Starcraft Vs. Starcraft II

I've been keeping very up to date on Starcraft II and it looks awesome. Being a hard-core Starcraft fan, though, I'm not sure its gonna live up to the original. Something about the graphics in the first one made it look darker, more realistic than what ive seen from the new one. Maybe this is just because it used 2D sprites that tend to be less cartoony? I want to hear what everyone else thinks.bob9999999999

I think that Starcraft was made nearly 10 years ago, and just about any game made in 2007 will live up to it.

i liked how starcraft 1 had its own style, but now starcraft 2 looks like world of warcraft type graphics. it looks a little more goofy, while in starcraft 1, it did have a much darker theme. i wish they could have transferred that dark theme over to starcraft 2, instead of switching completely to warcraft style.aching546

man i agree with aching546. blizzard has been too long in the world of warcraft and i believe they have lost touch with the original mindset when they were making starcraft 1. plus i bet the half the team isnt the same so maybe the original will remain the original and the best

i liked how starcraft 1 had its own style, but now starcraft 2 looks like world of warcraft type graphics. it looks a little more goofy, while in starcraft 1, it did have a much darker theme. i wish they could have transferred that dark theme over to starcraft 2, instead of switching completely to warcraft style.aching546

It most certainly did not, not dissing Starcraft it is one of my more favorite games.. But it was pretty much a dumbed down universe of Warhammer 40k.

i liked how starcraft 1 had its own style, but now starcraft 2 looks like world of warcraft type graphics. it looks a little more goofy, while in starcraft 1, it did have a much darker theme. i wish they could have transferred that dark theme over to starcraft 2, instead of switching completely to warcraft style.aching546

[QUOTE="bob9999999999"]I've been keeping very up to date on Starcraft II and it looks awesome. Being a hard-core Starcraft fan, though, I'm not sure its gonna live up to the original. Something about the graphics in the first one made it look darker, more realistic than what ive seen from the new one. Maybe this is just because it used 2D sprites that tend to be less cartoony? I want to hear what everyone else thinks.Skullheart

I think that Starcraft was made nearly 10 years ago, and just about any game made in 2007 will live up to it.

Oh really? How come no game has outdone it yet then?

While I agree that the original Starcraft displayed a very dark, grim and desolate universe. Just about every Blizzard game has carried it's tademark style, cartoonish overly exagerated features. It takes one glance at the concept art to realize this.

It's my opinion that because the first game was sprite based it severly limited them from achieving this look, but then as technology advanced, they (Blizz Dev's) were able to return to their original vision of the game. And if you look at WC3 it is quite evident what direction the Dev's wanted to build.

Or it could be a simple truth, it was easier to use WC3's game engine than redesign a whole new game? Can someone say that SC2 is using a different engine than WC3?

[QUOTE="Skullheart"]

[QUOTE="bob9999999999"]I've been keeping very up to date on Starcraft II and it looks awesome. Being a hard-core Starcraft fan, though, I'm not sure its gonna live up to the original. Something about the graphics in the first one made it look darker, more realistic than what ive seen from the new one. Maybe this is just because it used 2D sprites that tend to be less cartoony? I want to hear what everyone else thinks.kyrieee

I think that Starcraft was made nearly 10 years ago, and just about any game made in 2007 will live up to it.

Oh really? How come no game has outdone it yet then?

And who says there hasn't been a game that has outdone Starcraft? Come on this is completely Opinion based. Just looking at a game's fanatical following is not enough to label it the greatest of all time.

Age of Empires 2 is a vastly superior game to SC, in almost everyway. More depth, More strategies. But again this is my opinion. And Opinions don't decide what is considered the greatest.

What does it matter anyway? Really. Will the original SC save you from paying taxes or avoiding death? NO, it is a game so keep it in perspective please.

All of this "This game is better than this, better than that!" sounds an awful lot like the playground kids screaming "My daddy can beat up your daddy."

As a competitive RTS it hasn't been outdone no, and that's the part of the game that has made it what it is today.

AoE2 doesn't have more tactical depth than SC, no. I mean, seriously, get into SC so you really understand the game and why people still like it and then say that those qualities of the game have been trumped so there's some merit to it. For casual players I'm sure most modern RTSes are better than SC.

I think it's stupid doing a sequel to SC, they don't even seem to be sure why they're doing it. Not all games need sequels, now they've put themselves in a position where they need to change lots of things just because they have to because it's a sequel, which is just sad. SC is all about the gameplay but releasing a new game with the same gameplay is pointless and changing the gameplay too much just to tell more of the story is also stupid, they should've done SC:G or something. I mean WHAT ARE THEY TRYING DO TO? Generally with sequels you have some immediate things that you weren't pleased with and that you want to change but they just have stuff that they want to add, they don't have some vision of how the game would be much better. It's too late for that anyway.

A sequel makes as little sense as a sequel to chess. Change as a self purpose isn't good.

All Blizzard has to do is adapt the Halo method. Keep the gameplay and core foundationthe same with spruced up graphics.

There's no possible way Blizzard will change the core mechanics. Too much stake at risk like the pros at South Korea or the 10 million Starcraft players all over the world.

I have confidence that Starcraft II will be more like a HUGE expansion pack rather than a new game.

I think the game may be either slighly better then original or worse. The graphics look abit to cartoony compared to other games also not as scary looking with all the bright colours.

I've been keeping very up to date on Starcraft II and it looks awesome. Being a hard-core Starcraft fan, though, I'm not sure its gonna live up to the original. Something about the graphics in the first one made it look darker, more realistic than what ive seen from the new one. Maybe this is just because it used 2D sprites that tend to be less cartoony? I want to hear what everyone else thinks.bob9999999999

This is pretty much the exact same complaints many are having with diablo 3 graphics (i see no problem with them), i think it looks great but im jsut not that into starcraft.

everything about starcraft 2 looks good,

I too liked the dark atmosphere of SC more than SC2's, but probably the graphics were made brighter in the transition from 2D to 3D.

Gameplay wise, we should differentiate UMS maps and ladder matches.
While the cla.ssic melees and ladder matches may not change too much from SC's, SC2's game engine will allow UMS maps to be FRIGGIN awesome: anyone that used to play SC UMSs will remember the amount of different maps there were (it would take hours to put them all in a list), and everything was limited by the 2D models and isometric high view...just thinking about the endless possibilities with the new editor gives me the shivers.

And nope, no game "will live up" to SC, it's very unlikely.

[QUOTE="aching546"]i liked how starcraft 1 had its own style, but now starcraft 2 looks like world of warcraft type graphics. it looks a little more goofy, while in starcraft 1, it did have a much darker theme. i wish they could have transferred that dark theme over to starcraft 2, instead of switching completely to warcraft style.sSubZerOo

It most certainly did not, not dissing Starcraft it is one of my more favorite games.. But it was pretty much a dumbed down universe of Warhammer 40k.

[QUOTE="bob9999999999"]I've been keeping very up to date on Starcraft II and it looks awesome. Being a hard-core Starcraft fan, though, I'm not sure its gonna live up to the original. Something about the graphics in the first one made it look darker, more realistic than what ive seen from the new one. Maybe this is just because it used 2D sprites that tend to be less cartoony? I want to hear what everyone else thinks.Skullheart

I think that Starcraft was made nearly 10 years ago, and just about any game made in 2007 will live up to it.

I think they brighter colors and graphics will make make large scale battles look a lot nicer.

[QUOTE="kyrieee"][QUOTE="Skullheart"]

I think that Starcraft was made nearly 10 years ago, and just about any game made in 2007 will live up to it.

JFFHawke

Oh really? How come no game has outdone it yet then?

And who says there hasn't been a game that has outdone Starcraft? Come on this is completely Opinion based. Just looking at a game's fanatical following is not enough to label it the greatest of all time.

Age of Empires 2 is a vastly superior game to SC, in almost everyway. More depth, More strategies. But again this is my opinion. And Opinions don't decide what is considered the greatest.

What does it matter anyway? Really. Will the original SC save you from paying taxes or avoiding death? NO, it is a game so keep it in perspective please.

All of this "This game is better than this, better than that!" sounds an awful lot like the playground kids screaming "My daddy can beat up your daddy."

Wow, labeling AoE 2 better than SC is laughable at best. In every AoE game the races are extremely similar, this eliminates it from contention.

How on earth you can say a game with extremely similar races has more depth and strategy than starcraft is beyond me. Sounds like blind fanboyism to me because I don't see how any rational thinking person who's played both extensively could possibly come to that conclusion.

Also, this is a videogame forum, since when did anyone 'lose perspective'? We all realize that they're just games, but we can still find enjoyment in discussing them. Maybe you should lighten up a little bit because nobody is taking this anywhere near as serious as you are it seems.

Absolutely - let's compare a 1998 legendary RTS to its 2010 unreleased sequel. :|

For me is a very anticipated game, along with Half-Life 2: Episode 3 (although EP3 hasn't even entered development yet). And it looks "brighter" than it's predecessor. But the thing that made SC so popular and great was the gameplay. The comparison with AoE2 is a joke. All factions in yhe AoE series are the same + - a few units, but nothing more. You can use the same strategy for everyone and win ¬¬ (so long for strategic depth)

In SC that's way different. And as long as this "diversity" component between the three races is there, then it's gonna be awesome

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="aching546"]i liked how starcraft 1 had its own style, but now starcraft 2 looks like world of warcraft type graphics. it looks a little more goofy, while in starcraft 1, it did have a much darker theme. i wish they could have transferred that dark theme over to starcraft 2, instead of switching completely to warcraft style.kieranb2000

It most certainly did not, not dissing Starcraft it is one of my more favorite games.. But it was pretty much a dumbed down universe of Warhammer 40k.

To the three of you: go and read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein ;)

Bye

In The Free Man We Trust

I think SC2 won't be such a hit like SC when it came out in 1998, but it will still be played a lot. And I mean A LOT.