StarCraft does Warhammer better then Warhammer

Atleast in SC2, Terran knows how to have fun. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z0E-Zjusns&feature=player_embedded

Who else here thinks that Blizzards version of Warhammer is better then Warhammer itself. I love Relic and their pursuit of innovation, but to me the Warhammer universe itself is aesthetically outdated. Simplistic design and and way more cartoony then the lore presents itself as. I mean Orks? In a sci-fi setting? Come on! IMO its lame and the over-arching design of the Uni is decades old and it shows.

StarCraft and part 2 specifically looks totally badass; realistic while maintaining a cartoon-lite aesthetic thats way less evident then in a game like WoW. The uni looks totally cohesive and detailed as hell. The mini animated pre-renders of each unit continue to add tons of atmosphere to the sequel. It really stomps Warhammer in the audio dept. too. All the different units audio cues are perfect once again and greatly contribute to the aesthetic cohesion of the uni. Anyone else feel the same or oppose?

Rawtheory333

1. I like both though, tbh, Warhammer did it right, and they did it first. There is a long history of Blizzard ripping off Warhammer but I wont go into it here. Starcraft is a really good IP though, and I am happy both franchises exist

2. Warhammer is not aesthetically outdated; with their latest release, DoW II, they have managed to make the game beautiful while still staying true to the art design of the franchise. As for Orks in a scifi setting...why not? In the Warhammer lore it makes complete sense, and frankly I find the blending of such a traditionally fantasy-based race (Orks) with a scifi setting refreshing.

3. Idunno I thought Starcraft 2 looked good until I saw the beta gameplay on Gamespot and Giantbomb...then I realized Blizzard is doing what they always do and appealing to Nostalgia. Despite a modern engine, they somehow made the game look mildly better than their decades-old Starcraft. I applaud them for doing this; by keeping the art direction the same, yet making the engine well optimized and suitable for most computers, theyre allowing for a larger playerbase.

4. I dont understand your audio complaints; Warhammer had individual audio for each unit, excellent ambient and environmental sounds, etc.

In short, I dont think youre right to rag on Warhammer. I agree with what you say about Starcraft, but the simple fact is that Warhammer has been able to maintain popularity for years, stay current, and still builds an amazing series of games.

you know... all of this is just bull **** unless you actually describe why it is more "cohesive"..... because honestly all im seeing from the vids is SC1 with better graphics. make pop cap, send units at enemy in a big swarm..... if game not over.... repeat.

Roland123_basic

It's just good art direction. Most things on screen in SC2 looks like it has a purpose and a place in the gameworld. And most of the maps themselves look like they could exist outside of the war setting. DoW 2 looks a lot more like agamethen SC2 save for the scale of the buildings. And other then the Total War series, I don't think Ive seen a RTS rep real world scale anyways. The one issue I've seen is the map tileset that is set on the top of massive skyscrapers and it doesn't make much since to build a building on top of a building. Otherwise its just a subjective opinion anyways.

1. I like both though, tbh, Warhammer did it right, and they did it first. There is a long history of Blizzard ripping off Warhammer but I wont go into it here. Starcraft is a really good IP though, and I am happy both franchises exist

2. Warhammer is not aesthetically outdated; with their latest release, DoW II, they have managed to make the game beautiful while still staying true to the art design of the franchise. As for Orks in a scifi setting...why not? In the Warhammer lore it makes complete sense, and frankly I find the blending of such a traditionally fantasy-based race (Orks) with a scifi setting refreshing.

3. Idunno I thought Starcraft 2 looked good until I saw the beta gameplay on Gamespot and Giantbomb...then I realized Blizzard is doing what they always do and appealing to Nostalgia. Despite a modern engine, they somehow made the game look mildly better than their decades-old Starcraft. I applaud them for doing this; by keeping the art direction the same, yet making the engine well optimized and suitable for most computers, theyre allowing for a larger playerbase.

4. I dont understand your audio complaints; Warhammer had individual audio for each unit, excellent ambient and environmental sounds, etc.

In short, I dont think youre right to rag on Warhammer. I agree with what you say about Starcraft, but the simple fact is that Warhammer has been able to maintain popularity for years, stay current, and still builds an amazing series of games.

mrbojangles25

2. My problem is with the art design of the franchise. I think it looks lame and really always have but still, I did used to like DoW. Now i don't really because of my aesthetic complaints and the fact that it doesn't feel EPIC enough. The battles are only ever really skirmishes and not full scale war. I think if Warhammer is going to be rep'd in a RTS then thats how it should be. IMO SC does skirmishes a lot better then DoW

3. Yeah it looks like updated version of the OG, but I love the art direction of the OG so thats a-okay wit me.

4. I thought the orks had the best lines in DoW by far but still overall, I think StarCraft has vastly better audio, esp as far as conveying character goes.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

1. I like both though, tbh, Warhammer did it right, and they did it first. There is a long history of Blizzard ripping off Warhammer but I wont go into it here. Starcraft is a really good IP though, and I am happy both franchises exist

2. Warhammer is not aesthetically outdated; with their latest release, DoW II, they have managed to make the game beautiful while still staying true to the art design of the franchise. As for Orks in a scifi setting...why not? In the Warhammer lore it makes complete sense, and frankly I find the blending of such a traditionally fantasy-based race (Orks) with a scifi setting refreshing.

3. Idunno I thought Starcraft 2 looked good until I saw the beta gameplay on Gamespot and Giantbomb...then I realized Blizzard is doing what they always do and appealing to Nostalgia. Despite a modern engine, they somehow made the game look mildly better than their decades-old Starcraft. I applaud them for doing this; by keeping the art direction the same, yet making the engine well optimized and suitable for most computers, theyre allowing for a larger playerbase.

4. I dont understand your audio complaints; Warhammer had individual audio for each unit, excellent ambient and environmental sounds, etc.

In short, I dont think youre right to rag on Warhammer. I agree with what you say about Starcraft, but the simple fact is that Warhammer has been able to maintain popularity for years, stay current, and still builds an amazing series of games.

Rawtheory333

2. My problem is with the art design of the franchise. I think it looks lame and really always have but still, I did used to like DoW. Now i don't really because of my aesthetic complaints and the fact that it doesn't feel EPIC enough. The battles are only ever really skirmishes and not full scale war. I think if Warhammer is going to be rep'd in a RTS then thats how it should be. IMO SC does skirmishes a lot better then DoW

...

The tabletop and a lot of the novels consist of mainly skirmishes. The Imperium is just massive, the time of the Crusades (Horus Heresy era) is long gone, so huge massive wars are not happening in the current lore. Going by that, DoW is being true to its lore by keeping it to small battles.

Well, Fact is, Blizzard always wins.

[QUOTE="RichardStallman"]

[QUOTE="Roland123_basic"] nope, sorry. Warhammer 40k is a much better property with a more interesting lore and dynamic. blizzard burned their bridges with me when they decided to charge me 3x for the same game, and then charge for player made maps on top of it.

starcraft 2 looks to be about as generic of an RTS as you can make. with games like Company of Heroes redefining the genre with REAL TACTICS... there is no place for starcraft 2's "build 100 units and throw them at the enemies 100 units" model.

Roland123_basic

OMG! Relic is splitted the game in 4 parts! What a bunch of bastards!

If they add new units with each game, doesn't that make it unbalanced if you don't own the other two games? Seems to contradict Blizzard's amazing balancing ability.Swiftstrike5

Are you joking? No freaking way.

Warhammer 40k has some of the best lore of any game I know, it's so deep and so interesting. I kept reading the lore long after I stopped playing the game.

Starcraft lore and factions = boring in comparison.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]If they add new units with each game, doesn't that make it unbalanced if you don't own the other two games? Seems to contradict Blizzard's amazing balancing ability.Einhanderkiller

realistic while maintaining a cartoon-lite aesthetic thats way less evident then in a game like WoW

Uh huh...... realistic how? Like how space flight consistently sees faster then light travel on a regular basis? Like the transforming tank that compromises its own purpose in its hybrid design? Or how for some damn reason the Terran Recruits are a bunch of freaking criminals? 40k is certainly guilty of being unrealistic no doubt about it, but to use realism as a basis of argument against 40k? No dice sir. No dice.

The uni looks totally cohesive and detailed as hell.Rawtheory333

How much Warhammer 40k have you read? Just checking because surely you would actually bother with the details of 40k before informing us of your reasoning as to why Starcraft seems to do "warhammer better then warhammer"

Anyone else feel the same or oppose?

Rawtheory333

obvious doan_m is obvious.

My OP was about the aesthetics of the games, not the lore or the gameplay. I think it aesthetics of Warhammer as represented by DoW 1 & 2 are not as polished and representative of a cohesive and believable uni as StarCraft 1 and esp 2.

Rawtheory333

So how does that in any way have anything to do with SC out "warhammering" Warhammer?

EDIT: Man this board really sucks hard with multi-quote.

I hate when people make these type of threads. Its sole purpose is to argue against others solely to try to outway someones belief on why something is better. All it does is lead to people who like a game to argue against the other even if they enjoy both and being classified as "fanboys". Both of these games are unique and provide enjoyment on completely different aspects of the RTS genre. Its sad to see that people still enjoy this type of "debates" that does nothing but to stir up mess.

[QUOTE="Rawtheory333"]

My OP was about the aesthetics of the games, not the lore or the gameplay. I think it aesthetics of Warhammer as represented by DoW 1 & 2 are not as polished and representative of a cohesive and believable uni as StarCraft 1 and esp 2.

doanm

So how does that in any way have anything to do with SC out "warhammering" Warhammer?

Th character designs of Warhammer 30k look like Super Deformed toys. They suck IMO. The SC ones look a lot more modern and believable within its setting. It out Warhammers, Warhammer (in this case the gameDoW) because Blizzard obviously ripped off the WH 30K uni when they conceived SC. WH 30k might have the legacy and lore but aethetically IMO SC is far better.

[QUOTE="Roland123_basic"]

[QUOTE="RichardStallman"]

OMG! Relic is splitted the game in 4 parts! What a bunch of bastards!

Einhanderkiller

I hate when people make these type of threads. Its sole purpose is to argue against others solely to try to outway someones belief on why something is better. All it does is lead to people who like a game to argue against the other even if they enjoy both and being classified as "fanboys". Both of these games are unique and provide enjoyment on completely different aspects of the RTS genre. Its sad to see that people still enjoy this type of "debates" that does nothing but to stir up mess.

jedikevin2

Most debates are about clashing opinions and I have no problem with that. I've always thought the ideasof Warhammer 30k were a lot cooler then its aesthetic execution. I think SC does similar ideas better. I wanted to read peoples thoughts about that idea. Whats the big deal with that.

[QUOTE="doanm"]

[QUOTE="Rawtheory333"]

My OP was about the aesthetics of the games, not the lore or the gameplay. I think it aesthetics of Warhammer as represented by DoW 1 & 2 are not as polished and representative of a cohesive and believable uni as StarCraft 1 and esp 2.

Rawtheory333

So how does that in any way have anything to do with SC out "warhammering" Warhammer?

Th character designs of Warhammer 30k look like Super Deformed toys. They suck IMO. The SC ones look a lot more modern and believable within its setting. It out Warhammers, Warhammer (in this case the gameDoW) because Blizzard obviously ripped off the WH 30K uni when they conceived SC. WH 30k might have the legacy and lore but aethetically IMO SC is far better.

ok first of all.... its warhammer 40k.... not 30k.... you have said that twice now. get it right.Roland123_basic

Or else you'll slap chop me right.....

just the fact that you ARE calling it warhammer 30k makes me think you know nothing about the lore of the series.... i would put money on it.

Roland123_basic

Go ahead. I wouldn't bet ya. I read a few of the Warhammer lore books about 12 years ago in high school, so yeah I'm not to familiar with it. But I've already said over and over that I'm talking about the looks of the games not their lore.

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

I hate when people make these type of threads. Its sole purpose is to argue against others solely to try to outway someones belief on why something is better. All it does is lead to people who like a game to argue against the other even if they enjoy both and being classified as "fanboys". Both of these games are unique and provide enjoyment on completely different aspects of the RTS genre. Its sad to see that people still enjoy this type of "debates" that does nothing but to stir up mess.

Rawtheory333

Most debates are about clashing opinions and I have no problem with that. I've always thought the ideasof Warhammer 30k were a lot cooler then its aesthetic execution. I think SC does similar ideas better. I wanted to read peoples thoughts about that idea. Whats the big deal with that.

While that is perfectly fine, what starts as "peoples ideas" turns into a bash fest which eventually poors out into the stereotypical "fanboy" battle thread.

Th character designs of Warhammer 30k look like Super Deformed toys.

And why does that make Warhammer 40k so special? Since when did Warhammer hold some special advantage over units that are out of place in scale? Why would it or should it even be considered something special in Warhammer 40k?

They suck IMO. The SC ones look a lot more modern and believable within its setting.

Just whats modern about huge power armor that would see massive issues in an urban warfare environment? Better yet whats believable about the absurd amount of time it takes to assemble the armor onto a person (if the announcement cinematic is anything to go by)

It out Warhammers, Warhammer (in this case the gameDoW) because Blizzard obviously ripped off the WH 30K uni when they conceived SC

Uh huh...... rip off it may be (and occasionally disputable) but its derivative material still has distinctions from the Warhammer 40k universe. And if you are drawing DoW as the basis of argument then it should be pointed out that there is little to no similarity to the DoW game beyond the fact that both are RTS games. Gameplay wise and art wise.

WH 30k might have the legacy and lore but aethetically IMO SC is far better.

How? Assuming that you mean Starcraft 2 by the game visuals(and not the story since you have dismissed that as part of your claims). The scale of what is seen in that game is just as absurd, if not more absurd then what is seen in the Dawn of War game.

Oh yeah and its not 30k. Its 40k.

No RTS other then the Total War series and maybe WiC gets scale right. So thats not the issue. Its the fact that staying true to the Warhammer franchise for me, means being tied to played-out character designs.

No RTS other then the Total War series and maybe WiC gets scale right. So thats not the issue. Its the fact that staying true to the Warhammer franchise for me, means being tied to played-out character designs.

Rawtheory333

And how does this fit in with your claim that Starcraft does Warhammer better then Warhammer? Since thats not even a Warhammer issue, thats a developer issue and not something thats particular about Warhammer(making the wild assumption that what you would claim is objectively true).

doanm

Whadayamean? I'm talking about the artistic design of one franchise vs another where one obviously took inspiration from the elder franchise and does a better job of visually representing an inter-species war in game.

Whadayamean? I'm talking about the artistic design of one franchise vs another where one obviously took inspiration from the elder franchise and does a better job of visually representing an inter-species war in game.

Rawtheory333

I already know what you mean't to say. What you mean't to say(but correct me if i'm wrong) is that Starcraft does a better job of visually representing their own respective universe in a game compared to the Dawn of War series. Something to point out:

-Art opinion. Subjective. Quite very subjective. It means that neither of us is right or wrong and it gives me full liberty to disagree and simply flat out state that the Dawn of War series does an excellent job of representing its baseline universe at a level of quality on par and perhaps even better then what Starcraft represents in its game.

I already figured you mean't visuals and aesthetics. However that still doesn't answer just how exactly how Starcraft does Warhammer 40k better then Warhammer 40k. Especially when outdoing them in visual arts(again we would have to make wild assumptions here) certainly does not mean that you somehow did THEIR art better. which is EXACTLY how the title reads.

doanm

The title is definitely sensational, but it comes from the influence the WarHammer 40k universe had on Blizzard in the design of SC. People can debate that but my eyes tell me the influence is obvious. Me saying they did it better, visually, is my opinion.

The title is definitely sensational,

Misleading and incorrect as well considering it just basically reads like it means you did their art better.

but it comes from the influence the WarHammer 40k universe had on Blizzard in the design of SC.

So? You could have simply said that Starcraft represents its own universe in game form better then DoW represents Warhammer 40k. its more of a mouthful but it makes a crapload more sense then "StarCraft does Warhammer better then Warhammer"

Me saying they did it better, visually, is my opinion.

An opinion that ought to be backed up with a lot more logic then that. And a better title.

Misleading and incorrect as well considering it just basically reads like it means you did their art better.

Then I guess you have a problem with most newspapers and periodicals that use the same technique to draw readers. If you don't like it, I don't really care.

You could have simply said that Starcraft represents its own universe in game form better then DoW represents Warhammer 40k. its more of a mouthful but it makes a crapload more sense then "StarCraft does Warhammer better then Warhammer"

I'd rather have a sensational title that'll draw conversations.

An opinion that ought to be backed up with a lot more logic then that. And a better title.

An opinion that is based on something inherently subjective: art. Logic only goes so far as to its interpretation. And you can't always get what you want. :)

[QUOTE="Rawtheory333"]

Then I guess you have a problem with most newspapers and periodicals that use the same technique to draw readers. If you don't like it, I don't really care.

Oh yeah. And I really do complain about it every damn time someone uses that blasted technique. Of course Journalism needs it to gather readers and generate potential sales of articles. However, what it means to me is simple, pure flat out dishonesty.

I'd rather have a sensational title that'll draw conversations.

By deliberately displaying poor semantics. Joy >_>

An opinion is based on something inherently subjective: art.

An opinion is based on art?

Logic only goes so far as to its interpretation

And said interpretation can be bound in simple fact, comprehension and thought. Your point?

And you can't always get what you want. :)

Thats not even my issue.

On the multiplayer part: Most likely there will be a patch allowing everyone to get any new units from the new game. This way everyone can still play with eachother.

W40K definitely reigns supreme.

It's very clear when you read any 40k book, or play any of their games. Warhammer doesn't lose any of it's detail when Starcraft doesn't really have any to begin with. Considering Blizzard did steal the entire idea behind Starcraft and Warcraft from Games Workshop.

Unfortunately, Blizzard made their video games first while Games Workshop was too far behind.

So don't try and credit Blizzard with anything except making good games. It's pretty ridiculous to praise a company for stealing another's ideas.

Oh yeah. And I really do complain about it every damn time someone uses that blasted technique. Of course Journalism needs it to gather readers and generate potential sales of articles. However, what it means to me is simple, pure flat out dishonesty.

Like I said; don't care.

By deliberately displaying poor semantics. Joy >_>

Sensationalistic title....there, is that better Mr. grammer

An opinion is based on something inherently subjective: art.

Read it again. The edit came before your post.

And said interpretation can be bound in simple fact, comprehension and thought. Your point?

I can get into every detail about each game and show you why I think SC2 is a better product visually then DoW2 but that would be tedious and wouldn't change the fact that everything I say would be completely subjective.

And you can't always get what you want. :)

Thats not even my issue.

You said I could have used a better title. You wanted a better title. I won't change it.

W40K definitely reigns supreme.

It's very clear when you read any 40k book, or play any of their games. Warhammer doesn't lose any of it's detail when Starcraft doesn't really have any to begin with. Considering Blizzard did steal the entire idea behind Starcraft and Warcraft from Games Workshop.

Unfortunately, Blizzard made their video games first while Games Workshop was too far behind.

So don't try and credit Blizzard with anything except making good games. It's pretty ridiculous to praise a company for stealing another's ideas.

airshocker

That's all I'm doing is giving Blizzard good cred for good games. They don't do books or tabletop.

I think influence is a better way of looking at it, esp since Blizzard was all digital to begin with. Kind of like How George Lucas took from all over Sci-Fi and made a better product then his inspirations.....Not counting the god awful failures of the prequals mind you.

the other starcraft games are NOT expansions.... blizzard said so themselves. they are each their own stand alone game, and in the same interview where this was announced, the individual stated that they will all have the same multiplayer.

Roland123_basic

It seems that Blizzard paired down the 40k uni and tailored it to a RTS design, then wrapped it in a story that worked for a game environment. (And was different enough to avoid a lawsuit.)

For how brutal and epic in scope the 40k uni is, I don't think DoW does the job. Something on the scale of Total War would be a lot more effective for conveying its grit and scope, even if the table top is just skirmish focused.

It seems that Blizzard paired down the 40k uni and tailored it to a RTS design, then wrapped it in a story that worked for a game environment.

For how brutal and epic in scope the 40k uni is, I don't think DoW does the job. Something on the scale of Total War would be a lot more effective for conveying its grit and scope, even if the table top is just skirmish focused.

Rawtheory333

[QUOTE="Rawtheory333"]

It seems that Blizzard paired down the 40k uni and tailored it to a RTS design, then wrapped it in a story that worked for a game environment.

For how brutal and epic in scope the 40k uni is, I don't think DoW does the job. Something on the scale of Total War would be a lot more effective for conveying its grit and scope, even if the table top is just skirmish focused.

DanielDust

Yeah you're probably right. I do really like the capture and hold gameplay of DoW ( and esp. CoH) and that on giant city sized maps would be as bloody as I think WarHammer should be. I mean it has WAR in its title. Shouldn't it feellike that?

BTW. If it was on that scale I'd overlook my problems with the character designs (Dreadnoughts that look like 60's Sci-Fi rejects) and give the game its due because of Relics innovative play mechaincs.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="Roland123_basic"] show me the quote. i have not seen anything, anywhere that says they will be adding new units with each game. not only does that make no sense, but it will majorly fracture their community unless they somehow work it out like Relic did with their warhammer games so that people without all 3 games can play with people that do have all 3 games.Roland123_basic

let me translate this.... "it doesnt exist and i just said it to sound smart.... so now im going to shrug off the fact that he is challenging me on my info and make it sound like i couldnt care less about what he thinks."

no quote/link, information doesnt exist and you dont know what you are talking about.....

Or even better, DanielDust is right and you are too lazy to go to their website? Either way, you are WRONG!

http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml

How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

Blizzard

From what it sounds like the game is going to be setup in the exact same manner as the DoW series.

To the actual topic, I think the lore in 40K is much cooler.

W40K definitely reigns supreme.

It's very clear when you read any 40k book, or play any of their games. Warhammer doesn't lose any of it's detail when Starcraft doesn't really have any to begin with. Considering Blizzard did steal the entire idea behind Starcraft and Warcraft from Games Workshop.

Unfortunately, Blizzard made their video games first while Games Workshop was too far behind.

So don't try and credit Blizzard with anything except making good games. It's pretty ridiculous to praise a company for stealing another's ideas.

airshocker

It's not stealing ideas ffs. It's being inspired or influenced by them. It's all about adding something and giving it your own direction which determines the value of the product anyway. For example many of apple's products are heaviliy influenced by Dieter Rams and yet did Dieter Rams say it was stolen? No he said it was a compliment, because that is what it truly is.

That's all I'm doing is giving Blizzard good cred for good games. They don't do books or tabletop.

Rawtheory333

Actually, the do both tabletop and books. I'm not sure if the card games are still supported.

So in conclussion, Blizzard will always have the benefit of the doubt because they have been making truly amazing games since the days of Warcraft Orcs and Humans. SC2 looks very promising (to me and millions others) and will probably sell millions of copies. I love SC and, hell! Id pay 100 bucks for EACH game if they are good enough. Ive been waiting for this sequel since I was in high school. As for Warhammer, Ive never played the games or read much about the lore but I have heard great things about it, so Im sure the Warhammer lore is great and so must be their games - but, I just like starcraft too much, so It would be hard for any sci-fi RTS game to surpass SC in any way (for me that is). Anyhow, why do some people have to be so angry at Blizzard? It's probably one of the best PC focused devs ever. Hate WoW all you want, but there is a reason why so many people buy their games, so you should acknowledge that they must be doing something right (at least they always release bug free titles). And if you dont like their games, then its fine! go play something else lol. alvaro_pg

Envy.

WH40K as a fiction and universe is so far above Starcraft in terms of quality of make and depth and breadth. Don't take this as me being defensive because I'm not, but by the way you talk about it, you don't sound as though you know much about WH40K beyond what of it is depicted in the Dawn of War video game franchise (correct me if I'm wrong), which in no way does justice to the overall lore.

It's obvious that is true since the TC is calling the game Warhammer and he is talking about the Sci-Fi setting. Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are very different, different races (mostly both have the empire and Orc), setting, weapons, etc. There is much more to the Warhammer 40000 universe, even in other games that were made of it by other companies.

As for the games, I don't know. I never played Starcraft 2 or watched it played.

[QUOTE="Rawtheory333"]

Oh yeah. And I really do complain about it every damn time someone uses that blasted technique. Of course Journalism needs it to gather readers and generate potential sales of articles. However, what it means to me is simple, pure flat out dishonesty.

Like I said; don't care.

Fine then. It will just mean that you're wrong.

Sensationalistic title....there, is that better Mr. grammer

Dude its not even an issue of proper syntax. I don't mind if you've spelt something wrong or if you've pulled some typo. Those things are fine by me. Pulling off a title on purpose where you would be objectively wrong. That is.

Read it again. The edit came before your post.

Then way to repeat what I said a page back.

I can get into every detail about each game and show you why I think SC2 is a better product visually then DoW2 but that would be tedious and wouldn't change the fact that everything I say would be completely subjective.

Had it actually been completely subjective then I wouldn't be debating with you. I have no problem with subjective opinion. I have zero problem if someone says that Starcraft 2 is better then Dawn of War 2. Even artistically. Hell I have zero problem if someone just plain flat out likes the Starcraft series more then then the Warhammer series. It's no problem. However, my problem is that a good amount of your reasoning as to why you believe so appears to me, to be objectionably questionable. Hell that was established from the onset of your title and just worked its way downwards.

You said I could have used a better title. You wanted a better title. I won't change it.

Again. It will just mean that you'd be in a position where your title is wrong.

OP, you claimed you were refering to the Game's aesthetics, but this is your first message in the thread:

"Who else here thinks that Blizzards version of Warhammer is better then Warhammer itself. I love Relic and their pursuit of innovation, but to me the Warhammer universe itself is aesthetically outdated. Simplistic design and and way more cartoony then the lore presents itself as. I mean Orks? In a sci-fi setting? Come on! IMO its lame and the over-arching design of the Uni is decades old and it shows."

You specifically refer to the WH40k Universe which the relic game is based on. relic didn't create the art style or the lore, they made a game out of it. All of the game models are exact replicas of the GamesWorkshop models. So if you say the game art looks oudated, you're actually saying GamesWorkshop Art is oudated. If Relic had any say as to the art direction they would have made it different, more like COH.

[QUOTE="Rawtheory333"]

That's all I'm doing is giving Blizzard good cred for good games. They don't do books or tabletop.

Baranga

I'm not sure if the card games are still supported.

God the cardgame sucked, i mean it was fun and all, but im sorry but if every set your commons literally blow away the commons from the previous set its just a milkage game.

Dawn of War 1 was WAAAAY better than starcraft.