Starcraft 2 will be the best Game of the Century

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xAlias

Member
Aug 1, 2006
85
0
61
:confused:
Originally posted by: Skacer
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I have one anxiety. If DOTA gets released to Starcraft 2, I will get the nearest living being and strangle it.
Considering that DOTA was the natural evolution of SC RPG maps, It only stands to reason that there will be a DOTA2 for SC2. I suppose that all depends on how powerful the map editing engine is, but I would be more surprised if it didn't happen.
Dota for SC2? Anyhow the whole theme has to be changed if they have any plans on porting it..

Anyhow I thought the main essence of Dota was the availability of the numerous heroes and presence of magic...
Porting it to SC2 seems too far fetched!
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
VashHT i think your going in circles with your argument.

Now when a game sells well over a million copies, or more and becomes the top selling pc game for quite a long time, what does this mean? example, 8 million people out there playing WoW have no idea what a good game is? Why are they playing this, when they could be playing other MMORPGs, with better graphics etc? Why is WoW out doing all of its competition right now? Think about it.

What is the definition of a good game that you speak of?

Something along the lines of "just because the majority plays it doesn't make it a good game" is absolutely false. Actually this makes no sense what so ever. If it wasn't a good game.. no one would buy it period.

The thread title is pretty misleading as this game probably wont come out til next year and by then everything couldve been changed.

I for one waiting eagerly for the launch. The graphics indeed look very good, but the real important thing here is gameplay. Gameplay is one where SC won hands down compared to other RTS games. There were endless strategies and almost every unit had a purpose even late game. Unlike other RTS games which required absolutely NO micro management or macro management, SC awarded those who did focus on these two aspects of gameplay. You can see that you just dont mass the strongest unit and point click attack in SC.

Hell its about time too. 10 years since SC1 been released.


edit - dota in SC2? not in a million years. I will eat a shoe if there was one.
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
Originally posted by: VashHT
Originally posted by: Sylvanas
WTF It is not the war3 engine....it has been in development for around 4 years and is based on Direct X 10.

EDIT: From the SC2 FAQ

Will StarCraft II take advantage of DirectX 10? What other graphical goodies are included?

The game will be compatible with DirectX 10, and we're still considering whether there will be exclusive DirectX 10 graphic effects, but the graphics engine will also be very scalable to ensure that a wide range of different systems will be capable of running StarCraft II. The new engine is also capable of rendering very large units, as well as large numbers of units on screen together. Havok physics have been integrated into the engine for added realism as well.
That says it will be compatible with DX10, not that its DX10 based, and they even say theres no DX10 effects, but they're thinking about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a modified war3 engine, it does look similar to it. People here act like it must look exactly like war3 to be using the same engine, but for all you know htey used that graphics engine as a base and heavily modified it .
They mention the engine in that paragraph to be the 'NEW engine' not a modified one. I would surely hope this is the case
 

KeypoX

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,655
0
71
Originally posted by: Molondo
Originally posted by: exdeath
No it will just be a remake of Starcraft with the WC3 engine, it isn't going to change anything or re-revolutionize a thing.
Thanks for the useless info.
how is that useless, it is true. I am excited but the game play looks the exact same with better graphics.
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
Its on the blizzard website for starcraft2. IT IS NOT USING THE WARCRAFT3 ENGINE. Its either people haven't actually seen some ingame footage of SC2 or they just need to get some glasses.

Quote from www.starcraft2.com/
Vibrant new 3D-graphics engine with support for dazzling visual effects and massive unit and army sizes

From FAQ:

Will there be a console version of StarCraft II?

StarCraft II is being developed for the PC. We have no current plans to bring the game to any console platform.

Will StarCraft II take advantage of DirectX 10? What other graphical goodies are included?

The game will be compatible with DirectX 10, and we're still considering whether there will be exclusive DirectX 10 graphic effects, but the graphics engine will also be very scalable to ensure that a wide range of different systems will be capable of running StarCraft II. The new engine is also capable of rendering very large units, as well as large numbers of units on screen together. Havok physics have been integrated into the engine for added realism as well.
Hopefully this ends to all FUD about SC2 using warcraft3 engine. They dont even look the same to even assume that.
 

VashHT

Platinum Member
Feb 1, 2007
2,879
578
136
Originally posted by: Skacer
Originally posted by: VashHT
Well, all of the stuff you listed is mostly personal preference, and has no real measurable standard. Graphics? well most people say WoW's graphics are total crap, but some people like it, again personal preference. Music/sound definitely personal, not everyone likes the same music. Quests/storyline, even difficulty are all personal preference. The only one you listed that I wouldnt consider personal preference would be class balance, but then again most people complain about WoW being unbalanced as well. You cite raiding as a measurement, but only in a sense of whether it has it or not. Of course how well it accomodates raiding is personal preference as well, some people love raiding but think the WoW raiding system is crap, some people think its good. I would agree WoW is my favorite MMORPG I have played, but I would definitely say all of my reasons for like it are personal preference, and not based on some kind of absolute golden standard.
Whether you like the graphics may be personal preference, but there are some standards. Do they look uniform? Are they complete? Any missing images? Do they run acceptably or is the engine terribly coded?

The music, is it there? Does it have unique music for most zones or just 1 song it loops everywhere? Are the sound effects unique? Are the high quality or low quality?

How do you think magazines review this shit, by tossing a coin up in the air and going "I feel this game is pretty nice". No, they judge it against it's peers and how it matches up. If WoW comes out with a questing system and then Auto Assault comes out with barely any questing system. People can say that AA didn't meet the standards setup by past titles, the base level of expectations for the genre. Like making an FPS where you can't jump.

"some people love raiding but think the WoW raiding system is crap"
And for that person's opinion to be worth anything they have to justify it with something. Crap in comparison to what, a fictitious game you made up in your head that has a really good sounding raiding system?

You think difficulty is personal preference because you are thinking small scale. As in, I think this guy should be a little harder, and I think this guy should be a little easier. But what about large scale as in, Is this guy even killable? How come my level 1 can kill this level 50? And you are thinking small scale because the MMO you are attempting to complain about is one of the most polished MMORPGs to ever be released in the genre. You don't have any concept of actual broken gameplay.
You know if I had ever read a review ever that focused ONLY on technical aspects like you're quoting then it would make sense, but they never ever are. There is always some degree of opinion that needs to be thrown into a review. No matter how well coded a graphics engine is there are ALWAYS comments about how good it looks. Music is the SAME exact way. Even if its high quality, well recorded music, some reviews will bash it for having bad soundtracks or something like that. As for raiding, I have never gotten into raiding myself so I can't say, but I have seen other people compare it to say EQ raiding. Some people like the raiding in EQ a lot more, one of the common reasons being that it is more difficult and that WoW raiding is too easy.

"Crap in comparison to what, a fictitious game you made up in your head that has a really good sounding raiding system?"

See I don't see why you're getting so defensive about this, is it really that important to you that I acknolwedge WoW's greatness, I mean I never even said that I personally think the raiding system was crap, yet you jump to defend it and even start insulting me.

I've never even played EQ before, I'm just using it as an example. Anyway sorry if I sounded like I was trying to complain about WoW, none of those were my personal complaints just common ones I hear so I was using them as examples, I'm not trying to bash WoW I was trying to make the point that personal preference does play into each of those aspects. I have never seen someone strip down their personal preferences and rate a game based purely on whether things are there or not, on whether things can be done or not like you have described. They always use opinionated descriptors, especially for graphics and music.

Also cookie monster I am going in circles on purpose, and the argument that "just because most people like it makes it good" is also completely false, and is even a basic fallacy of logic. I never said that they don't know what a good game is, I said that they feel that the game they play is a good game in their opinion. I don't see why people are so obsessed with coming up with an absolute definition of a good game. Anyway I said what my definition of a good game is, its a game that you enjoy and think is good, I personally don't see people's need to prove that their game is good to everyone else.

Anyways, I didn't see that they mentioned it was a new engine in the FAQ, so I guess it is ruled out that it is the war3 engine. Also, sorry for posting so much irrelevant info in this thread, I got pretty bored at work heh.

 

Ichigo

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2005
2,159
0
0
Quick Summary:

Vash was bored and decided to argue theories of knowledge.

Everyone who claimed the game was run by a modified Warcraft III engine is owned for not taking half a minute to look it up and then spouting it like some divine truth as for the "crappiness" of Starcraft II.

Clearly, if you don't want Stacraft fans to tell you that they think that the game is "good", don't come into this topic (oh wait, lol). To reciprocate, don't tell them that it's bad, because as Vash so kindly pointed out, to them, it's not bad, it's GOOD.

P.S. To the guy who claimed that no one could know how the game was good or bad because no one has yet played it, I laugh at thee. I laugh at thee for completely changing your argument when faced with the fact that people have played it. As early of a build that was played at Blizzcon, they obviously have more game experience than you, and your "I think it will suck" mentality is wasted on them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS