Starcraft 2 beta graphics

I just got an invitation to the beta even though I never applied for it and I am very disappointed. The game plays like something I played 10 years ago and reminds me of the old command and conquer days a game I no longer play.I think I played the first Starcraft many years ago but I cannot remember what i thought about it.

The graphics look really dated and the gameplay is just thesame old formulaand boring. What did you think of the beta? Maybe I need to be a starcraft fan to like it but I guess I am just tired of this oldRTS formula. Now I am going back to playing Dawn of War 2. :)

I just got an invitation to the beta even though I never applied for it and I am very disappointed. The game plays like something I played 10 years ago and reminds me of the old command and conquer days a game I no longer play.I think I played the first Starcraft many years ago but I cannot remember what i thought about it.

The graphics look really dated and the gameplay is just thesame old formulaand boring. What did you think of the beta? Maybe I need to be a starcraft fan to like it but I guess I am just tired of this oldRTS formula. Now I am going back to playing Dawn of War 2. :)

Jamex1987

One word: Beta. I wouldn't be surprised if SC 2's beta graphics were dissapointing, infact, you should expect them to be. I remember when I downloaded the Aliens vs Predator demo on XBOX Live and the graphics were terrible, but alot of gamers didn't notice that at the start of the demo a message comes up on the screen and prompts you "This demo is based on a pre-released code and does not portray the quality of the final product". The same happened to Battlefield Bad Company 2. The downgraded graphics are normal for demo's and beta's so I'd enjoy the SC 2 beta as long as it lasts. :D

I never thought any game in the C&C series was half of the game that StarCraft was. I couldn't really tell you why. I just didn't really enjoy them.

I've played a lot of StarCraft and I've been watching many SC2 replays, and while the games certainly are very similar in some key ways, they definitely entail entirely different strategies. Again, this would probably only be evident to people who played an awful lot of the first game, because they certainly LOOK very similar on the surface. I'm not saying I was very good at the game or anything, but the way the sequel plays is very different. Even the tiny little changes like removing cloak detection from Overlords have a rather significant impact, let alone the various different units.

Yes, this game is very much fan service. Make no mistake: This is a game for people who love the original StarCraft. It isn't meant to appeal to people who didn't like the first game or who don't want a lot of "macro" in their RTS. Personally, I really wouldn't want it any other way. I'm so glad they did this and didn't take it in the direction they went with Warcraft III. (Warcraft III is much better than Warcraft II, but I still think StarCraft, other than having worse unit control and extremely dated graphics, is a better game.)

I think making a very similar game (in terms of general gameplay mechanics) was the right direction because StarCraft is a proven game that still has a strong following, and there have not been any sequels to it yet. If you have a game that people love and are still playing a decade after release, and you are making a sequel to it, you probably should not take it in an entirely different direction, because if you're going to just throw the old formula out, why did you even make a sequel instead of a different game? While people would still buy the game in droves, a lot of them are just going to end up annoyed. No reason to copy Dawn of War II or Company of Heroes. Those game already exist. If people want Dawn of War II then they can go play Dawn of War II. This is for people who want more of what made StarCraft great. For series' where they just churn out sequel after sequel after sequel, broad sweeping changes make sense, but if you're only putting out the first sequel and it's to a game that is still considered by many to be the pinnacle of its genre, then just give people what they want. Don't make some entirely other game and slap an existing IP on it just so the name sells more copies.

In the case of WarCraft III, the totally different direction made sense because WarCraft II really did not age nearly as well as StarCraft did, and people weren't really playing WarCraft II much anymore, which incidentally probably had a lot to do with StarCraft being a vastly superior game.

I don't know what game you're looking at that the graphics look "dated", because to me they look just great. They aren't highly detailed if you zoom the camera in, but who the hell is playing the game that way? I'd rather have a super-smooth frame rate than details which I'm generally not even going to notice.

I find it strange that you dislike SC2 which is one of the best RTS's ive played in recent times but like Dow2 which is just plainly horrible. Its not even a true RTS.. to start with.Shadowhawk000

I find it strange that you dislike SC2 which is one of the best RTS's ive played in recent times but like Dow2 which is just plainly horrible. Its not even a true RTS.. to start with.Shadowhawk000

QFT

DoW2 gameplay reminds of playing Warcraft III but you command few units and no base building which removed half of the strategy. The battles are slow and boring though the game is good for casual RTS players who doesn't want to click more often.

IMO, the graphics is on par on todays standard, SC2's artstyle is pretty impressive specially the different tilesets+doodads available in beta.

WoW! SC2 graphics looks like crap compared to DoW2... not!

As for the TS stop playing it in low settings will ya?

[QUOTE="Shadowhawk000"]I find it strange that you dislike SC2 which is one of the best RTS's ive played in recent times but like Dow2 which is just plainly horrible. Its not even a true RTS.. to start with.LordAinav

QFT

DoW2 gameplay reminds of playing Warcraft III but you command few units and no base building which removed half of the strategy. The battles are slow and boring though the game is good for casual RTS players who doesn't want to click more often.

IMO, the graphics is on par on todays standard, SC2's artstyle is pretty impressive specially the different tilesets+doodads available in beta.

*pics*

WoW! SC2 graphics looks like crap compared to DoW2... not!

As for the TS stop playing it in low settings will ya?

Looks like you found the worst possible DoW2 screen you could, and if that's the best SC2 image you could find then I'm sorry DoW2 blows it out of the water.

I find it strange that you dislike SC2 which is one of the best RTS's ive played in recent times but like Dow2 which is just plainly horrible. Its not even a true RTS.. to start with.Shadowhawk000

I don't even see the point of the whole graphics thing. sure as long as it is somewhat uptodate I think it don't matter. I like both DoW2 and SC2 and they are kind of different.

[QUOTE="LordAinav"]

[QUOTE="Shadowhawk000"]I find it strange that you dislike SC2 which is one of the best RTS's ive played in recent times but like Dow2 which is just plainly horrible. Its not even a true RTS.. to start with.the_mitch28

QFT

DoW2 gameplay reminds of playing Warcraft III but you command few units and no base building which removed half of the strategy. The battles are slow and boring though the game is good for casual RTS players who doesn't want to click more often.

IMO, the graphics is on par on todays standard, SC2's artstyle is pretty impressive specially the different tilesets+doodads available in beta.

*pics*

WoW! SC2 graphics looks like crap compared to DoW2... not!

As for the TS stop playing it in low settings will ya?

Looks like you found the worst possible DoW2 screen you could, and if that's the best SC2 image you could find then I'm sorry DoW2 blows it out of the water.

That first screenshot that ive posted were from gamespot as well, lemme give my very own screenshot of the two games.

You'll only achieve that level of detail with max resolution and DX10 to unlock ultra settings. No doubt the detail really looks superb.

But does DoW2 graphics really blows SC2 away?

I disagree.

Zerg looks more menacing in game than Tyranids imo. lol :P

DoW is an okay game.... but Starcraft takes a big steamy poo all over it.

STARCRAFT FOREVER BABY!

Oh and I call BS on the "just got a invite to beta even though I didn't apply for it".... the only way to get a Beta is to be part of the gaming media... IGN, Gamespot... etc. or to have registered a Blizzard game on their Battle.net site, and opted to be included in the beta.

I for one, think the graphics are perfectly fine... but then I care more about gameplay than post processing effects and tesselation.