced game of Atari pong if their life depended on it. I've never seen anything quality come out of EA and I don't expect I ever will.

You also ignored the fact that I demonstrated that I have played C&C (just as your have) and I don't share your same opinions. We're not fanboys here, we're simply letting you know that your views are irrational. Of course, we do like the game, and we've contributed heavily to ideas surrounding its development or else we wouldn't be here.

I've played this game (SC2) and I've played C&C3. There is no comparison in quality. It highly favors SC2 even in its alpha stage. I would buy and play SC2 in its current stage and enjoy it longer than I did C&C3 which held my attention for MAYBE a week.

 

Boy I must be impatient then, I would've played Starcraft 2 in the version from the 20 minute Protoss gameplay video, the first one shown.

 

Maybe you are right to not form any harsh judgements this early on but I've been tracking a lot of games a lot of time and I was always right about everything, like Supreme Commander, Space Siege, Silverfall, I can always tell and that "alpha" card never turned out to be meaningful.

You would know that if you had some experience.

 

That's because other companies don't expose their alpha. C&C3 was never shown in alpha, only late beta, which is when the screenshot I posted was taken, and it looks terrible compared to the final product.

Again, Supreme Commander was only shown in beta stage, not alpha, and even then it was just high-gloss screen shots. Not to mention that the game sucked butt.

SC2 is in very early development. It hasn't even hit beta yet. I wouldn't make any judgment calls on it until that happens.

And I do have experience, probably more than you. Definitely more experience in SC2 and probably C&C

 

JackBlack, I don't know what is the point of your posts.

Are you coming in here just for a flame war?
It seems like you want others to convince you that SC2 is good but you have already made up your mind that you will never give SC2 a chance. If that's the case, then there's no point in continuing with this topic. Because we have basically discussed why we think SC2 is a superior game compared to other RTS games.

And sorry, I think we have different opinions about the gameplay/graphic part. You seem to be the type of person that just wants to play a game because of good graphics and decent gameplay. Oh yea, those type of games probably only last your average gamer from a week to a month. Well, let me educate you what SC fans are all about. We don't really care about the graphics as long as it's decent enough. What we care about is the gameplay. What do I mean by gameplay? We ask our selfs these simple questions.

1. Is the game that we are playing going to have full support even after it's released? (Support)
2. Will the game still be very fun say 5 years from now? (Longevity)
3. Will we come back to this game even though we have quit this game before and moved on to a new one?(Replayability)

If we don't answer YES for all these criterias, then we will not like the game. Take a look at all the Blizzard game thats released. Ask yourself why is it so successful? It sure hell isn't the graphics. It's the gameplay. I have tried countless of games before including the ones that you mentioned (C&C, Supreme Commander, etc..) and it only lasts me for a week or so. Those games fail in all the 3 critierias that i have listed. That's why there isn't as much people playing the game compared to the Blizzard games. Because Blizzard SUPPORT their games. Their games has very high replayability and longevity.

 

Btw, I don't understand how you or anyone can say that you don't like Tiberium Wars, can you say what you don't like, it is really one of the best RTS games so far, superbly executed on every level. The only thing I didn't like was that mission selection faking in global theater in which order of selection had no impact on anything or that meaningless medal faking which also didn't have any impact on gameplay. It looked like they wanted to make something out of it but they gave up.
Graphics really do seem far better than anything Starcraft 2 can offer.

But what I'm really excited about in Starcraft 2 is semi open-ended SP experience with non-linear mission branching. This had to be done a long time ago, I always hated how in RTS you are just led through missions. I almost gave up on RTS because of that until Dark Crusade came, being a first step in that direction.
Dawn of War 2 will also be like SC2 in this aspect with the added bonus of unit veterancy, advanced physics, garrisoning, terrain usage, support powers, RPG development of characters and their persistency through campaign and all the other things that will make Starcraft 2 to be an inferior outdated RTS.

 

What I don't like about C&C was that every game consist of unit spamming. There really isn't any strategy behind the game. The game just overall, feels very shallow.

Dawn of War 2 however, does looks like a decent game. But the game is targeted at a different audience. Sc2 is been targeted as a competitive RTS game. Dawn of War 2 will be however,will be targeting at more of a casual RTS gamers that would like to pick up the game just because of it's good graphics and features.

However, if Dawn of War 2 does anything similar to Dawn of War 1, then it will also receive a big FAT F. Dawn of War 1 with it's constant expansion pack basically ruined the whole game. Way too many races to balance. The game basically become unplayable because of all the balance issues. Hopefully, Dawn of War 2 fixes on that.

I don't know if I am right or wrong, but based on all your posts, it seems like you don't really play any multiplayer games or any at all. Are you just a single player type of person? Do you play multiplayer matches? Because if you don't, then case closed. Because that is basically the reason you don't like the SC universe. You don't understand the rich history of SC when it comes to multiplayer. From reading your posts, that you play RTS with a goal to lose 0 units, you probably don't know even know what you are doing if that's the case. You will get your butt kicked if you were to go on battlenet and set your goal that you want to lose 0 units. (No offence intended). There is a strategy called sacrificing an army for the greater goods. You might want to set in a small force to attack an enemy's expansion. While the enemy responds to that, you send in your main force and hit his main base. Yea, just one of the strategy out of the thousands from SC.

So yea, I'm just wondering, do you play any multiplayer matches? Or are you just a singleplayer type of person that quits the game once you are done with the campaign?

 

I don't have a clue what you are talking about, I played with minimum number of units(of various supporting kinds) in Tiberium Wars(to gain veterancy faster) and still haven't lost a single unit. I guess if you are extremely incompetent player you would set spamming as your default tactic.

I never played any multiplayer, I tried it once but it is a hollow arcadey experience devoid of any immersion, progress and enjoyment just like I suspected.

 

A game where you can use a minimum of 3 unit types out of what like 12? to trash all the levels is not a good or balanced game.

 

That might be your problem. SC1 and 2 are based around the competative play of multiplayer. Yes people want to play the single player mode, but b.net is the reason why people still play sc1 after 10 years.

That may also be the reason why you rarely lose units when playing. AI is always inferior to actual players and usually has glitches that make them unable to fight properly.

 

I wish I had seen this topic earlier so I could wheigh in on it before the bickering got to heated.

First off, I own both C&C 3 and Kane's Wrath, I enjoyed playing both games especiallyu Kane's Wrath because it had 2 of the features I actually like about some of EA's games, First it had options for several subraces which in my opinion helps to make up for the lack of major distinction from the 3 main races, also it had a decent Gloabal Conquest system even though it got boring after a few rounds. And that last comment is something I have discovered with a lot of EA games TW and Kane's Wrath included, once you have finished the campaign they get boring after playing a few rounds of multiplayer especially if a person doesn't feel like playing against other random players on the net.

The replayability of Blizzard games is where they really shine, and if a person isn't into competeing on a ladder what else is there? In Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and undoubtly Starcraft 2 there was the map editor which allowed for the creation of games within a game unlike any other RTS out there, ever heard of Dota? That is proably the most famous example, personally I liked the Starcraft Lotr games (even after The Battle for Middle Earth came out).

Right now we know very little about the SC2 editor but if it's as powerful as the WC3 editor (and Blizzard has stated that it wil in fact be more powerful) you could in theory build the entire game of TW and Kane's Wrath using the editor and importing skins.

Right now in the current SC2 multiplayer a lot of things are being implemented for the sake of gameplay and balance, but they are not all that is possible, for example we know there will be no veterancy or hero system in SC2, but a person could just open up the map editor and spend a couple of hours to make a map with them, and the same thing could be said about garrisoning mobile units and staionary structures and dropping sensor pods, or creating units that can shoot accross the map with spotters etc...

As far as graphics go, like many people have said SC2 is still in alpha, but either way good graphics are al in the eye of the beholder, if you look at any of their games Blizzard doesn't like realistic graphics they want them to be a step to far out there while providing the desired feel. Also while you seemed to have only focussed on the games graphics have you checked out the campaign menu graphics or the idea of a non-linear campaign?

JackBlack you and most people so far have seemed to only focus on the multiplayer, while forgetting that sometimes a little bit of simplicity is needed for true balance, The primary difference between SC2 and TW (and other EA games) is TW gives graphics and complexity not balance, SC2 maybe be a little weaker in graphics but it offers true balance and the option for players to build a game as complex as they desire with the use of the mpa editor.

 

There you go, you have just answered the question that we all would like to know.

You never touched multiplayer so you basically don't even have any clues why SC1 was such a legendary game (Sc2 is building on that), and why the other RTS games have failed at taking over SC1 even though SC1 is 10 years old.

Play not to lose a single unit? LOL your just making yourself look really dumb out here buddy. This kind of strategy would get you no where. You would get OWNED in multiplayer. Maybe that's why you don't like to play multiplayer because you kept getting owned and think the game is shallow. Same thing applies to C&C if you want to play not to lose a unit. Try doing that against decent opponents. If that's your goal, then I'm extremely sorry to say, but you aren't going to get anything accomplished.

You are probably better suited for Wc3 because that game is all about veterancy. And it is the major reason why we SC players don't want to see returning because it just destroys the whole strategic part of the game. Oh yea, I forgot, you don't play multiplayer games at all so I guess I don't need to waste my time explaining about strategies if you never even played it before.

Yea, so I guess your just a single-player fan and in that case, there is nothing more to discuss about because you have only played half of the game.

There is no point in arguing with a person that has played only half of the game and has no idea what he is talking about. We can come back and continue on with this discussion once you actually understand the multiplayer aspect of a RTS game because from the looks of it, you really don't understand the definition of an RTS game.

 

I hate sc's original multiplayer.

In fact i prefer wc3 in all aspects compared to sc. (OPINIONAS!)

I hope you're not implying that wc3 takes no skill, i will be seriously pished.