Eldron on 13/8/2010 at 08:52
Quote Posted by Koki
I have nothing against graphics quality, it's the style that irks me. Everything is bulky, shiny, and colorful enough to make your eyes explode. It's like Starcraft: cartoon edition, complete with nonsense like planes turning into walkers.
Starcraft had that artstyle straight from the start, same with the warcraft series.
But maybe you're more into brown and grit.
But yeah, planes turning into walkers, probably didn't have _anything_ to do with its them being designed as a multiplayer unit with functionality fitting right in where it has to.
Good thing they built the guest mode for you koki.
Assidragon on 13/8/2010 at 12:28
Quote Posted by Eldron
Starcraft had that artstyle straight from the start, same with the warcraft series.
I disagree. Compare (
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/9/199259/warcraf2_screen003.jpg) this warcraft shot wit (
http://resolution-magazine.co.uk/content/wp-content/uploads/starcraft1.jpg) this starcraft shot.
Having played both, I perceived the artstyle is/was significantly different. Starcraft was using a lot less tones - mostly gray and brown.
Quote Posted by Eldron
But maybe you're more into brown and grit.
Quote a lot of people are, I think. I mean, a dark-toned space drama doesn't quite feel right when you utilize all the freaking colours the human eye can distinguish. It was OK for Red Alert 2/3 because they were designated as "funny RTS" which never took itself seriously. For SC... *shrug* but then again, this aint my biggest beef with the game, just having fun over-analyzing.
Eldron on 13/8/2010 at 13:28
You're right about that, no one is going to budge, not you, not I.
I'd feel much better about whining about battlenet2 actually, common goal?
Assidragon on 13/8/2010 at 15:34
Quote Posted by Eldron
You're right about that, no one is going to budge, not you, not I.
I'd feel much better about whining about battlenet2 actually, common goal?
Guilty as charged on the first point. :cheeky:
As for BNet2, no idea. I commented on the graphics because I saw videos and screenshots, so I knew what I was talking about. BNet2... heard complaints and moans, but since I don't play SC2 itself, I can't really comment on it myself. Apart from reiterating what I heard...
But it does sound pretty awful so far, to be honest.
Eldron on 13/8/2010 at 18:00
Quote Posted by Assidragon
Guilty as charged on the first point. :cheeky:
As for BNet2, no idea. I commented on the graphics because I saw videos and screenshots, so I knew what I was talking about. BNet2... heard complaints and moans, but since I don't play SC2 itself, I can't really comment on it myself. Apart from reiterating what I heard...
But it does sound pretty awful so far, to be honest.
a few solid features, a ton of other missing, and then the rest of the halfdone ones.
Koki on 14/8/2010 at 06:10
Quote Posted by Eldron
Starcraft had that artstyle straight from the start, same with the warcraft series.
No, and it's blindingly obvious. Too bad last time you saw Starcraft in action was eight years ago, eh?
Quote:
But yeah, planes turning into walkers, probably didn't have _anything_ to do with its them being designed as a multiplayer unit with functionality fitting right in where it has to.
Haha, of course it did, but why would I give a fuck aboug that? It still looks retarded. Not to mention Starcraft didn't have any outrageous nonsense like that and still was THE most successful multiplayer game ever made.
I have two missions to go and will definitely not be replaying it, which means the status of the game just went from "eeehhhh" to "shit". There's literally not a single mission I'd want to play again, they're all either too fucking short, or timed, or simply boring(Like in that infestation mission - oh lookie, nightfall, now sit in your base doing fucking nothing for five minutes). The characters are cardboard cut-outs, the storyline and writing is of 2012(the movie) quality, the units look and sound like shit, music(in-game) is crap...
Eldron on 14/8/2010 at 08:34
Quote Posted by Koki
No, and it's blindingly obvious. Too bad last time you saw Starcraft in action was eight years ago, eh?
Haha, of course it did, but why would I give a fuck aboug that? It still looks retarded. Not to mention Starcraft didn't have any outrageous nonsense like that and still was THE most successful multiplayer game ever made.
I have two missions to go and will definitely not be replaying it, which means the status of the game just went from "eeehhhh" to "shit". There's literally not a single mission I'd want to play again, they're all either too fucking short, or timed, or simply boring(Like in that infestation mission - oh lookie, nightfall, now sit in your base doing fucking nothing for five minutes). The characters are cardboard cut-outs, the storyline and writing is of 2012(the movie) quality, the units look and sound like shit, music(in-game) is crap...
Actually, there are achievements direclty connected to doing stuff at nighttime, AND units that give research points that only show up at night on that infestation mission.
(but then again, i guess those mission objectives never shows up on casual)
It looks like you had your mind set from the beginning already, so are you riding the guest account or did you actually get the game? considering you have avoided multiplayer or any of the custom maps so far.
Koki on 14/8/2010 at 08:51
Uh yeah, achievements. Amazing. And yes, the bonus objective is there on "casual" too, but so what? You just position thsese shitty flamethrower buggies where they spawn, kill them immediately when night comes then race back to base.
Finished the game and I gotta say during Raynor's "motivational" speech I facepalmed IRL. The ending itself was pretty bad too, but paled in comparison to WE GOT SO FAR 'CAUSE WE LEAN ON EACH OTHER.
I christen thee, jRTS.
