Character Comparison - SC1 vs SC2

[TcheQuevara]

That would be pretty sad & depressing since I picked my favorite lines from both games. :P

Good thing I never uttered such saddening words then.


About Diablo 3 being a commercial success, it was obviously because of the beautiful graphics, the hype caused by the utterly successful previous games, and the well done advertisement (including good use of virals). I don't think we can't discuss how good its gameplay is, since it's a matter of taste... but maybe we should agree that it wasn't a commercial success by its own gameplay merits. It is a good passtime but it doesn't have "it" to be a great or classic game.

Don't think that's the case with Starcraft. People fall in love with it and made a culture out of SC2 already.

[Pr0nogo]

About Diablo 3 being a commercial success, it was obviously because of the beautiful graphics

Nope.



Diablo III looks like WarCraft III with more bloom, mostly because Blizzard still can't do 3D correctly.

It is a good passtime but it doesn't have "it" to be a great or classic game.

I don't believe Diablo III is rewarding to the player at all. Things are too easy. Difficulty doesn't scale, the difficulty slider just determines how large the numbers are as opposed to making the AI intelligent and exploiting the player's weaknesses to kill him. That would be challenging and rewarding if you managed to survive. Instead, it's just a mixed bag of trial and error and boredom. That's how many ARPGs are, and Diablo III is no different.

Don't think that's the case with Starcraft. People fall in love with it and made a culture out of SC2 already.

People have made a culture out of Space Marine and Demon's Souls, and yet those games are horrible. Please tell me where the connection is from the clause 'StarCraft II is good' and the reasoning 'because people love it'. I don't see a connection.

[Quirel]

Nope.



Diablo III looks like WarCraft III with more bloom, mostly because Blizzard still can't do 3D correctly.

While I'm typing a response to the last post, I am curious as to what you consider "Correct" 3D.

[Pr0nogo]

There has not been a correct 3D game so far, because nobody (myself included) knows how to properly do 3D. Blizzard is on a very low tier as far as 3D quality goes, and as such most of their graphics are cartoon-y (see: WarCraft III, World of WarCraft, StarCraft II, Diablo III... oh, so every 3D game they've released). Some other companies have decent graphics, but proportions are almost always something that is lost in the translation from mo-cap and CGI to modeling and rigging. It's just something that is lost on game developers, because indie devs don't have the tools nor the experience and big-name devs have deadlines (and generally use inexperienced interns for all their big workloads). Blizzard might say, 'It's done when it's done', and they'll pat their marketing guy on the shoulder and say 'good job' if he purports that myth, but reality is that Activision has a deadline. They aren't afraid to pump out untested betas and unfinished games if they think it'll make a profit, and this is apparent especially with regards to abominable organisations like THQ and EA.

Perhaps a developer/publisher such as Valve would be willing to go against the grain on this one, but much of their products have also been blatantly unfinished. Not to the point where we're seeing day-one downloadable content or entire endings rewritten and reworked into the game via the very same method, but certainly unfinished and untested in some regard or another.

[phazonjunkie]

There has not been a correct 3D game so far, because nobody (myself included) knows how to properly do 3D. Blizzard is on a very low tier as far as 3D quality goes, and as such most of their graphics are cartoon-y (see: WarCraft III, World of WarCraft, StarCraft II, Diablo III... oh, so every 3D game they've released). Some other companies have decent graphics, but proportions are almost always something that is lost in the translation from mo-cap and CGI to modeling and rigging. It's just something that is lost on game developers, because indie devs don't have the tools nor the experience and big-name devs have deadlines (and generally use inexperienced interns for all their big workloads). Blizzard might say, 'It's done when it's done', and they'll pat their marketing guy on the shoulder and say 'good job' if he purports that myth, but reality is that Activision has a deadline. They aren't afraid to pump out untested betas and unfinished games if they think it'll make a profit, and this is apparent especially with regards to abominable organisations like THQ and EA.

But, if/when a company actually DOES release a 'proper' 3D game what then? Would that really be a good thing in the end?

[DarthYam]

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/93964...rty/index.html
Computer and Video Games 9.3/10[92]
Eurogamer 9/10[93]
Game Informer 10/10[94]
Game Revolution B+[95]
GameSpot 9.5/10[96]
GameSpy [97]
GamesRadar 10/10[98]
GameTrailers 9.5/10[99]
IGN 9/10[100]
VideoGamer.com 10/10[101]
X-Play [102]
Joystiq [103]
Giant Bomb [104]
NZGamer.com 9.8/10[105]
Softpedia 9/10[106]

Pretty much every single reviewer that is mainstream praised it, and most members on the board (yes even those who think the story lame) feel that graphically it is superior. You are not producing evidence to back up your points. You are simply stating shit and opinion as if it were fact (like those dipshits at Dogsbite or honestreporting). Don't simply state "it sucks because I say so you little dipshit

[Visions of Khas]

Huh. Having the two Zeratuls' voices juxtaposed like that makes me realize the new voice actor isn't too far off in his impersonation of the first. He just needs to speak faster and add a bit of "bite" to his voice, and we're all good!

I cringed at "James" echoing around though, but that wasn't the VA's fault.

[Gradius]

I cringed at "James" echoing around though, but that wasn't the VA's fault.

Why? That's the best part. It's like he's actually talking in your head.

[solidsamurai]

You can say that about basically everything in SCII. The engine is cobbled together by interns and not processed or compressed well at all, and so we have to deal with the fact that SCII runs horribly on top of the line PCs (think WarCraft III but to a far greater extent), just so we can see some shitty animations and bloom. StarCraft II is very ugly. Like, Borderlands ugly.

I'm not gonna pretend I understand anything about computer animating, but you sound like I agree with you.

Blizz is pretty lazy in regards to that sorta thing. I also heard the graphics for diablo 3 were dated - and again, blooms and special FX covering up lower-than-average polygon models and tolken physics (not that I have any good estimate on average polygons that appear in games; but yeah, it just felt sorta dated and that most of the work went into the backgrounds that you can't really interact with).

Would that really be a good thing in the end?

Real life robots does not equal anything in video games. And trying to relate it to tvtropes proves nothing either. People were comfortable with heavy rain - hence the uncanny valley principle applies not at all until you get into something like interactive virtual sex (wherein it might apply).

Don't simply state "it sucks because I say so you little dipshit

It's called caustic reviewing, and it caters to certain tastes.

Although it does help to referance reasons for not liking something when possible. But it's hard to say, ie., that starcraft animation sucks and then say 'look at it for yourself on youtube!' (being that there's no other referance available at hand) when people see it all the time and disagree (usually on the foundation that they don't play too many other games, and hence they disagree because they like starcraft anyway).

People have made a culture out of Space Marine and Demon's Souls, and yet those games are horrible. Please tell me where the connection is from the clause 'StarCraft II is good' and the reasoning 'because people love it'. I don't see a connection.

Agreed yet again.

Darn it, I feel like a yesman. :P

While I'm typing a response to the last post, I am curious as to what you consider "Correct" 3D.

Probably something that has enough animations to feel satisfying, has a unique style and portrays it perfectly without covering up or mixing from different artists (diablo 3 appears to mix with armor on the character art and then, at another angle there's some sorta gritty background that looks like it was done by a different artist). Something that isn't cheesy (wherein it would tell you to be impressed instead of impressing you). Many fighting games fit the bill of 'enough animations'. I think Street Fighter IV did it pretty perfectly.

But TBH, the primary thing that annoyed me about diablo 3 was the lack of taking advantage of the 3D meshes (so that you can actually shape your character's body; something that doesn't apply to 2D sprites), and of course, the blooms and over use of FX. The 3D mesh thing was some other reviewer's opinion though (I just stole it). I don't really care about 'artist mixing', since they pulled that off pretty well - it's just that you can't freaking interact with the background. So it's really just an artsy canvas that you walk over, like some kind of green screen, but in a video game.

[Pr0nogo]

Pretty much every single reviewer that is mainstream praised it

Reviewers are paid by publishers. Fanboys enjoy the game when there is little there to enjoy. Are you really naïve enough to believe that only a few reviewers are paid to inflate game scores and embellish their reviews? Please have a look at Conan's metascore. It deserves a twenty at best. What does it have?

A 69.

and most members on the board (yes even those who think the story lame) feel that graphically it is superior.

Why are you playing 'he said, she said'? And what are you comparing it to? Graphically superior to what? This is incredibly ironic since you follow up with

You are not producing evidence to back up your points. You are simply stating shit and opinion as if it were fact

You can hardly string a comprehensible fucking thought together, nor can you analyse my posts and at the very least acknowledge what I have put forth as evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but saying that I have not delivered reasoning or evidence is dishonest.

Don't simply state "it sucks because I say so you little dipshit

Please explain how you have done anything other than the exact opposite of that. Replace 'sucks' with 'rules' and you have your entire argument in support of Wings of Liberty. You have tried and failed to explain how you feel StarCraft: Brood War was a lesser title, but that's not even going to help you here. We aren't asking you to explain why it's better than SC:BW. We're asking you to explain to us why we should view the game as a 'masterpiece', to quote an earlier post by yourself. Instead of actually doing such a thing, you're dogging a different product in hopes of winning us over. That kind of backhanded and dishonest procedure isn't going to garner any more support for Wings of Liberty than it already has. If I asked you to prove that Christianity is the true religion and you responded by explaining how Christianity is superior to Islam or Hinduism, you would be taken no more or less seriously than you are when you explain how SCII is superior to SC:BW.