Starcraft 2 - What are your thoughts for those of you who have played it already?

On the DX9 thing:

The game only needs a 6600GT to run. A 6600GT....... :eek:

This basically means that practically anyone who has aquired a PC with a g-card in the last three years, should be able to play this game.

I guess this just goes to prove that you can't please them all. Either you make a graphically mindblowing game which everyone complains about saying that they have to upgrade their PCs "again", or you cater for practically everyone spec wise and people complain that it's "only DX9" or that "it doesn't look so good".

*sigh*

Game developers have such a hard time.............. :(
 
Toxin said:
On the DX9 thing:

The game only needs a 6600GT to run. A 6600GT....... :eek:

This basically means that practically anyone who has aquired a PC with a g-card in the last three years, should be able to play this game.

I guess this just goes to prove that you can't please them all. Either you make a graphically mindblowing game which everyone complains about saying that they have to upgrade their PCs "again", or you cater for practically everyone spec wise and people complain that it's "only DX9" or that "it doesn't look so good".

*sigh*

Game developers have such a hard time.............. :(
Click to expand...

I hear you. But I just don't understand why they couldn't have encoded DX9, 10 and 11 support :)

That would please the guys on aging rigs as well as those with monster GPUs. In fairness, I know nothing about how coding for these APIs works. It may have something to do with making it Mac compatible though.
 
Tinman said:
I hear you. But I just don't understand why they couldn't have encoded DX9, 10 and 11 support :)

That would please the guys on aging rigs as well as those with monster GPUs. In fairness, I know nothing about how coding for these APIs works. It may have something to do with making it Mac compatible though.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very good point. I don't really care about graphix when it comes to RTS games but I don't see anything stopping them from releasing a patch later on that'll bring support for DX10 and DX11 (which I completely forgot about btw).
 
Just had to.

3154906454c189fucu2y242017355.jpg
 
The matter of DX 10 and 11 support is one of texture size and material rendering
Catering for one, DX9, whcih every system on the planet can run is a MUCH safer bet than working with the two later releases of the DX API.

I've been playing a bit and the only real problem I have is that carriers are still the pivotal deciding factor in any MP game.
At later stages countering large groups of them is impossible, no lock down, no amount of ground fire and no prayers help.
 
Xerowing said:
The matter of DX 10 and 11 support is one of texture size and material rendering
Catering for one, DX9, whcih every system on the planet can run is a MUCH safer bet than working with the two later releases of the DX API.

I've been playing a bit and the only real problem I have is that carriers are still the pivotal deciding factor in any MP game.
At later stages countering large groups of them is impossible, no lock down, no amount of ground fire and no prayers help.
Click to expand...

Battlecruiser yamatos or lots and lots of mutalisks, but it sort of your own fualt for letting them get so many carriers in the 1st place.

Just finished the camaign and just like 1st game, it is still the best story line of any RTS. The ending even brought a tear to my eye.

The gameplay is flawless, lots of fun, and keeps me excited, its so much fun the only reason I stopped playing at 4 this mourning was beacause I was dozing off between missions.
 
My opinion.

First the negatives :

Characterisation, writing and story telling are absolute rubbish. Before you jump down my throat I checked to see if I was being harsh and some of the better gaming journalists out there seem to agree agree with me. (Tom Chick, Kieron Gillen and Ben Kuchera.)

I personally find some of the missions to be over scripted and there seems to be a reliance on artificial time deadlines and limitations which turn too many levels into puzzles to be figured out as opposed to strategic challenges. Some people might enjoy it though. There are two missions that are utterly obnoxious and they should have been culled - Welcome to the Jungle and Supernova. These have to be the most annoying levels of any game I've played recently. They are throw your mouse at your monitor style levels.

I hate inability to zoom out a little bit more. This is one area Blizzard got it completely wrong.

It also annoys me that SCV's tend to build themselves into corners.

The positive:

The game is fun to play and the missions are a nice mix even if I would enjoy a few more traditional missions into the mix.

There is a lot of polish and everything looks great and moves great.

Unit animation is incredible.

The positives do outweigh the negatives and I do recommend it. I just don't think you should buy 100% into the hype and there is a lot of room for improvement. The game was rumoured to have cost almost $100,000,000 - I wish they had spent an extra $75,000 on competent writers.
 
Brendan said:
My opinion.
I hate inability to zoom out a little bit more. This is one area Blizzard got it completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I find this ridiculous ... its 3D, they went to all the trouble to make it 3D.... but you cant zoom in or out and turn the camera as you please. .. whats up with that?
 
Love this game. Love the feel and the polish of it. I really don't care for the zooming and turning the camera around as I never used it in other rts games.
 
Tsar said:
Love this game. Love the feel and the polish of it. I really don't care for the zooming and turning the camera around as I never used it in other rts games.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you have the game now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top