Starcraft 2

"Drab" is usually a word applied in criticism.

Anyway it doesn't look too much different from the first game, in that respect.
 
Tyrant said:
My problems with the way SC2 looks mostly comes from, well... Way too bright of a color pallet. Think about it: The first Starcraft had a drab, almost gritty, dirty look to it. SC2 has a overly bright, cartoony look to it. (Perhas i'm being spoiled by C&C3.) Don't get me wrong, I really wan't to see SC2 get the light of day it really deserves. I'm just put off as of this writing.
Click to expand...
That's vaguely what I was getting at. Yes, so far the game looks dazzling, but it does kind of lack the grit of the first Starcraft. And I guess it was that gritty look that made things appear more realistic and functional to me.
 
ChrisReid said:
In this case, Blizzard's track record would suggest the game should be balanced and relatively bug-free, but long development times can also be caused because the developers lack direction and have to retool their project multiple times. It doesn't automatically mean a final game will be a high quality product.



:rolleyes: The games you're complaining about are the annual franchises that often build off prior years' engines and spend much of that year getting final touches and bug fixes. EA's "main" games often spend several years in production, and they've spent more than twice as long on Arena as a typical Live Arcade game gets. The original Starcraft is still getting bug & exploit fix patches ten years later too (as recently as last month).
Click to expand...

Ok my bad. I've just heard a lot of other people say that, and also I tend to exaggerate things a bit sometimes. So I guess thats a lesson for me - research things a bit before hand. :)
Although long game developments can be bad. Take Tiberian Sun for example; highly antcipated yet I was highly disappointed. They spent about 4 years developing that and even with a 3D engine the graphics were obsolete when it was released.

With EA I guess I've just disapprove of some of the things they've done like buying out Bullfrog which IMO made some of the most unique and original games ever, take Dungeon Keeper and Magic Carpet for instance. EA did make sequals to Dungeon Keeper and Magic Carpet but somehow I didn't get into Dungeon Keeper 2 like the original - was too buggy. Magic Carpet 2 was great though and I reckon they could make a third with multiplayer.
 
Thunderbolt said:
Ok my bad. I've just heard a lot of other people say that, and also I tend to exaggerate things a bit sometimes. So I guess thats a lesson for me - research things a bit before hand. :)
Although long game developments can be bad. Take Tiberian Sun for example; highly antcipated yet I was highly disappointed. They spent about 4 years developing that and even with a 3D engine the graphics were obsolete when it was released.

With EA I guess I've just disapprove of some of the things they've done like buying out Bullfrog which IMO made some of the most unique and original games ever, take Dungeon Keeper and Magic Carpet for instance. EA did make sequals to Dungeon Keeper and Magic Carpet but somehow I didn't get into Dungeon Keeper 2 like the original - was too buggy. Magic Carpet 2 was great though and I reckon they could make a third with multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Sure EA did lots of bad things, and kicked lots of buggy games out of the door, like U8. But it's not ALL bad, they did some great things too.

they didn't put a gun to Garriot's head and forced him to sell Origin, the company was already on its way to bankruptcy...

My point is that EA did both great and awful things, and I just ask people to be reasonable.

Edit: For example, Tiberian Sun was still a WESTWOOD game, and C&C3 (Which I personally love) is all EA.
 
Sure EA did lots of bad things, and kicked lots of buggy games out of the door, like U8. But it's not ALL bad, they did some great things too.
Click to expand...

Edit: For example, Tiberian Sun was still a WESTWOOD game, and C&C3 (Which I personally love) is all EA.
Click to expand...

If Ultima 8 was an EA game, then so was Command and Conquer 2 - both studios were owned by Electronic Arts at the time of those releases.

I would argue that Ultima 8 has a lot more problems than just being buggy... in fact, I'd go so far as to say the popular idea of blaming "bugs" for the games quality is Richard Garriott doing his standard 'the evil corporation I sold out to is the problem!" schtick.

The game design itself is flawed on a core level... even when the later patch is applied, the game is still far inferior to Ultima 7 by design. The jumping puzzles being too hard aren't the issue with U8 - it's the fact that they made a conscious decision to drop the Virtues system, parties, character customization and a dozen other things that made the series interesting. None of that is EA's fault... in fact, it's somewhat amazing that EA even gave them the budget for U8 in an era where Ultima was a tiny niche market.
 
U9, that game had all kinds of blame to be thrown around: Garriot, EA and the dev team. I wonder, how many years was that game actually in development: one, two, maybe three. Very bad direction. (I am taking about the current incarnation, not the previous build)

I must say, though, SC2 will be great as long as they keep the story as awesome as it was in the first game. I have every confidence that it will...Blizzard just can't make a bad game.

So do you guys think the game might be ready by, Christmas, early Spring?
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I would argue that Ultima 8 has a lot more problems than just being buggy... in fact, I'd go so far as to say the popular idea of blaming "bugs" for the games quality is Richard Garriott doing his standard 'the evil corporation I sold out to is the problem!" schtick.

The game design itself is flawed on a core level... even when the later patch is applied, the game is still far inferior to Ultima 7 by design. The jumping puzzles being too hard aren't the issue with U8 - it's the fact that they made a conscious decision to drop the Virtues system, parties, character customization and a dozen other things that made the series interesting. None of that is EA's fault... in fact, it's somewhat amazing that EA even gave them the budget for U8 in an era where Ultima was a tiny niche market.
Click to expand...

I agree with the design flaws... It's just that, on top of those, there were some bad bugs, too. And THOSE were kinda EA's fault, for pushing the release date, and so on.

U8 could have been great, but it was a good game, even with all the flaws.

Anyway, my point is that, even though EA is NOT as bad as the internet says, it sure as hell ain't perfect at all.
 
I agree with the design flaws... It's just that, on top of those, there were some bad bugs, too. And THOSE were kinda EA's fault, for pushing the release date, and so on.
Click to expand...

I can't even quantify this, though. As mentioned, the biggest 'bug' is that the jumping puzzles sucked... but they sucked *by design*. That was the development team deciding they wanted to add a stupid arcade element to an RPG, not EA forcing the game out early.

Also, no matter what Garriott wants to say, there's absolutely no way the game was'forced out'. EA didn't wake up one morning and decide it was time to force Origin to release a game early - they went by the schedule agreed upon with the development team at the start of the cycle. In actuality Lord British didn't deliver a working game in the time he agreed upon and EA wasn't willing to spend money to extend that deadline.

Could they have been more progressive and just said 'okay, keep spending our money, let us know when you're done'. Sure, they could - and that game was called Ultima: Ascension.
 
The whole "game pushed out too soon" happens a lot. But I think the debate of whose fault it is primarely a hardcore fan thing. Kotor II was butchered in a terrible way - it had a great storyline that ended up nowhere. It's pretty much irrelevant whose fault it is: the big corporation that forced a deadline, or the developers that couldn't deliver it on time. From a consumer perspective, it doesn't matter. If EA and Origin put their label on a product, and it sucks, it's on them.

It's a bit different with U8, since the problems were on the design, and extra time to work out bugs wouldn't resolve that. But, still, EA made the decision to put their logo on it and sell it in stores, what makes them responsible for any problems with the game.

This only happens when the developers are famous like Origin or semi-famous like Obsidian – who even remembers X-Com was developed by Mythos instead of Microprose?
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I can't even quantify this, though. As mentioned, the biggest 'bug' is that the jumping puzzles sucked... but they sucked *by design*. That was the development team deciding they wanted to add a stupid arcade element to an RPG, not EA forcing the game out early.
Click to expand...

The game was definitely buggy, before the patch. That's not even debatable. And there's lots of half-assed and unfinished stuff, like the Lost Valley.
But hey, U7 was buggy too.
 
Hey,
To all those keen Australian SC fans out there awaiting the release of SC2, s2a (Starcraft 2 Australia) is doing pre-release recruitment for the clan. The forums and site is up

and running packed with plenty of SC2 info. Try visit when you can, register your interest!

http://www.starcraft2.com/

Crikey... it's about time. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top