StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty


By: Alan Bell    On: PC
Published: Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 10:00 PM
 
 
 
Ad FeedbackAdvertisement

Blizzard knows games. They've been making them forever; much longer than their trio of epic licenses (StarCraft, WarCraft and Diablo) have been around. It seems that they haven't just evolved with videogames, but that they themselves have somehow been involved in steering the course of that evolution. Their games, while seldom genuinely original, are perfected and polished into a refined total experience that manages to transcend anything achieved by their peers.

Put simply, Blizzard seem to have captured the "X-factor" and put it to work in their games factory.

With that sort of (well deserved) reputation comes a level of anticipation that starts out at about "oh. my. god." and goes all the way up to "over 9,000". Basically, if StarCraft II isn't one of the best games of all time, people will be disappointed.

Fear not.

It is.

Easily.

For the uninitiated, StarCraft II is a Real Time Strategy (RTS) game. Put simply, this means that users control units from a top-down perspective, zoomed out enough to allow a good portion of terrain and a number of buildings to appear on the screen. Using the mouse, players must strategically gather resources before deploying them decisively in order to successfully complete their objective (which is typically, although not always, the utter annihilation of any enemy forces in the area).

The original StarCraft was something of a huge hit, particularly in Korea where massive gaming leagues and multiple television channels orbit around it. With that in mind, Blizzard were wary of massively revamping the gameplay so the core experience is remarkably similar to that 12-year old game. That's not to say it's a bad thing; in fact the level of familiarity in the core "click here, then there" experience is comforting. That it stands as a workable mechanic after such a long time is testament to the fact that it was well designed in the first place.

That's not to say this is some cookie-cutter mission pack with a few new maps - oh no, not at all. So much of the non-core experience has changed it will be difficult to detail it all. In singleplayer, for example, you spend your time in a 3D environment populated by other characters from your story so far, as well as numerous interactive objects. Through the manipulation of these people and objects, you are able to learn more about the story, fill in detail about your equipment or perform upgrades/research/hire mercenaries in order to bolster your ability in the field.

The story picks up from the first StarCraft, with Kerrigan (now the Queen of Blades) and her Zerg army strangely silent. Jim Raynor, hero of the people, is now on the run from a corrupt Emperor (power corrupts, it seems - who knew?) who twists tales of his heroism through the media to make him sound like a terrorist. Without giving any spoilers, it's fair to say that the story (Jim and his rag-tag crew scour the universe looking for a way to save the day without being killed by the people they're trying to save) is great. The characters are rich and well-voiced, evoking real empathy.

The singleplayer gameplay itself is a rich combination of tried-and-true and modern RTS mechanisms (remember, it's StarCraft at the core). This means build queues, resource gathering, creating groups of units combined with modern RTS dynamism and think-on-your-feet scenarios that keep things fresh as you progress. And progress you will, regardless (nearly) of your skill level. The new "casual" skill level dials things down a lot in terms of difficulty, with three levels above that for people with some experience playing RTS games.

The presentation of singleplayer is superb, with detailed in-game cinematics that look gorgeous on pretty average hardware and still look good if your machine is a total junker. In the game itself, an incredible amount of detail makes up each and every map, from the flocks of birds that flee on your approach, to the little lava beasts that take refuge in your base when the lava rises. Every time you look you see something new, some little element of polish seems to laugh in the face of every other RTS map ever made. Exaggerated and "unreal" as the world may be, you believe that it exists as a living, breathing, tactile location.

Multiplayer is incredibly fleshed out, taking the new Battle.Net out for its first real play. Integration of friends lists and general presentation of menus, etc, is just the beginning - it's the way the multiplayer works behind the scenes that really has people excited.

When you first start out you'll have to play a series of five seeding matches, where all unseeded newbies are chucked in a pot and matched with each other. Based on your success here, you'll emerge with a rank that ensures that future placements are with players around your own skill level. From here, your climb (or fall) on the ladder is directly related to your success or failure in games.

If you're not up for the competitive stuff, or just don't like playing against random strangers, fret not - there are multiplayer options for you as well. You can team up with people to play against the AI, play non-ranked matches against your friends and so on. There's full support for voice communications, too, so if kicking back drinking a beer while you farm vespene gas and whine about your job with your friends sounds like fun, there's no reason to leave that big "multiplayer" button un-clicked.

One of the touted features of the new Battle.Net is RealID, rolled out a while ago with the Battle.Net-enabled World of WarCraft. Basically it's a way for people that actually do know each other (you're known on the opt-in service by your real name) to link up, using an instant messaging system that works across all Battle.Net games (i.e. you can chat to your mates raiding Ulduar in WoW while you fight back the Zerg in StarCraft II).

Unfortunately, thanks to the way the servers are configured for StarCraft II, it's a bit of a flop for us Kiwis that want to jam with our WoW mates. NZ WoW accounts, you see, are on the American servers - while StarCraft II, for fear of crappy pings to America resulting in crappy gameplay experiences, is based in SEA - South East Asia & Oceania. For reasons known only to Blizzard, this means that you can't even chat to your RealID mates, let alone play with them.

After the uproar surrounding the above, Blizzard have stated that "within 60 days" of the game's launch, SEA players will be able to download the US client (many gigabytes - yay for tiny data caps!) and play on there, however the two versions of the game will be entirely segmented (i.e. if you do that, you won't be able to talk to or play with anyone that doesn't). Pretty disappointing and yet another reminder of how peripheral a market of just a few million people really is. Sucks to be us, eh?

One thing Blizzard refuses to move on, uproar or otherwise, is the exclusion of LAN play. Touting the integration of Battle.Net at the lowest level (and likely influenced by the mass piracy of games on PC) all multiplayer games are played over Battle.Net. You even need to connect to Battle.Net to authenticate your copy of the game before you can play it singleplayer - something that itself would have caused online fury a few years ago. But time marches on, and the marketplace for PC gaming is evolving - the internet is required. That's not likely to change anytime soon.

The gameplay balance, while different to the original StarCraft, seems solid - it's likely that numerous balance issues remain but, knowing Blizzard, they'll be patched out as and when they are discovered. Whatever issues are there aren't obvious - it occasionally seems like you've found something clever but then someone else comes along and spanks you into the ground with a counter strategy you hadn't considered. There are loads of units, each with many levels of customization or play style variance. Chances are good you'll still be learning years down the line - if you want to be at the top of the ladder, you'd best brush up on "Theorycrafting" because reading tips and strategies from other players will open your mind to what's possible.

That and click rate. Like the original StarCraft, the speed that you can click at makes a whole world of difference. There are also numerous shortcut keys (force yourself to use them in singleplayer so they become second nature) which make all the difference when milliseconds count in a ranked ladder match.

Visually StarCraft II is superb. If your machine can handle it (and the recommended specs aren't that high) the in-game graphics are amazing and the cinematics... wow. Just so very awesome. Blizzard really needs to put this team to work making a movie. In-game detail is second to none, with all of the maps, units, animations and textures having an incredible level of polish. They weren't created so much as they were born, nurtured and loved. Those aren't a collection of polygons you're looking at, they're someone's children and they've come from a happy home!

Similarly the sound has obviously had a lot of time spent on it by seriously talented people. The musical score is vast and gorgeous, ably backed up by superb voice talent and effects that can only be attributed to incredible skill. The attention to detail here is out of this world, with well-leveraged surround sound (ambient swamp sounds will cause you to look around your room for the bugs) and a full gamut of frequencies from the deepest sub-base through to the peakiest treble. Get some decent speakers if you don't already have some and turn them up loud. If you don't get a visit from noise control you're not doing the artists behind the work any justice.

This review, overlong though it already is, scarcely touches on many elements of the game. There is a lot to it, from the lengthy singleplayer campaign to the complexities of the advanced multiplayer capabilities. Sure, there's only one campaign mode (Terran) with the other two races to have their own, separate games down the line. There's also a map editor, Facebook integration, an awesome arcade game which parodies one of Blizzard's own beloved properties, extensive modding capabilities, a marketplace for people to sell their own mods (including an updated version of DoTA) and so much more. And all for less than the price of an average, 5-hour playtime FPS from Activision whose name we won't mention.

Bang for buck? Check. Killer gameplay? Check. Loads of options? Check. Story, sound, presentation? All awesome. It even has a "casual" difficulty level. What's not to like? Screw 2010 - StarCraft II is the best RTS game released in YEARS and one of the best games on PC full stop. If you like gaming at all, you owe it to yourself to check this out. The ultimate RTS has arrived.


The Score

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
"Kekeke Zerg rush!"
9.8
Excellent
Rating: M   Difficulty: Medium   Learning Curve: 3+ Hours

 

More You May Like

 

Comments (116)

You must be logged in to post comments.

or Register now!
Ron NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 10:12 PM Posted by Ron
I must admit I'm not a huge PC gamer, but played a lot of the original Starcraft and are pretty impressed by the review and what I've seen of Starcraft II.
 
 
2
 
Krugsy
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 10:17 PM Posted by Krugsy
Yeah good review mate, I was a bit hesitant at first because RTS games aint usually on the top of my list, but this looks like it could be a winner.
 
 
1
 
Donutta
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 10:34 PM Posted by Donutta
"Pretty disappointing and yet another reminder of how peripheral a market of just a few million people really is. Sucks to be us, eh?"

I'm glad you addressed this! Respect +1!

That said, I agree; it doesn't detract from the main game *that* much. I usually can't stand RTS games and I'm totally having a blast with Starcraft II. You can just tell how much love has been put into this game.
 
*  
8
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Lacurus
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 11:05 PM Posted by Lacurus
I hadn't played the first game, but watched my mate play alot of the beta for the second, so decided to make it my summer (kinda early) purchase. Wow, there is so much bang for your buck here, and I'm constantly being amazing by it. I agree with this review totally, stellar game
 
 
3
 
Astarael
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 11:36 PM Posted by Astarael
Honestly after finding out that there was no LAN integration it was pretty much a deal breaker. But upon reading this review I am (once again) seriously considering buying this game. Not for the multi-player but for the campaign, I must have played through the Starcraft and Brood War campaigns about 5 or 6 times each. Go work for Blizzards advertising department cause I'm sold. =D
 
 
1
 
mazty
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 1:00 AM Posted by mazty
Do you know what this review doesn't tell me? Any detail about the game. Why is it so good? What specific parts put it head and shoulders above the competition? Graphics superb? Compared to what??? The original sure, but certainly not other PC games or RTS' - Empire TW, DoW2 etc. What modern RTS' ideas has it adopted because the beta showed that it had pissed away all the innovation from the last 10 years of gaming, especially with the idea that click rate counts for something...
But of course with the nostalgia factor and considering all the people who will have pre-ordered it, it'd be media suicide to give a review that was truthful, and not a "Best gaem evar" default praise speech that comes with many large releases nowadays.
 
 
-1
 
Blammage
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 2:55 AM Posted by Blammage
Did they (Blizzard) have to pay you for this "review"? Or are you just flippin' blind??? This isn't a review...It's a piece of marketing trash.

Do yourself a favor, and get a job in advertising...you've obviously got a gift for advertorials.
 
 
-10
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
ShinyPants
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 6:54 AM Posted by ShinyPants
How did this score better on the graphics than Metro 2033 and Dawn of War 2? This game was announced 3 years ago and the graphics haven't changed significantly since then.
 
 
-2
 
Lacurus
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 7:44 AM Posted by Lacurus
@Astarael: The campaign is pretty impressive so far, I've done 7 out of the 28 missions, and it's taken me at least 4/5 hours to do that on normal difficulty. My mate is doing them on brutal difficulty and finding them a real challenge.

The missions are really varied, for example (no major story spoilers), there is infested human colony which needs to be destroyed. So there is a ingame day/night cycle, and during the day you need to venture out of your base and burn as much as you can. However you need to have your units back by nightfall, which is when the infected come out and you need to defend your base. Very cool idea, especially with the optional objectives like kill this one super strong creature quite a far distance from your base... ...but it only comes out at night. (My units killed it, but didn't make the trip back.

It's levels like this which show me that Blizzard spent time thinking about each level and how it works. Chuck in moral decisions for how a level goes, credits you earn can be spent on hiring mercenaries and buying new upgrades for your units. Also research unlocks new technology not seen in multiplayer or SC1.

It does seem like alot of money for just a campaign, but if your a hardcore SC fan, then you will probably find it's worth it.


@ShinyPants: They didn't want the latest and best graphics system as the majority of gamers don't have the latest and greatest computers to run them! They needed to be able to run on older computers, however, I can run this game on max settings (Ultra) which is rare for my computer, and it looks amazing! Lots of details! The ingame cinematics look awesome. I turned it down to medium, and I must say it still looked great! I would have needed 2 screenshots to compare the differences because medium quality still looks great.
 
 
4
 
Amscray
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 9:51 AM Posted by Amscray
Smell that integrity.
Game drops at 12:01am Tuesday and you have a full 9.8 review up Wednesday evening?
Exactly how far through did you get?
Get off the tit, mate, and tell us how you really feel.
 
 
-14
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
ShinyPants
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 9:53 AM Posted by ShinyPants
29 July 2010, 07:44 AM Reply to Lacurus
@Astarael: The campaign is pretty impressive so far, I've done 7 out of the 28 missions, and it's taken me at least 4/5 hours to do that on normal difficulty. My mate is doing them on brutal difficulty and finding them a real challenge.

The missions are really varied, for example (no major story spoilers), there is infested human colony which needs to be destroyed. So there is a ingame day/night cycle, and during the day you need to venture out of your base and burn as much as you can. However you need to have your units back by nightfall, which is when the infected come out and you need to defend your base. Very cool idea, especially with the optional objectives like kill this one super strong creature quite a far distance from your base... ...but it only comes out at night. (My units killed it, but didn't make the trip back.

It's levels like this which show me that Blizzard spent time thinking about each level and how it works. Chuck in moral decisions for how a level goes, credits you earn can be spent on hiring mercenaries and buying new upgrades for your units. Also research unlocks new technology not seen in multiplayer or SC1.

It does seem like alot of money for just a campaign, but if your a hardcore SC fan, then you will probably find it's worth it.


@ShinyPants: They didn't want the latest and best graphics system as the majority of gamers don't have the latest and greatest computers to run them! They needed to be able to run on older computers, however, I can run this game on max settings (Ultra) which is rare for my computer, and it looks amazing! Lots of details! The ingame cinematics look awesome. I turned it down to medium, and I must say it still looked great! I would have needed 2 screenshots to compare the differences because medium quality still looks great.
You don't need the best system to run Dawn of War 2 and Metro 2033 either and they look great at lower settings too. Heck, I was able to run Dawn of War 2 with a Pentium 4 and a Radeon X1300 and looked great and had good frame rates. However, there are obvious benefits to being able to run those games at max settings vs. low or medium. If you're comparing graphics, you have to compare them at all settings, ranging from the lowest to the highest. It doesn't make any sense that Dawn of War 2 got an 8.0 on graphics but this game got a 9.5 even though this game was released a year after Dawn of War 2.
 
 
-4
 
Donutta
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 10:13 AM Posted by Donutta
29 July 2010, 06:54 AM Reply to ShinyPants
How did this score better on the graphics than Metro 2033 and Dawn of War 2? This game was announced 3 years ago and the graphics haven't changed significantly since then.
There's more to graphics than polygons, you know.

Some people...
 
* *  
10
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Donutta
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 10:15 AM Posted by Donutta
29 July 2010, 09:51 AM Reply to Amscray
Smell that integrity.
Game drops at 12:01am Tuesday and you have a full 9.8 review up Wednesday evening?
Exactly how far through did you get?
Get off the tit, mate, and tell us how you really feel.
There's an achievement to finish the campaign in under 8 hours -- and on another forum people are already discussing the ending. Plus, you don't know if NZGamer got an advanced copy and simply had an embargo on the review. Usually their stuff goes live around 10am, not 10pm.

Haters gonna hate.
 
* * *  
17
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
lottethefirst
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 10:30 AM Posted by lottethefirst
I'm going to have to agree with some of the more negative (truthful, see what I did there?!) comments that have been posted.

The review literally says nothing at all about the game other than posting a half-hearted history of the SC universe and saying Blizzard makes a mean cinematic.

I feel I'd be more informed by just reading the back of the box.

This review would do well by cutting out the huge History 101 bits and actually discussing what's new and what makes it all awesome.

It's a rush job at worst and a shill at best.
 
 
-4
 
Ron NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 11:02 AM Posted by Ron
Well for those who don't agree, you've always got a reader review to voice your opinion - http://nzgamer.com/pc/games/1985/starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty.html
 
*  
8
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
ShinyPants
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 11:20 AM Posted by ShinyPants
29 July 2010, 10:13 AM Reply to Donutta
There's more to graphics than polygons, you know.

Some people...
Considering how Starcraft pretty much copied the artistic style of Warhammer 40K, I don't see how it could be rated higher than Dawn of War 2 on that level.
 
 
-4
 
Takuyafire
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 12:58 PM Posted by Takuyafire
29 July 2010, 11:20 AM Reply to ShinyPants
Considering how Starcraft pretty much copied the artistic style of Warhammer 40K, I don't see how it could be rated higher than Dawn of War 2 on that level.
I'm a massive 40k/DOW fan/player...but this simply isn't true.

Starcraft took what worked view-wise from their original game and revamped it to look better. The thing that makes these games good is that they can run on a low-mid end system without hassles.

As Donutta said there simply is a lot more to "graphics" than poly counts, Blizzard has a reputation for refining their visuals to meet both a standard that works for most CPU/GPU's as well as being stunning.

Also what the hell at Metro2033? The graphics were terrible...if it wasn't green it was brown...sure there might have been a hell of a lot of polys and sharp lines but goddamn man that game looked awful.
 
 
3
 
ShinyPants
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 1:33 PM Posted by ShinyPants
29 July 2010, 12:58 PM Reply to Takuyafire
I'm a massive 40k/DOW fan/player...but this simply isn't true.

Starcraft took what worked view-wise from their original game and revamped it to look better. The thing that makes these games good is that they can run on a low-mid end system without hassles.

As Donutta said there simply is a lot more to "graphics" than poly counts, Blizzard has a reputation for refining their visuals to meet both a standard that works for most CPU/GPU's as well as being stunning.

Also what the hell at Metro2033? The graphics were terrible...if it wasn't green it was brown...sure there might have been a hell of a lot of polys and sharp lines but goddamn man that game looked awful.
As I said before, I was able to run Dawn of War 2 on my old computer which had a Pentium 4 and a Radeon X1300. I was able to play it on medium, it still looked good and had good frame rates. I could run Command and Conquer 3 and Red Alert 3 on that crappy old computer too and at higher settings. They didn't get 9.5 on their graphics score.

I never said that graphics are just polygon count. There are obviously other qualities involved like the originality of the artwork and how much they're able to immerse you in the game. I mentioned Metro 2033 not because it has the highest system requirements but because succeeded in immersing you in the setting. It takes place after a nuclear war and the human race have been forced to live in the metro system like rats. What did you expect? Rainbows and candy canes? The graphics certainly didn't merit the high system requirements but it was very detailed and it made you believe that the survivors were living in squalid conditions. The world did really look like it had been through a nuclear war.

As for Starcraft 2, I never said that the graphics were bad. I was questioning how they were rated compared to how other games were rated. I think that SC 2 has great graphics but I don't think that it deserves a 9.5 if DoW 2 only got an 8. There has to be some consistency in how games are reviewed. From what I've seen, SC2's graphics are about equivalent to DoW2's graphics taking into consideration of the fact that DoW2 came out almost a year and a half ago. If two games have equivalent graphics, it's not fair for one to get a score that's 19% higher than the other.
 
 
1
 
mazty
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 1:36 PM Posted by mazty
29 July 2010, 12:58 PM Reply to Takuyafire
I'm a massive 40k/DOW fan/player...but this simply isn't true.

Starcraft took what worked view-wise from their original game and revamped it to look better. The thing that makes these games good is that they can run on a low-mid end system without hassles.

As Donutta said there simply is a lot more to "graphics" than poly counts, Blizzard has a reputation for refining their visuals to meet both a standard that works for most CPU/GPU's as well as being stunning.

Also what the hell at Metro2033? The graphics were terrible...if it wasn't green it was brown...sure there might have been a hell of a lot of polys and sharp lines but goddamn man that game looked awful.
I'ts ironic you talk about "more to graphics than polycount" and yet Metro 2033 is one of the graphically best games out there. Firstly polycount has next to nothing to do with how visually impressive something is unless we are talking about tessellation, which we are not. Secondly what is important is lighting, and the lighting in starcraft 2 is very basic. It's as simple as that - the game does not deserve praise for it's graphics in this day & age. Or please, tell me why it does and how graphics should not be considered on a technical basis.
Saying it works on a low spec machine proves the graphics are bad as the graphics clearly are basic. Also saying Metro 2033 is ugly shows you have not seen it running on more than the consoles as the game has exceptional lighting. Plus the colour palette was to do with the setting - it'd be weird for the underground to be rainbow coloured...
 
 
-7
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Xenojay NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 1:51 PM Posted by Xenojay
I wonder who these trolls shill for...
 
 
2
 
Takuyafire
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 2:01 PM Posted by Takuyafire
f**k YEA I GOT MY FIRST THUMBS UP!

That like never happens...people hate other people more than me!

WOOTZ

Also I just finished Metro last night out of pure boredum cause my mate wanted to see it...I never could be assed playing it cause it was pretty dull both in gameplay and graphics. Sure it was intensive with lighting, textures etc but it was lifeless and f**king brown...seriously...everything looked like it was coated with a layer of literal sh*t.

If you play games for super high pretty graphics go play Crysis...Crytek (I think thats the dev?) go out of their way to make graphics a focal point of their games whereas companies like Blizzard go out of their way to make the graphics support the gameplay...

Furthermore in this case the author could have simply said that the graphics were 19% higher simply because they supported the game better than they did in DOWII which, lets be honest here, had some frustrating moments where a giant hole would give you no cover at all whereas a piece of knee high grass would give you medium cover...this is an example of graphics not supporting the game.

That being said, I don't play Starcraft at all and I have played DoW/DoWII series to absolute death and would rather play it.
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 2:36 PM Posted by mazty
29 July 2010, 02:01 PM Reply to Takuyafire
f**k YEA I GOT MY FIRST THUMBS UP!

That like never happens...people hate other people more than me!

WOOTZ

Also I just finished Metro last night out of pure boredum cause my mate wanted to see it...I never could be assed playing it cause it was pretty dull both in gameplay and graphics. Sure it was intensive with lighting, textures etc but it was lifeless and f**king brown...seriously...everything looked like it was coated with a layer of literal sh*t.

If you play games for super high pretty graphics go play Crysis...Crytek (I think thats the dev?) go out of their way to make graphics a focal point of their games whereas companies like Blizzard go out of their way to make the graphics support the gameplay...

Furthermore in this case the author could have simply said that the graphics were 19% higher simply because they supported the game better than they did in DOWII which, lets be honest here, had some frustrating moments where a giant hole would give you no cover at all whereas a piece of knee high grass would give you medium cover...this is an example of graphics not supporting the game.

That being said, I don't play Starcraft at all and I have played DoW/DoWII series to absolute death and would rather play it.
The underground dirty? Well I'd never have guessed....-.-
What's being questioned here is how on earth have the graphics been given such a high score when better looking games have not received such a high score, while the game is certainly rather lacking in graphics.
it's funny you go on about DoWII's cover system when Starcraft has nothing at all like that, so what's your point? Plus that example is ludicrous and flat out wrong.
Personally after playing the beta and every major RTS since C&C, I can see no reason why this game is the new Jesus for RTS' when it seems to have copied and pasted a 10 year old game with a few tweaks. The review sadly didn't clarify anything, it just told me it's a good game "cuz". So I ask you as you clearly are defending Starcraft 2, what makes this THE RTS to buy, play and weep with joy over?
 
 
-10
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Xenojay NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 2:47 PM Posted by Xenojay
Hahaha, the shills coming through marking everyone's "UP/DOWN"'s off in their favour. Bahahahaha.
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Menamanama
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 3:01 PM Posted by Menamanama
I only buy a few games a year and I think after reading this review this will be one of them. For the nay sayers out there, this review answered all the questions I needed to know.
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
drakexp
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 3:02 PM Posted by drakexp
I can smell the marketing sham already! This isn't a review. But then again, the whole site is covered in ads of SC2
Next time, write an actual review please
 
 
-12
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 3:28 PM Posted by Takuyafire
29 July 2010, 02:36 PM Reply to mazty
The underground dirty? Well I'd never have guessed....-.-
What's being questioned here is how on earth have the graphics been given such a high score when better looking games have not received such a high score, while the game is certainly rather lacking in graphics.
it's funny you go on about DoWII's cover system when Starcraft has nothing at all like that, so what's your point? Plus that example is ludicrous and flat out wrong.
Personally after playing the beta and every major RTS since C&C, I can see no reason why this game is the new Jesus for RTS' when it seems to have copied and pasted a 10 year old game with a few tweaks. The review sadly didn't clarify anything, it just told me it's a good game "cuz". So I ask you as you clearly are defending Starcraft 2, what makes this THE RTS to buy, play and weep with joy over?
Underground dirty on roof tops and inside every single building? OMGNOWAI!!! </massive stupid and pointless sarcasm response>

Did you know that Starcraft has Kerrigan while DoWII doesn't?! See what I did? Sure SC2 doesn't have cover system what I was referring too (quite obviously) was that the cover system is incorporated by the graphics (again quite obviously)...The graphics did not meet the gameplay (the point I was intending to make and even stated I would) and thus the graphics cannot be considered "perfect" in that regard alone...So thanks for letting me know that the two games have different mechanics, next time focus on my point thanks.

Next point: I don't care if you've played every single alpha of every single major RTS...hell I play every single beta of every single major FPS...totally irrelevant...you're just trying to push a prestige factor into your opinion which is just silly.

And I care nothing about SC2 and at this stage I'm only barely considering getting it out of boredom brought on by the drought in decent games right now...I simply wanted to let you know that your opinion is your own and if you post it publicly on a website you do not own then expect trolls like me to express our opinions back.
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 3:28 PM Posted by Takuyafire
29 July 2010, 02:47 PM Reply to Xenojay
Hahaha, the shills coming through marking everyone's "UP/DOWN"'s off in their favour. Bahahahaha.
I still cant believe I haven't had a single thumbs down yet...

Sorry to disappoint guys, I'll try harder next time.
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Xenojay NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 3:31 PM Posted by Xenojay
What cracks me up is I wonder if these trolls/shills are attacking the following sites for the same ratings:

Joystiq - 100
MEGamers - 94
GamingXP - 94

:P
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 3:33 PM Posted by Takuyafire
29 July 2010, 03:31 PM Reply to Xenojay
What cracks me up is I wonder if these trolls/shills are attacking the following sites for the same ratings:

Joystiq - 100
MEGamers - 94
GamingXP - 94

:P
Oh would you look at that! 97 on Metacritic!

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/starcraft2
 
 
3
 
Donutta
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 4:07 PM Posted by Donutta
Kerrigan was hot. In fact, I'd probably still go there even now that she's the Queen of Blades.
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Astarael
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 7:24 PM Posted by Astarael
29 July 2010, 04:07 PM Reply to Donutta
Kerrigan was hot. In fact, I'd probably still go there even now that she's the Queen of Blades.
Even more so in fact =P
 
 
-1
 
deathssilkymist
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 7:37 PM Posted by deathssilkymist
@ShinyPants Graphics scores are not about realism. Of course Metro 2033 looks more realistic that starcraft2, but that isn't the only factor in determining if a games graphics are amazing. Starcraft 2 has a specific STYLE, and it blows most games out of the water in terms of its complexity, colors, effects, etc. Now, Metro 2033 and DoW 2 look amazing too, but in different ways. People need to get out of the realism craze of the late 1990s and most of the 2000s because now that we are close to achieving it, more and more games are going to go stylized like sc2(which still looks amazingly realistic when your onboard the ship or watching cinematics).

The single player alone is worth the money, with the amount of diversity in gamplay it feels like every mission has something new to bring to the table, its way more in depth than simply playing an RTS each level.

The multiplayer is basically a much faster paced version of sc1 game play, with more counter units to add a lot more strategy. Sure it's not as balanced right now, but that because your used to SC1 which has 12 years of patching and testing on sc2. Give it a year or 2 and those small issues will go away.

And finally, at the people who are b*tching about it not being LAN friendly or Spawnable, this is to prevent piracy. No one realizes that companies lose millions of dollars because people either pirate games or install them on multiple computers. If you actually read software agreements you will notice that since the beginning of games almost all of them say you can only install the game on ONE computer(spawn was an exception because it was basically a demo version of the game). Now blizzard simply has a way to force people to do what they should have been doing for the last 20 years.
 
 
2
 
leeofengland
On Thursday 29 Jul 2010 11:22 PM Posted by leeofengland
I have been playing Starcraft 2 for the last 2 days but so far im not sure. There is alot of inconsistency in the graphics, some look fairly good some look very dated. Also i find it stange that you can move an army of mechs and they dont make a sound, infact you can hear the birds chirping in the background while the mechs move on silently. C&C3 didnt suffer either of these shortfalls. Everyone seems to be comparing Starcraft 2 to C&C4 but everyone knows C&C4 was awful so why bother? Compare it to C&C3 and im not sure it would do so well.
 
 
1
 
Aryzlan
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 12:06 AM Posted by Aryzlan
Game: 7/10
The bad stuff (DRM, no LAN, Zoning, BNet2.0 is disliked by the majority, etc...) you have to take with the game: -4/10
Total: 3/10.

Worst thing Blizzard has ever released, (which isn't really saying that much).

Seriously this score is ridiculous. Did Blizzard pay you?
 
 
-6
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
cooljojo
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 1:08 AM Posted by cooljojo
I would get this game right now if a netbook with ion graphics can play it ha.
 
 
-6
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
ShinyPants
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 4:22 AM Posted by ShinyPants
@deathssilkymist I never said that graphics was about realism. DoW2's graphics aren't realistic. The Infinity Engine's games weren't realistic and I still find them to be great.

As for Starcraft 2's style, it's copied from Warhammer 40K and it's very similar to the style of DoW2. The Terrans in Starcraft were based on the Imperium of Man in Warhammer 40K, the Zerg were based on the Tyranid, the Protoss were based on the Eldar, and the Xel'Naga were based on the Old Ones.

And if you admit that Metro 2033 and DoW2 amazing then why is it that they were given 8 on graphics while Starcraft 2 was given a 9.5? What makes SC2's graphics so much better than Metro 2033 and DoW2's graphics. As I mentioned before, I never said that Starcraft 2's graphics was bad. I was questioning the consistency of the reviews.
 
 
-5
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 8:23 AM Posted by Donutta
30 July 2010, 04:22 AM Reply to ShinyPants
@deathssilkymist I never said that graphics was about realism. DoW2's graphics aren't realistic. The Infinity Engine's games weren't realistic and I still find them to be great.

As for Starcraft 2's style, it's copied from Warhammer 40K and it's very similar to the style of DoW2. The Terrans in Starcraft were based on the Imperium of Man in Warhammer 40K, the Zerg were based on the Tyranid, the Protoss were based on the Eldar, and the Xel'Naga were based on the Old Ones.

And if you admit that Metro 2033 and DoW2 amazing then why is it that they were given 8 on graphics while Starcraft 2 was given a 9.5? What makes SC2's graphics so much better than Metro 2033 and DoW2's graphics. As I mentioned before, I never said that Starcraft 2's graphics was bad. I was questioning the consistency of the reviews.
Metro 2033 was reviewed by Conrad.
Dawn of War II was reviewed by Tristan.
Starcraft II was reviewed by Alan.

Since a review is merely an opinion backed up with evidence to convince, I don't see how you have any argument for consistency, here. You're comparing three different people's opinions. It's like saying there is no consistency between my opinion and my girlfriend's opinion on chocolate ice-cream.

Also, fact: someone liking this game and attaching a high number to their opinion totally means you have to like this game more than any other game you like.
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Sonic
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 3:46 PM Posted by Sonic
If blizzard intend to force us to use Battle.net to play their games online, are they going to invest money in NZ's poorly made DSL network and speed up the transition from Copper to Fibre nationwide?
Any game that says I have to download a 1gb+ file to either speak/chat, or be able to play online instantly gets a mark down in my books. Gladly Steam gets around this for most games, and MSN helps on the rest.
I've noticed most PSN titles have huge downloads/patches when you first pop the game in, but thankfully you can still play the game without doing so(unless you want to get your trophies or play online).
I understand piracy is the reason Steam and other game/server/etc's mean we have to be online all the time, but where's the handicap for NZ's who have a lowly 3mb or less DSL connection?
Bliazzard should donate to Telecom/Chorus =P
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Imperator
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 3:57 PM Posted by Imperator
The server specific RealId stuff really sucks, but it's great news that it isn't a let down ;)
 
 
0
 
ShinyPants
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 4:28 PM Posted by ShinyPants
@S3MP4TIK-4YI Warhammer 40K has been around since 1987. Starcraft copied its artistic style.

@Donutta If the opinions of the different reviewers are going to vary so widely then what's the point of the reviews? If there isn't some concrete difference between an 8 and a 9 then why even have to scores? The purpose of a rating scale is to make comparisons between different games. If two games of comparable quality were given widely different scores, then that negates the whole point of the reviews.

Also, professional reviews, or even semi-professional reviews, aren't just supposed to be opinions. They're supposed to inform the consumers. They're supposed to give the consumers a reasonably good idea of what they'll get and whether or not it's worth getting.
 
 
1
 
Wozza NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 7:29 PM Posted by Wozza
Call me Jaded, but I'd rather read what a writer really thought of something rather than what he thought people would like him to write. I'm pretty jaded though.
 
* *  
13
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Wozza NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 7:30 PM Posted by Wozza
/Shouldn't post when I am so tired, that made no sense.
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Donutta
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 8:28 PM Posted by Donutta
30 July 2010, 04:28 PM Reply to ShinyPants
@S3MP4TIK-4YI Warhammer 40K has been around since 1987. Starcraft copied its artistic style.

@Donutta If the opinions of the different reviewers are going to vary so widely then what's the point of the reviews? If there isn't some concrete difference between an 8 and a 9 then why even have to scores? The purpose of a rating scale is to make comparisons between different games. If two games of comparable quality were given widely different scores, then that negates the whole point of the reviews.

Also, professional reviews, or even semi-professional reviews, aren't just supposed to be opinions. They're supposed to inform the consumers. They're supposed to give the consumers a reasonably good idea of what they'll get and whether or not it's worth getting.
If reviews weren't opinions that varied widely, aggregate sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings wouldn't exist.

You also act like reviews are meant to be pure empirical measurements and analysis, when they can be anything but. Take graphics, as you are so fond of b*tching about: how exactly can something so subjective be agreed upon? They can't, and that's why reviews of any kind never try and be anything more than an opinion that is backed up with evidence to demonstrate why the reviewer felt the way they did.

Since you obviously don't like how reviews are (and possibly don't understand why they are like that), I have to wonder why you are even reading a review site, let alone b*tching about the opinions of one reviewer.
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 10:14 PM Posted by mazty
30 July 2010, 08:28 PM Reply to Donutta
If reviews weren't opinions that varied widely, aggregate sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings wouldn't exist.

You also act like reviews are meant to be pure empirical measurements and analysis, when they can be anything but. Take graphics, as you are so fond of b*tching about: how exactly can something so subjective be agreed upon? They can't, and that's why reviews of any kind never try and be anything more than an opinion that is backed up with evidence to demonstrate why the reviewer felt the way they did.

Since you obviously don't like how reviews are (and possibly don't understand why they are like that), I have to wonder why you are even reading a review site, let alone b*tching about the opinions of one reviewer.
Graphics aren't subjective. Run a benchmark. Do they do the job? etc. There is zero point in a score system if one man 8's is another mans 9.5.
A score system should be an easy way to see the quality of a game, not to see if the reviewer liked it or not because frankly I don't care about the reviewers preference. I want to know as a reader if the game is a good game (challenging AI, well designed levels, intuitive, mix of modes etc), not if this is a sequel some fanboy has been waiting for, or a game the marketing department is advertising in every conceivable notion.
 
 
-5
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Friday 30 Jul 2010 11:19 PM Posted by Takuyafire
30 July 2010, 10:14 PM Reply to mazty
Graphics aren't subjective. Run a benchmark. Do they do the job? etc. There is zero point in a score system if one man 8's is another mans 9.5.
A score system should be an easy way to see the quality of a game, not to see if the reviewer liked it or not because frankly I don't care about the reviewers preference. I want to know as a reader if the game is a good game (challenging AI, well designed levels, intuitive, mix of modes etc), not if this is a sequel some fanboy has been waiting for, or a game the marketing department is advertising in every conceivable notion.
Benchmark? Hell I could write a poorly programmed, memory leaking sh*tter of a game (have done too) which destroys your processors and forces your frames down to <10FPS without trying.

This doesn't make them good graphics.
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Donutta
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 1:48 AM Posted by Donutta
30 July 2010, 10:14 PM Reply to mazty
Graphics aren't subjective. Run a benchmark. Do they do the job? etc. There is zero point in a score system if one man 8's is another mans 9.5.
A score system should be an easy way to see the quality of a game, not to see if the reviewer liked it or not because frankly I don't care about the reviewers preference. I want to know as a reader if the game is a good game (challenging AI, well designed levels, intuitive, mix of modes etc), not if this is a sequel some fanboy has been waiting for, or a game the marketing department is advertising in every conceivable notion.
Mona Lisa' an 8.5, amirite?
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 5:16 AM Posted by mazty
31 July 2010, 01:48 AM Reply to Donutta
Mona Lisa' an 8.5, amirite?
AA levels, AF levels, DX 9, 10 or 11? Soft shadows, texture quality etc. What's the FPS on a 8800GT -> GTX480?
Don't try to be a smartass, you just look ignorant.
 
 
-10
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 9:57 AM Posted by Donutta
31 July 2010, 05:16 AM Reply to mazty
AA levels, AF levels, DX 9, 10 or 11? Soft shadows, texture quality etc. What's the FPS on a 8800GT -> GTX480?
Don't try to be a smartass, you just look ignorant.
Actually, you're the one that's coming across as pretty ignorant here. We've already addressed the fact that there is more to graphics than polygons. Take Crysis, as someone mentioned before: technically, it's graphics are excellent. Artistically, they are void.

Here's a better example: Aion vs WoW. Aion is pretty cutting edge in the graphics department for an MMO (except for a few blemishes here and there) and WoW is going to be 6 pretty soon. Which looks better? WoW, by a factor of a million. Aion is soulless, lacks artistic direction, and is basically one big ball of pastiche character design.

If you choose to ignore that, fine -- but then all you want is a technical breakdown. You don't want criticism, you want a Tom's Hardware article.

As I've said to a few people in here, they truly don't understand the concept of reviews and get angry about their own failings rather than that of the review. Unfortunately, it's people like you that hold back legitimate games criticism and keep articles from saying stupid things like:

"This game makes poor use of anisotropic filtering and thus is a crime against graphics cards everywhere."

At the end of the day, video games aren't at the level of being art (yet), and so essentially exist for entertainment and fun. You can't empirically measure fun as it's pretty subjective, so all a review can do at the end of the day is be an argued opinion. Most people are okay with that because they have a mental capacity higher than a 5-year-old and can understand why it happens that way.

But whatever, you're obviously butthurt to the nines about this, so just keep crying more -- your hot tears of rage are delicious.
 
* * *  
15
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 11:37 AM Posted by Takuyafire
Seconded the delishuz raeg tears
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Chris Redfield NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 4:34 PM Posted by Chris Redfield
lol@ guy who has obviously hated the game since before it came out. been waiting for this review to spread his fingertip venom
 
*  
9
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 4:39 PM Posted by Takuyafire
31 July 2010, 04:34 PM Reply to Chris Redfield
lol@ guy who has obviously hated the game since before it came out. been waiting for this review to spread his fingertip venom
fingertip venom

This is the coolest thing I have ever heard anyone say on this site.

If I could give you all the candy in the world I would :D
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Hellrend3r NZGamer.com VIP VIP Silver
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 5:01 PM Posted by Hellrend3r
This is why you dont post stuff in /v/

bad stuff happens
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Chris Redfield NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Saturday 31 Jul 2010 10:51 PM Posted by Chris Redfield
31 July 2010, 04:39 PM Reply to Takuyafire
fingertip venom

This is the coolest thing I have ever heard anyone say on this site.

If I could give you all the candy in the world I would :D
Kia ora cuz. Glad you liked it
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Sunday 1 Aug 2010 2:43 AM Posted by mazty
31 July 2010, 09:57 AM Reply to Donutta
Actually, you're the one that's coming across as pretty ignorant here. We've already addressed the fact that there is more to graphics than polygons. Take Crysis, as someone mentioned before: technically, it's graphics are excellent. Artistically, they are void.

Here's a better example: Aion vs WoW. Aion is pretty cutting edge in the graphics department for an MMO (except for a few blemishes here and there) and WoW is going to be 6 pretty soon. Which looks better? WoW, by a factor of a million. Aion is soulless, lacks artistic direction, and is basically one big ball of pastiche character design.

If you choose to ignore that, fine -- but then all you want is a technical breakdown. You don't want criticism, you want a Tom's Hardware article.

As I've said to a few people in here, they truly don't understand the concept of reviews and get angry about their own failings rather than that of the review. Unfortunately, it's people like you that hold back legitimate games criticism and keep articles from saying stupid things like:

"This game makes poor use of anisotropic filtering and thus is a crime against graphics cards everywhere."

At the end of the day, video games aren't at the level of being art (yet), and so essentially exist for entertainment and fun. You can't empirically measure fun as it's pretty subjective, so all a review can do at the end of the day is be an argued opinion. Most people are okay with that because they have a mental capacity higher than a 5-year-old and can understand why it happens that way.

But whatever, you're obviously butthurt to the nines about this, so just keep crying more -- your hot tears of rage are delicious.
In what way does WoW look better than Aion??? Oh yeah the Blizzard logo....
In what way are the graphics of starcraft 2 good? What is the point of a score system when it's based on utterly subjective opinions? It just renders a score pointless as there is no quality control between reviewers meaning that instead of saying all games that are 9 are better than 8's, it could be anything.
Considering the game is a sequel to a 12 year old game, what is the point of making sure the graphics are dated? That's all they are - dated. But sadly your blind fanboy ignorance will stop you seeing anything than "Blizzard are 1337!" but I doubt that you have any real experience of RTS' in the last decade, like the reviewer, as you ignore the fact that most of the innovation to the genre has been pissed away. So here are a list of games for you to go and play, and then your opinion may be something other than fanboy nonsense:

Total Annihilation + expansions
Supreme Commander + Expansion
Sins of a Solar Empire + expansions
Dawn of War 1 + expansions
Dawn of War 2 + expansions
Company of Heroes + expansion

You may like the artistic style but that is just your opinion, and a good review should try to be as objective as possible. To give the game a 9.5 for graphics is nothing but ludicrous as the graphics are bad; simple as that.
 
 
-12
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Sunday 1 Aug 2010 10:25 AM Posted by Donutta
1 August 2010, 02:43 AM Reply to mazty
In what way does WoW look better than Aion??? Oh yeah the Blizzard logo....
In what way are the graphics of starcraft 2 good? What is the point of a score system when it's based on utterly subjective opinions? It just renders a score pointless as there is no quality control between reviewers meaning that instead of saying all games that are 9 are better than 8's, it could be anything.
Considering the game is a sequel to a 12 year old game, what is the point of making sure the graphics are dated? That's all they are - dated. But sadly your blind fanboy ignorance will stop you seeing anything than "Blizzard are 1337!" but I doubt that you have any real experience of RTS' in the last decade, like the reviewer, as you ignore the fact that most of the innovation to the genre has been pissed away. So here are a list of games for you to go and play, and then your opinion may be something other than fanboy nonsense:

Total Annihilation + expansions
Supreme Commander + Expansion
Sins of a Solar Empire + expansions
Dawn of War 1 + expansions
Dawn of War 2 + expansions
Company of Heroes + expansion

You may like the artistic style but that is just your opinion, and a good review should try to be as objective as possible. To give the game a 9.5 for graphics is nothing but ludicrous as the graphics are bad; simple as that.
Your first sentence demonstrates how you've missed the point -- and also makes you look like a bit of a tool. If you honestly think Aion looks better than WoW, you either haven't played Aion or are just playing devil's advocate and making yourself look foolish.

"What is the point of a score system when it's based on utterly subjective opinions?"

It exists at this current moment because it is expected of the industry (and indeed other industries). (Let's look at the music industry, for a moment: what exactly constitutes a five-star rating? It's all subjective.) People want a cursory glance at the opinions of a reviewer, summed up in a convenient rating. If it's 5-stars, maybe you'll have a look why. If it's 1, you might look why too. It's it's 2 and a half, you might just go on about your day. Additionally, because it's expected, sites like NZGamer need to keep scores so they can remain on aggregate sites like Metacritic, which are a good source of traffic (and trolls like yourself, unfortunately).

They are imperfect. The discussion has been had countless times already. George Orwell once commented on the failings of the book review industry back in 1936, and the same problems still persist today. They remain simply because it would be too much of a radical revolution to change it instantly.


"You may like the artistic style but that is just your opinion, and a good review should try to be as objective as possible."

Objectivity is a myth. You yourself trapped yourself in a corner when you mentioned "well designed levels" -- but whether a level is well designed or not is totally subjective. (Take Aion again. Most people find its racetrack zones to be a failure in level design, but someone obviously thought that they were well designed enough to push them out of the door.) Even words like "good" are adding a layer of subjectivity.

The worst thing a reviewer can do is to try and second guess their audience. It's setting himself up for disaster. All the can do, and all they should be expected to do, is to explain how they feel and why they feel. From there, you can see whether you think they have a point. Alan reviewed Heavenly Sword, one of my favourite games of all time. He gave it a 6.5 and some harsh words. But what he criticized didn't bother me, and the game he was saying was better (God of War) is a game I find pretty bland and juvenile to say the least. So I'm able to deduce from his review that I won't feel the same way about the game.

It's a 6.5 for him/9.5 for me. Opinions are great, no?

"To give the game a 9.5 for graphics is nothing but ludicrous as the graphics are bad; simple as that."

It's not a fact at all and the only "fact" here is that you are a butthurt troll that is far too concerned with trying to prove his acerbic opinions are better than everyone else's. An exercise in futility.

Enjoy your bland, soulless graphics. May your high framerates and many polygons bring you much joy.
 
*  
9
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Donutta
On Sunday 1 Aug 2010 10:26 AM Posted by Donutta
OMG! A double star! A FULL DOUBLE STAR ACROSS THE COMMENT!

Nnnggghhh! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?! :O
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Sunday 1 Aug 2010 11:22 AM Posted by Takuyafire
This is precisely why I like starting arguments with Donutta...it's just so awesome!

More thumbs up for you Donutta
 
 
4
 
mazty
On Sunday 1 Aug 2010 11:47 PM Posted by mazty
1 August 2010, 10:25 AM Reply to Donutta
Your first sentence demonstrates how you've missed the point -- and also makes you look like a bit of a tool. If you honestly think Aion looks better than WoW, you either haven't played Aion or are just playing devil's advocate and making yourself look foolish.

"What is the point of a score system when it's based on utterly subjective opinions?"

It exists at this current moment because it is expected of the industry (and indeed other industries). (Let's look at the music industry, for a moment: what exactly constitutes a five-star rating? It's all subjective.) People want a cursory glance at the opinions of a reviewer, summed up in a convenient rating. If it's 5-stars, maybe you'll have a look why. If it's 1, you might look why too. It's it's 2 and a half, you might just go on about your day. Additionally, because it's expected, sites like NZGamer need to keep scores so they can remain on aggregate sites like Metacritic, which are a good source of traffic (and trolls like yourself, unfortunately).

They are imperfect. The discussion has been had countless times already. George Orwell once commented on the failings of the book review industry back in 1936, and the same problems still persist today. They remain simply because it would be too much of a radical revolution to change it instantly.


"You may like the artistic style but that is just your opinion, and a good review should try to be as objective as possible."

Objectivity is a myth. You yourself trapped yourself in a corner when you mentioned "well designed levels" -- but whether a level is well designed or not is totally subjective. (Take Aion again. Most people find its racetrack zones to be a failure in level design, but someone obviously thought that they were well designed enough to push them out of the door.) Even words like "good" are adding a layer of subjectivity.

The worst thing a reviewer can do is to try and second guess their audience. It's setting himself up for disaster. All the can do, and all they should be expected to do, is to explain how they feel and why they feel. From there, you can see whether you think they have a point. Alan reviewed Heavenly Sword, one of my favourite games of all time. He gave it a 6.5 and some harsh words. But what he criticized didn't bother me, and the game he was saying was better (God of War) is a game I find pretty bland and juvenile to say the least. So I'm able to deduce from his review that I won't feel the same way about the game.

It's a 6.5 for him/9.5 for me. Opinions are great, no?

"To give the game a 9.5 for graphics is nothing but ludicrous as the graphics are bad; simple as that."

It's not a fact at all and the only "fact" here is that you are a butthurt troll that is far too concerned with trying to prove his acerbic opinions are better than everyone else's. An exercise in futility.

Enjoy your bland, soulless graphics. May your high framerates and many polygons bring you much joy.
Aw little kid clearly does not understand graphics. Firstly your use of the word butthurt is hilarious - grow up. Secondly graphics are never subjective. Why? Because they are a technical element to a game, it is as simple as that. You can say for SC2 "These graphics are technically very dated (FACT) but I really enjoy the artistic style (opinion)". The latter should be ignored in the score because I don't want to read about someones opinion, I want to read an unbiased review of a game.
Thirdly a well designed level is not subjective, in fact a well designed game is not subjective in many elements. Good AI is AI that serves the purpose of a challenge making the game not to easy to be boring, but not to challenging to be infuriating. The same goes for the levels, as well as adding in variation and in an RTS tactical elements. I don't think you;ll find anyone who believe a well designed set of RTS maps are all identical in setting and offer no tactical elements.
Fourthly saying that changing a score system would be "too much or a radical revolution" is nothing shy of hilarious. Kid, this is a game review site, not a national health service. If the site wants to remove a score and just have a summary then it could do that. Or if it wanted to add in extra criteria to the score, it could do that. It's not like the site traffic would instantly die if the score system was modernised.
Fifthly how are good graphics instantly bland and soulless? Yeah didn't think you'd thought about that too much.
 
 
-10
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Astarael
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 8:20 AM Posted by Astarael
Trolls...

Trolls everywhere...
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 8:55 AM Posted by PotatoLegs
keeps sh*t interesting, just sit back and watch the two sides flail their arms uselessly at one another *slurp*
 
 
2
 
Donutta
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 9:34 AM Posted by Donutta
1 August 2010, 11:47 PM Reply to mazty
Aw little kid clearly does not understand graphics. Firstly your use of the word butthurt is hilarious - grow up. Secondly graphics are never subjective. Why? Because they are a technical element to a game, it is as simple as that. You can say for SC2 "These graphics are technically very dated (FACT) but I really enjoy the artistic style (opinion)". The latter should be ignored in the score because I don't want to read about someones opinion, I want to read an unbiased review of a game.
Thirdly a well designed level is not subjective, in fact a well designed game is not subjective in many elements. Good AI is AI that serves the purpose of a challenge making the game not to easy to be boring, but not to challenging to be infuriating. The same goes for the levels, as well as adding in variation and in an RTS tactical elements. I don't think you;ll find anyone who believe a well designed set of RTS maps are all identical in setting and offer no tactical elements.
Fourthly saying that changing a score system would be "too much or a radical revolution" is nothing shy of hilarious. Kid, this is a game review site, not a national health service. If the site wants to remove a score and just have a summary then it could do that. Or if it wanted to add in extra criteria to the score, it could do that. It's not like the site traffic would instantly die if the score system was modernised.
Fifthly how are good graphics instantly bland and soulless? Yeah didn't think you'd thought about that too much.
You're an idiot. I've addressed your points multiple times and you keep thinking your right. Look at the thumbs up for me and the thumbs down for you: people agree with me that you don't have a clue what you are on about.

Did you ever consider that maybe Blizzard kept the graphics "technically dated" and focused on the art style as it allows a larger audience? (It can, for example, be played on a MacBook 13". Not much grunt there.) No?

Of course not, because to you PC gaming is all about justifying the ridiculous amounts of money you spent on a PC.

Just to finalize a few things:

"The latter should be ignored in the score because I don't want to read about someones opinion, I
want to read an unbiased review of a game."

No such thing exists. Regardless, I don't know why you are hanging around here because you won't find what you are looking for. You're like a droid in the Mos Eisley cantina. Go read Wikipedia articles and Tom's Hardware instead.

"Thirdly a well designed level is not subjective..."

Okay, let's say we take you on face value here: how is it not subject. Give me empirical measurements that demonstrate a well designed level.

Oh, you can't? Just what I thought.

"Fourthly saying that changing a score system would be "too much or a radical revolution" is nothing shy of hilarious. Kid, this is a game review site, not a national health service. If the site wants to remove a score and just have a summary then it could do that. "

No it couldn't. There are expectations: from the readers, from the distributors, from aggregate sites. Metacritic can't have a site on that has no scores. Readers often bemoan the lack of scores (it's a TL;DR world). Distributors want scores because it gives them an easy point of reference for investors.

"It's not like the site traffic would instantly die if the score system was modernised."

It would. A lot of the traffic here comes via aggregate sites like Metacritic. You remove that traffic and you remove a lot of the revenue for a site (plus incentive to run one). Do you think places like this run on hopes and dreams?

In fact, seeing as you've never been seen around these parts (and never turned up in another "controversially scored review"), one could assume that you too were motivated by a score and/or followed a link to come here.

"Fifthly how are good graphics instantly bland and soulless?"

They're not. Nor are technically dated graphics bad. OOOOH, logical trap! +1 for the Donut. Regardless, the point is that you are dismissing artistic style, so all you care about is polygons and framerates. This means you are the one that is likely to end up with soulless and artistically-void games in your collection. You know, games like Metro 2033 and Empire: Total War.

P.S. I like how you keep using the word "kid." Generally, that's used by people in their early-20s who want to make their opinions look more authoritative. Truly hilarious, really.
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 10:23 AM Posted by mazty
2 August 2010, 09:34 AM Reply to Donutta
You're an idiot. I've addressed your points multiple times and you keep thinking your right. Look at the thumbs up for me and the thumbs down for you: people agree with me that you don't have a clue what you are on about.

Did you ever consider that maybe Blizzard kept the graphics "technically dated" and focused on the art style as it allows a larger audience? (It can, for example, be played on a MacBook 13". Not much grunt there.) No?

Of course not, because to you PC gaming is all about justifying the ridiculous amounts of money you spent on a PC.

Just to finalize a few things:

"The latter should be ignored in the score because I don't want to read about someones opinion, I
want to read an unbiased review of a game."

No such thing exists. Regardless, I don't know why you are hanging around here because you won't find what you are looking for. You're like a droid in the Mos Eisley cantina. Go read Wikipedia articles and Tom's Hardware instead.

"Thirdly a well designed level is not subjective..."

Okay, let's say we take you on face value here: how is it not subject. Give me empirical measurements that demonstrate a well designed level.

Oh, you can't? Just what I thought.

"Fourthly saying that changing a score system would be "too much or a radical revolution" is nothing shy of hilarious. Kid, this is a game review site, not a national health service. If the site wants to remove a score and just have a summary then it could do that. "

No it couldn't. There are expectations: from the readers, from the distributors, from aggregate sites. Metacritic can't have a site on that has no scores. Readers often bemoan the lack of scores (it's a TL;DR world). Distributors want scores because it gives them an easy point of reference for investors.

"It's not like the site traffic would instantly die if the score system was modernised."

It would. A lot of the traffic here comes via aggregate sites like Metacritic. You remove that traffic and you remove a lot of the revenue for a site (plus incentive to run one). Do you think places like this run on hopes and dreams?

In fact, seeing as you've never been seen around these parts (and never turned up in another "controversially scored review"), one could assume that you too were motivated by a score and/or followed a link to come here.

"Fifthly how are good graphics instantly bland and soulless?"

They're not. Nor are technically dated graphics bad. OOOOH, logical trap! +1 for the Donut. Regardless, the point is that you are dismissing artistic style, so all you care about is polygons and framerates. This means you are the one that is likely to end up with soulless and artistically-void games in your collection. You know, games like Metro 2033 and Empire: Total War.

P.S. I like how you keep using the word "kid." Generally, that's used by people in their early-20s who want to make their opinions look more authoritative. Truly hilarious, really.
Thumbs up in a thread where you are defending a fanboy game? Wow, my mind is blown.
Star wars references? Riiiight, now I know the kind of person I'm talking to. The kind that has either Japanese figurines on his desk next to his combat knife or blue prints from Star Trek. Either way, I digress.
So how am I an idiot? Because I don't agree with you? Nice.
There is no reason SC2 had to be so dated graphically when with a PC game you can give full control over the graphics, such as texture resolution. Take Silent Hill 3 which on max today still looks outstanding, yet to play the game you do not need a power-house of a machine at all. Why could this have not been done?
You say an unbiased review doesn't exist, which is true, but you then ignore why a review should strive to be unbiased and instead insult me....Yeah because that makes sense and is a valid point....
I said how a well designed level is not subjective, so please elaborate how my description was wrong instead of flat out ignoring it and claiming I can't. Very sad kid, very sad indeed.
Again, I said how a score system could be changed without removing it, so please address that instead of going on about removing it entirely, which was never my point.
Logical trap? No, I've already mentioned this that graphics are technical, whereas art style is subjective...Graphics can be important in gaming as it can help with immersion and also is value for money. Why should I pay $60 for a game which looks not even half as good as one for $8? Is that value for money? I don't think so. Plus you seem to think good graphics and good art style cannot go hand in hand....
And I hope to god you are a kid because frankly if you aren't, the education system has failed you miserably as your comprehensive & analytical skills are non-existent.
 
 
-10
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 10:52 AM Posted by Donutta
2 August 2010, 10:23 AM Reply to mazty
Thumbs up in a thread where you are defending a fanboy game? Wow, my mind is blown.
Star wars references? Riiiight, now I know the kind of person I'm talking to. The kind that has either Japanese figurines on his desk next to his combat knife or blue prints from Star Trek. Either way, I digress.
So how am I an idiot? Because I don't agree with you? Nice.
There is no reason SC2 had to be so dated graphically when with a PC game you can give full control over the graphics, such as texture resolution. Take Silent Hill 3 which on max today still looks outstanding, yet to play the game you do not need a power-house of a machine at all. Why could this have not been done?
You say an unbiased review doesn't exist, which is true, but you then ignore why a review should strive to be unbiased and instead insult me....Yeah because that makes sense and is a valid point....
I said how a well designed level is not subjective, so please elaborate how my description was wrong instead of flat out ignoring it and claiming I can't. Very sad kid, very sad indeed.
Again, I said how a score system could be changed without removing it, so please address that instead of going on about removing it entirely, which was never my point.
Logical trap? No, I've already mentioned this that graphics are technical, whereas art style is subjective...Graphics can be important in gaming as it can help with immersion and also is value for money. Why should I pay $60 for a game which looks not even half as good as one for $8? Is that value for money? I don't think so. Plus you seem to think good graphics and good art style cannot go hand in hand....
And I hope to god you are a kid because frankly if you aren't, the education system has failed you miserably as your comprehensive & analytical skills are non-existent.
Actually, I'm getting thumbs up because I'm addressing your points and making a coherent argument. You're getting thumbs down because you're ignoring everyone's points and coming across like an a***ole.

"Star wars references? Riiiight, now I know the kind of person I'm talking to. The kind that has either Japanese figurines on his desk next to his combat knife or blue prints from Star Trek. Either way, I digress."

Ooooh, ad hominem. That is the first sign of a really strong argument! I'm impressed.

Either way, it's neither.

"So how am I an idiot? Because I don't agree with you? Nice."

No, you're an idiot because you ignore axioms. You keep saying "fact, fact, fact" but there is nothing here but your opinion. The reason you can't see that is what makes you an idiot.

"There is no reason SC2 had to be so dated graphically when with a PC game you can give full control over the graphics, such as texture resolution."

I still don't get how you think it looks dated graphically. When I booted it up, I was like "Wow! I'm impressed." Not quite a FFXIII level of wow, but definitely more than most 360 games I've played recently.

"Take Silent Hill 3 which on max today still looks outstanding, yet to play the game you do not need a power-house of a machine at all. Why could this have not been done?"

Well again, I think it has been. Regardless, the Silent Hill franchise has always been an example of how you work around technical limitations. The fog was used as a Gothic element (compare Turok to Silent Hill), as was the pitch black corridors and use of a torch. This allows you to commit more resources to what you can see. It's hardly the best example. It's like saying the dinosaur tech demo on the PSOne is an example of how all PSOne graphics should have been.

Interestingly enough, however, you always use games that need to look like sh*t as an example of good graphics.

"You say an unbiased review doesn't exist, which is true, but you then ignore why a review should strive to be unbiased and instead insult me....Yeah because that makes sense and is a valid point....

I said how a well designed level is not subjective, so please elaborate how my description was wrong instead of flat out ignoring it and claiming I can't. Very sad kid, very sad indeed."

I didn't ignore your description: I acknowledged it by saying you hadn't given an example of empirical measurement that could be used for an unbiased and objective scientific analyse of the inherent "goodness" (but not "fun-ness") of a game. Because you can't. Good path finding does not necessary make a game good, and games are often more than the sum of their parts.

No, you didn't give an example of how a well designed level was not subjective. I quote:

"I don't think you'll find anyone who believe a well designed set of RTS maps are all identical in setting and offer no tactical elements."

You're backing up your assertion that this is an objective analysis by falling back on to an example of an opinion.

Top hole, old chap. You really are a master debater.

"Again, I said how a score system could be changed without removing it, so please address that instead of going on about removing it entirely, which was never my point."

And it was demonstrated how your example was flawed. By your definition, Aion is a better looking game than WoW. Many people think that it isn't. Thus, your review has immediately failed people.

"Logical trap? No, I've already mentioned this that graphics are technical, whereas art style is subjective...Graphics can be important in gaming as it can help with immersion and also is value for money."

This is where you come unstuck and I'm so glad you said this.

Which game has aged better: Super Mario World or Frontier: Elite II? Super Mario World? Because even though the graphics were technically inferior to Frontier, it had the better art style? What's that? Super Mario World is a 18-year-old game and is still playable today and Frontier barely lasted 2 years before its graphics made it unplayable? So Super Mario World is the better value for money?

You don't say.

Oh wait, you don't.

"Why should I pay $60 for a game which looks not even half as good as one for $8? Is that value for money? I don't think so. Plus you seem to think good graphics and good art style cannot go hand in hand...."

Okay, I'm just going to let this stand for itself, because it just absolutely boggles my mind. So you're saying a game with substandard graphics -- and let's forget about Starcraft for a moment here and just look generally -- isn't worth playing at all.

Shallow, much?

"And I hope to god you are a kid because frankly if you aren't, the education system has failed you miserably as your comprehensive & analytical skills are non-existent."

Says the one who can't form a coherent and logical argument and rants nonsensically with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors.

As an addendum, I'd just like to point out that you are coming across as the nerd equivalent of a hipster: you're so trendy because you shun popular things and you're all about the underground.

Newsflash: no one gives a sh*t if you're bitter about Starcraft II being popular and getting good reviews. If you really care that much, go write a reader review. Then enjoy the down-voting that commences, and then wallow in your smug satisfaction as you tell yourself that you are the only sane and reasonable voice in a sea of fanboys blinded by hype and advertising.

P.S. I hadn't played the original Starcraft until this year, I've never played Warcraft III for more than the first couple of levels (didn't even see Arthas get Frostmourne), and I didn't even decide to get Starcraft II until launch day. So I'm not a slobbering fanboy for the game. If it had been crap, I would have been the first to say so. In fact, I've been bleating on about Battle.net 2.0 for a while now -- and you would have had an easier time trying to argue against a high score if you had taken that route rather than saying "Only sexy chicks are worth knowing."

Now, queue thumbs up for me and thumbs down for you. Delicious.
 
*  
9
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 12:35 PM Posted by Takuyafire
Goddamn...I am in love with this comment section
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
uk_john
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 12:44 PM Posted by uk_john
It a graphic/camera upgrade with a new story and it get 9.8! What a joke! Total boot licking to the big global publisher as usual! I will stick with my original Starcraft with 3 campaigns until a version of SC2 comes out for under $60 with all 3 campaigns in it too!

This is rip-off ville for PC gamers, and obviously the media are dumb and modern PC gamers, that do not know PC gaming history, are totally falling for the BS! So this game is worthy of the media and those gamers but for the rest of us this game is a ridiculous rip-off!
 
 
-10
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Chris Redfield NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 1:42 PM Posted by Chris Redfield
I wonder if this guy gets f**ked off that all his posts are going pale.
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
djkicks NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 2:30 PM Posted by djkicks
I never really heard about this game until it was advertised on NZG. It sounds good, so I think I'll get it once it comes down in price a bit.

Until then I can have fun by thumbing down that guy who is arguing with Donutta. XD
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 2:31 PM Posted by Takuyafire
I'm thinking starred posts should be a different/bolder colour text in comparison to the pale text.

That way trolls get owned some more.
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 2:47 PM Posted by PotatoLegs
oi, don't stop arguing guys, i sure there's more dead horses you can flog
 
*  
9
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Monday 2 Aug 2010 11:42 PM Posted by mazty
2 August 2010, 10:52 AM Reply to Donutta
Actually, I'm getting thumbs up because I'm addressing your points and making a coherent argument. You're getting thumbs down because you're ignoring everyone's points and coming across like an a***ole.

"Star wars references? Riiiight, now I know the kind of person I'm talking to. The kind that has either Japanese figurines on his desk next to his combat knife or blue prints from Star Trek. Either way, I digress."

Ooooh, ad hominem. That is the first sign of a really strong argument! I'm impressed.

Either way, it's neither.

"So how am I an idiot? Because I don't agree with you? Nice."

No, you're an idiot because you ignore axioms. You keep saying "fact, fact, fact" but there is nothing here but your opinion. The reason you can't see that is what makes you an idiot.

"There is no reason SC2 had to be so dated graphically when with a PC game you can give full control over the graphics, such as texture resolution."

I still don't get how you think it looks dated graphically. When I booted it up, I was like "Wow! I'm impressed." Not quite a FFXIII level of wow, but definitely more than most 360 games I've played recently.

"Take Silent Hill 3 which on max today still looks outstanding, yet to play the game you do not need a power-house of a machine at all. Why could this have not been done?"

Well again, I think it has been. Regardless, the Silent Hill franchise has always been an example of how you work around technical limitations. The fog was used as a Gothic element (compare Turok to Silent Hill), as was the pitch black corridors and use of a torch. This allows you to commit more resources to what you can see. It's hardly the best example. It's like saying the dinosaur tech demo on the PSOne is an example of how all PSOne graphics should have been.

Interestingly enough, however, you always use games that need to look like sh*t as an example of good graphics.

"You say an unbiased review doesn't exist, which is true, but you then ignore why a review should strive to be unbiased and instead insult me....Yeah because that makes sense and is a valid point....

I said how a well designed level is not subjective, so please elaborate how my description was wrong instead of flat out ignoring it and claiming I can't. Very sad kid, very sad indeed."

I didn't ignore your description: I acknowledged it by saying you hadn't given an example of empirical measurement that could be used for an unbiased and objective scientific analyse of the inherent "goodness" (but not "fun-ness") of a game. Because you can't. Good path finding does not necessary make a game good, and games are often more than the sum of their parts.

No, you didn't give an example of how a well designed level was not subjective. I quote:

"I don't think you'll find anyone who believe a well designed set of RTS maps are all identical in setting and offer no tactical elements."

You're backing up your assertion that this is an objective analysis by falling back on to an example of an opinion.

Top hole, old chap. You really are a master debater.

"Again, I said how a score system could be changed without removing it, so please address that instead of going on about removing it entirely, which was never my point."

And it was demonstrated how your example was flawed. By your definition, Aion is a better looking game than WoW. Many people think that it isn't. Thus, your review has immediately failed people.

"Logical trap? No, I've already mentioned this that graphics are technical, whereas art style is subjective...Graphics can be important in gaming as it can help with immersion and also is value for money."

This is where you come unstuck and I'm so glad you said this.

Which game has aged better: Super Mario World or Frontier: Elite II? Super Mario World? Because even though the graphics were technically inferior to Frontier, it had the better art style? What's that? Super Mario World is a 18-year-old game and is still playable today and Frontier barely lasted 2 years before its graphics made it unplayable? So Super Mario World is the better value for money?

You don't say.

Oh wait, you don't.

"Why should I pay $60 for a game which looks not even half as good as one for $8? Is that value for money? I don't think so. Plus you seem to think good graphics and good art style cannot go hand in hand...."

Okay, I'm just going to let this stand for itself, because it just absolutely boggles my mind. So you're saying a game with substandard graphics -- and let's forget about Starcraft for a moment here and just look generally -- isn't worth playing at all.

Shallow, much?

"And I hope to god you are a kid because frankly if you aren't, the education system has failed you miserably as your comprehensive & analytical skills are non-existent."

Says the one who can't form a coherent and logical argument and rants nonsensically with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors.

As an addendum, I'd just like to point out that you are coming across as the nerd equivalent of a hipster: you're so trendy because you shun popular things and you're all about the underground.

Newsflash: no one gives a sh*t if you're bitter about Starcraft II being popular and getting good reviews. If you really care that much, go write a reader review. Then enjoy the down-voting that commences, and then wallow in your smug satisfaction as you tell yourself that you are the only sane and reasonable voice in a sea of fanboys blinded by hype and advertising.

P.S. I hadn't played the original Starcraft until this year, I've never played Warcraft III for more than the first couple of levels (didn't even see Arthas get Frostmourne), and I didn't even decide to get Starcraft II until launch day. So I'm not a slobbering fanboy for the game. If it had been crap, I would have been the first to say so. In fact, I've been bleating on about Battle.net 2.0 for a while now -- and you would have had an easier time trying to argue against a high score if you had taken that route rather than saying "Only sexy chicks are worth knowing."

Now, queue thumbs up for me and thumbs down for you. Delicious.
Oh right your a console player who has no history of playing RTS' and clearly has no idea about the technical element of graphics. I may as well have been arguing with the embodiment of ignorance. So go play some RTS' other than Starcraft and learn about graphics other than "OMGOSH DAT LOOKS NICE!"and then maybe you could put an argument together because at the moment you'd fit this perfectly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
 
 
-7
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 12:12 AM Posted by Donutta
2 August 2010, 11:42 PM Reply to mazty
Oh right your a console player who has no history of playing RTS' and clearly has no idea about the technical element of graphics. I may as well have been arguing with the embodiment of ignorance. So go play some RTS' other than Starcraft and learn about graphics other than "OMGOSH DAT LOOKS NICE!"and then maybe you could put an argument together because at the moment you'd fit this perfectly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Wow, you are just full of assumptions. Incidentally, they make you like an ass.

The first RTS I ever played was Dune 2 and I was always pretty partial to the C&C series. I've been playing the PC since "Tandy" was a graphics option, and I started playing on "personal computers" before the IBM-compatible was anything but a laughable platform to play games on.

The ultimate irony is it's you that fits the Dunning-Kruger effect. In fact, if I'm keeping count correctly, you've done it at least three times in this comments section already (this being your third).

"The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is."

Ultimately delicious. Please keep it up.
 
 
4
 
mazty
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 12:29 AM Posted by mazty
3 August 2010, 12:12 AM Reply to Donutta
Wow, you are just full of assumptions. Incidentally, they make you like an ass.

The first RTS I ever played was Dune 2 and I was always pretty partial to the C&C series. I've been playing the PC since "Tandy" was a graphics option, and I started playing on "personal computers" before the IBM-compatible was anything but a laughable platform to play games on.

The ultimate irony is it's you that fits the Dunning-Kruger effect. In fact, if I'm keeping count correctly, you've done it at least three times in this comments section already (this being your third).

"The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is."

Ultimately delicious. Please keep it up.
Let's see - your the one who clearly does not understand the technical elements of graphics. Here are a few terms to read up on:
Anti-aliasing
Anisotropic filtering
Resolution - Texture, screen and shadow
HDR
Particle effects
Lighting

Wow you played some of the oldest RTS', like myself. Sadly, you never seemed to progress. Did you ever play Total Annihilation, y'know, the RTS that received generally more praise & awards than Starcraft? Have you played any of the Relic RTS series'?
How are you counting the D-K effect?? You literally do not understand graphics and even commented incorrectly about SH3 as the outstanding graphics are due to texture resolution control up to a staggering 4096 x 4096...
You then make the completely subjective comparison between two games and their graphics, and then make the strawman that a game with bad graphics isn't worth playing, instead of addressing the actual point that a game with bad graphics and a high price tag isn't good value for money.
And the rest of your argument can be filed under "I say your comments are wrong, but I'm not actually going to say how, I'm just going to either digress, make strawmen or hope people think I'm omniscient."
So in short, you've said nothing of value and just failed to understand almost everything I've said. Great argument there.
 
 
-6
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 1:00 AM Posted by Donutta
3 August 2010, 12:29 AM Reply to mazty
Let's see - your the one who clearly does not understand the technical elements of graphics. Here are a few terms to read up on:
Anti-aliasing
Anisotropic filtering
Resolution - Texture, screen and shadow
HDR
Particle effects
Lighting

Wow you played some of the oldest RTS', like myself. Sadly, you never seemed to progress. Did you ever play Total Annihilation, y'know, the RTS that received generally more praise & awards than Starcraft? Have you played any of the Relic RTS series'?
How are you counting the D-K effect?? You literally do not understand graphics and even commented incorrectly about SH3 as the outstanding graphics are due to texture resolution control up to a staggering 4096 x 4096...
You then make the completely subjective comparison between two games and their graphics, and then make the strawman that a game with bad graphics isn't worth playing, instead of addressing the actual point that a game with bad graphics and a high price tag isn't good value for money.
And the rest of your argument can be filed under "I say your comments are wrong, but I'm not actually going to say how, I'm just going to either digress, make strawmen or hope people think I'm omniscient."
So in short, you've said nothing of value and just failed to understand almost everything I've said. Great argument there.
Oh dear.

Let's see...

Anti-aliasing -- aliasing is what happens when drawing a diagonal line with pixels. It creates a stepping effect. Anti-aliasing is a technique that smooths out the edges by fading and/or blurring pixels at the edge of the image.

Anisotropic filtering -- A similar method to anti-aliasing, but reduces the blur that can happen. It's based on direction in relation to the "camera" more than anything.

Resolution - Texture, screen and shadow -- Even "dirty console gamers" know what resolution is.

HDR -- Fancy lighting effects. Making light "lighter" and dark "darker" to create a greater contrast. Coming out of a tunnel in Lost Coast is a great example -- or any racing game since 2005.

Particle effects -- Used to create the impression of many parts. My missus is a 3D animator and loves to point them out in pretty much anything. When used properly, they are great for rendering hair.

Lighting -- To vague, this one. But I was always partial to lens flare when it was abused in the mid 90s.

You see, the issue here isn't that I'm an uneducated slob that has no concept of computer graphics. I'm actually finishing off a computer science degree, so your fan-level knowledge of computing doesn't confuse nor impress me.

The issue here is this:

'And the rest of your argument can be filed under "I say your comments are wrong, but I'm not actually going to say how, I'm just going to either digress, make strawmen or hope people think I'm omniscient."'

I would actually say it's more like "You're presenting your opinion as fact and your head is so far up your ass that you can't see that." The core of the issue here is that you are saying your world view is inherently true. I'm merely pointing out it's just an opinion -- and one, try as you like to believe, you have failed so far to back up with anything close to empirical evidence. Given the ratio of thumbs down:thumbs up in this situation, I'm inclined to believe more people share my opinion.

"So in short, you've said nothing of value and just failed to understand almost everything I've said. Great argument there."

You know, at this point it's almost like holding the head of a short kid and watching him flail around in some kind of futile attempt to land a punch. It's cruel, yet so satisfying in a vicious kind of way. You don't have an argument, and all you can fall back on is pretending you do while trying to say I don't address your argument when I've torn it apart multiple times.

At this point I'm just continuing with this for fun and to see if I can get this comments section over 100 comments.

So please, keep it up. I am so enjoying your humiliation.
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 2:22 AM Posted by mazty
3 August 2010, 01:00 AM Reply to Donutta
Oh dear.

Let's see...

Anti-aliasing -- aliasing is what happens when drawing a diagonal line with pixels. It creates a stepping effect. Anti-aliasing is a technique that smooths out the edges by fading and/or blurring pixels at the edge of the image.

Anisotropic filtering -- A similar method to anti-aliasing, but reduces the blur that can happen. It's based on direction in relation to the "camera" more than anything.

Resolution - Texture, screen and shadow -- Even "dirty console gamers" know what resolution is.

HDR -- Fancy lighting effects. Making light "lighter" and dark "darker" to create a greater contrast. Coming out of a tunnel in Lost Coast is a great example -- or any racing game since 2005.

Particle effects -- Used to create the impression of many parts. My missus is a 3D animator and loves to point them out in pretty much anything. When used properly, they are great for rendering hair.

Lighting -- To vague, this one. But I was always partial to lens flare when it was abused in the mid 90s.

You see, the issue here isn't that I'm an uneducated slob that has no concept of computer graphics. I'm actually finishing off a computer science degree, so your fan-level knowledge of computing doesn't confuse nor impress me.

The issue here is this:

'And the rest of your argument can be filed under "I say your comments are wrong, but I'm not actually going to say how, I'm just going to either digress, make strawmen or hope people think I'm omniscient."'

I would actually say it's more like "You're presenting your opinion as fact and your head is so far up your ass that you can't see that." The core of the issue here is that you are saying your world view is inherently true. I'm merely pointing out it's just an opinion -- and one, try as you like to believe, you have failed so far to back up with anything close to empirical evidence. Given the ratio of thumbs down:thumbs up in this situation, I'm inclined to believe more people share my opinion.

"So in short, you've said nothing of value and just failed to understand almost everything I've said. Great argument there."

You know, at this point it's almost like holding the head of a short kid and watching him flail around in some kind of futile attempt to land a punch. It's cruel, yet so satisfying in a vicious kind of way. You don't have an argument, and all you can fall back on is pretending you do while trying to say I don't address your argument when I've torn it apart multiple times.

At this point I'm just continuing with this for fun and to see if I can get this comments section over 100 comments.

So please, keep it up. I am so enjoying your humiliation.
Please tell me how SC2's graphics are not dated. Please, I'm dying to here what you have to say.
 
 
-5
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 7:18 AM Posted by Takuyafire
First off, define "dated"...take into consideration that games like CSS and Halflife were built on the same engine using many of the same textures etc yet the Halflife series received more graphical acclaim.

As I pointed out earlier (and Donutta certainly did) "graphics" do not account for how many polys/different textures are used, they account for how well the graphics fit both the gaming environment and the gameplay itself.

Take an old flogged horse known as Crysis for example...you reckon it would have seen as much acclaim if it used the same engine in a desert environment? No, of course not, its popular because of all the trees and water effects...that's it.

Sure its a little round-a-bout thinking here but seriously, explain your concept of "dated".
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 7:28 AM Posted by Takuyafire
Also just for a laugh I did a wee search before I head off to course this morning...turns out the name "Mazty" is somewhat well renowned for raging at SC2 graphics...

Found the name on gamrconnect and joystiq with the same comments. Found em a few other places as well but its a little harder to determine who's who.
 
 
2
 
mazty
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 7:50 AM Posted by mazty
3 August 2010, 07:28 AM Reply to Takuyafire
Also just for a laugh I did a wee search before I head off to course this morning...turns out the name "Mazty" is somewhat well renowned for raging at SC2 graphics...

Found the name on gamrconnect and joystiq with the same comments. Found em a few other places as well but its a little harder to determine who's who.
I haven't posted anything on vgchartz about SC2 so nice one on making stuff up....But yes, that was me on joystiq because the review was equally useless - having a guy say "It's just good" isn't really a useful review. I'd like to know what exactly puts it ahead of the other RTS' out there.
 
 
-8
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Xenojay NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 9:45 AM Posted by Xenojay
Holy f**k. This is the largest troll/shill comment thread ever. Over f**king Starcraft II.

Kotick would be happy. "No publicity is bad publicity!".
 
 
4
 
nimrod76 NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 2:20 PM Posted by nimrod76
Wow that was brilliant.

Best quote ever

"No such thing exists. Regardless, I don't know why you are hanging around here because you won't find what you are looking for. You're like a droid in the Mos Eisley cantina. Go read Wikipedia articles and Tom's Hardware instead."

Don't mess with the Donut
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
emetic NZGamer.com VIP VIP Silver
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 3:18 PM Posted by emetic
I could care less about the game arguments here, but I'm down-voting every post which uses "RTS'" as a plural.
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 3:30 PM Posted by PotatoLegs
3 August 2010, 02:20 PM Reply to nimrod76
Wow that was brilliant.

Best quote ever

"No such thing exists. Regardless, I don't know why you are hanging around here because you won't find what you are looking for. You're like a droid in the Mos Eisley cantina. Go read Wikipedia articles and Tom's Hardware instead."

Don't mess with the Donut
i dunno nimrod - that reference made me cringe and brought back flashbacks of my younger cousin trying to make me throw him like Kano from Mortal Kombat at some d*cks who were hassling him
 
*  
8
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
nimrod76 NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 3:51 PM Posted by nimrod76
3 August 2010, 03:30 PM Reply to PotatoLegs
i dunno nimrod - that reference made me cringe and brought back flashbacks of my younger cousin trying to make me throw him like Kano from Mortal Kombat at some d*cks who were hassling him
lol, your cousin sounds awesome.

It was this part that made it for me"Go read Wikipedia articles and Tom's Hardware instead"
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 7:31 PM Posted by PotatoLegs
thumbs for you dude, i'm dealing them out wholesale and i like the way you think
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 10:22 PM Posted by Takuyafire
3 August 2010, 07:31 PM Reply to PotatoLegs
thumbs for you dude, i'm dealing them out wholesale and i like the way you think
Thumb wh**e
 
 
1
 
Hellrend3r NZGamer.com VIP VIP Silver
On Wednesday 4 Aug 2010 4:28 PM Posted by Hellrend3r
There was a man.

He argued with Donutta.



That mans soul was destroyed, and pride ripped apart.





That man was never the same.
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
CheeseTastic NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Wednesday 4 Aug 2010 7:58 PM Posted by CheeseTastic
@ mazty. Did you just take a first year social psyc paper or something?

Wait, sorry. Did you just fail a first year social psychology paper? Because you obviously have no understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Seriously, read the discussion here again, then pick up a text book (not goddamn wikipedia) and look up the D-K effect and other theories on skill biases.
 
*  
8
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 1:28 AM Posted by mazty
4 August 2010, 07:58 PM Reply to CheeseTastic
@ mazty. Did you just take a first year social psyc paper or something?

Wait, sorry. Did you just fail a first year social psychology paper? Because you obviously have no understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Seriously, read the discussion here again, then pick up a text book (not goddamn wikipedia) and look up the D-K effect and other theories on skill biases.
Care to elaborate or just going to do what everyone else has done and say "OMGOSH SAYING [X] IS WELL WRONGZ!" without actually stating why...
 
 
-7
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
mazty
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 3:26 AM Posted by mazty
4 August 2010, 04:28 PM Reply to Hellrend3r
There was a man.

He argued with Donutta.



That mans soul was destroyed, and pride ripped apart.





That man was never the same.
Considering he never replied to me, not really...
I feel like I've walked into a completely incestuous online community which is made up of the geeks of geeks. Top show boys, enjoy your basements.
 
 
-7
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 9:06 AM Posted by Donutta
5 August 2010, 03:26 AM Reply to mazty
Considering he never replied to me, not really...
I feel like I've walked into a completely incestuous online community which is made up of the geeks of geeks. Top show boys, enjoy your basements.
I simply haven't replied to you yet because I've had other things to do. As fun as making you look stupid is, it's not very high up on my list of things to do. Shocking, I know.

For now, I'll just leave a little breadcrumb: in what way are Starcraft II's graphics bad? Because there is no native AA support and it has to be forced on? Because the texture resolution isn't that high in certain places (the hands on characters really stand out, but then again their also microscopic most of the time)?

I mean you say Silent Hill 3 looks "outstanding" and Starcraft II looks "simply bad", and yet the only actual evidence for this you have given so far is that Silent Hill 3 has a ridiculous texture resolution. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Do you hear what you are saying? Can you really not understand why everyone thinks you're a tool?

I'm hardly Mr Popular around here, so for me to have nearly a triple star on some of my comments proves just how much people think you are insane in your assessment of what makes good graphics/the "science" of reviewing.

We've already established that graphics scores take into account more than technical details. By your definition, Goatse is a better picture than Starry, Starry Night.

As an addendum, I find it fascinating that you call us geeks. Most people here are just normal guys who have a passion for gaming and like to share it with others. You're the one that keeps going round the internet, turning up in communities you've never been to before, arguing and insulting the locals, and then getting the hump when everyone tells you to STFU. It's like you have some sort of weird martyr complex to fulfill, where you need to go and show the world their errors of their ways through sacrifice.

Surely you have something better to do? I know I do. So on that note, I'll reply when I'm good and damn ready. This thread isn't going anywhere and I won't have my actions dictated by your impatience and ego.
 
*  
8
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 1:23 PM Posted by mazty
5 August 2010, 09:06 AM Reply to Donutta
I simply haven't replied to you yet because I've had other things to do. As fun as making you look stupid is, it's not very high up on my list of things to do. Shocking, I know.

For now, I'll just leave a little breadcrumb: in what way are Starcraft II's graphics bad? Because there is no native AA support and it has to be forced on? Because the texture resolution isn't that high in certain places (the hands on characters really stand out, but then again their also microscopic most of the time)?

I mean you say Silent Hill 3 looks "outstanding" and Starcraft II looks "simply bad", and yet the only actual evidence for this you have given so far is that Silent Hill 3 has a ridiculous texture resolution. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Do you hear what you are saying? Can you really not understand why everyone thinks you're a tool?

I'm hardly Mr Popular around here, so for me to have nearly a triple star on some of my comments proves just how much people think you are insane in your assessment of what makes good graphics/the "science" of reviewing.

We've already established that graphics scores take into account more than technical details. By your definition, Goatse is a better picture than Starry, Starry Night.

As an addendum, I find it fascinating that you call us geeks. Most people here are just normal guys who have a passion for gaming and like to share it with others. You're the one that keeps going round the internet, turning up in communities you've never been to before, arguing and insulting the locals, and then getting the hump when everyone tells you to STFU. It's like you have some sort of weird martyr complex to fulfill, where you need to go and show the world their errors of their ways through sacrifice.

Surely you have something better to do? I know I do. So on that note, I'll reply when I'm good and damn ready. This thread isn't going anywhere and I won't have my actions dictated by your impatience and ego.
Oh dear...
Can you please just tell me straight out why SC2's graphics are not dated? How is no AA a good idea? How is low detail value for money considering the $60 price tag?
Plus saying texture resolution doesn't make a game look better shows how little you actually know about graphics, so congratulations I guess? Instead of going "OMGOSH LUL U SO WRONG" would it kill you to state how I am wrong, or is that extra step just to difficult? Once again, the education has failed you miserably.
You are being voted up by fanboys - good for you? Like that wasn't expected and as if it means anything.

Goatse is a photograph. Starry, Starry Night is a painting by Van Gogh. Are you trying for the most retarded comparison of the year? Because you may have succeeded admirably.
Normal people do not make Star Wars references so don't pretend you are normal because you're fooling no one.

The funny thing is you never answered my question, you just skirted around it.
So without hesitation would you please enlighten me as to how SC2's graphics are not dated & are value for money.
 
 
-9
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Xenojay NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 1:58 PM Posted by Xenojay
*sips drink*
*sits in fictional basement troll speaks of*
*gets back to work*
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Donutta
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 3:58 PM Posted by Donutta
5 August 2010, 01:23 PM Reply to mazty
Oh dear...
Can you please just tell me straight out why SC2's graphics are not dated? How is no AA a good idea? How is low detail value for money considering the $60 price tag?
Plus saying texture resolution doesn't make a game look better shows how little you actually know about graphics, so congratulations I guess? Instead of going "OMGOSH LUL U SO WRONG" would it kill you to state how I am wrong, or is that extra step just to difficult? Once again, the education has failed you miserably.
You are being voted up by fanboys - good for you? Like that wasn't expected and as if it means anything.

Goatse is a photograph. Starry, Starry Night is a painting by Van Gogh. Are you trying for the most retarded comparison of the year? Because you may have succeeded admirably.
Normal people do not make Star Wars references so don't pretend you are normal because you're fooling no one.

The funny thing is you never answered my question, you just skirted around it.
So without hesitation would you please enlighten me as to how SC2's graphics are not dated & are value for money.
I wouldn't act superior when your argument is fallacious. It's a burden of proof argument: you can't prove that Starcraft II looks bad (dated, whatever), so you put the onus on me to prove that it doesn't.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore he exists.

But see, it's irrelevant. It's already been established that the graphics score here (and elsewhere) doesn't focus solely on the technical aspect of graphics. It's just you won't accept defeat on that.

If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The Goatse vs Starry, Starry Night comparison was to highlight the fact that while something might have more graphical fidelity, it doesn't mean anything if you don't want to be looking at what is displayed. Again, there is more to graphics than just the technical side of things.

In a side by side comparison -- say the Mega Drive version of Mortal Kombat II versus the SNES version -- then sure, the graphics that are better technically are going to win out. But what game has better graphics: Streets of Rage II or Final Fight?

At this point you're not even arguing. You're just making ad hominem attacks and generally demanding that everyone prove you wrong or you are right. When you are proved wrong, you move the goal posts and then make reference to something that is more or less irrelevant to the topic -- such as a Star Wars reference.

I don't need to answer your question because it's a fallicious argument. However, I have addressed much of the topic at hand whereas you have not.

Now, I have a question for you: if you hate this game with such burning passion, hate subjective reviews so much, and hate apparently the multiple "fanboys" at this site, why are you still here?
 
*  
7
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 11:12 PM Posted by Takuyafire
Ok I just played this game...and I honestly can't see how someone would hate it that much.

Sure the graphics could be suparr orsumz! but f**k that!
The gameplay is rock solid down to a core.
The pacing and strategic placement of missions that challenge both noobs and pros alike in the campaign is so well done that its almost seamless.
The character development is cranking along nicely and the Western stylism on the main character is great.

Thats me over...come on 100 replies.
 
 
4
 
mazty
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 11:38 PM Posted by mazty
5 August 2010, 03:58 PM Reply to Donutta
I wouldn't act superior when your argument is fallacious. It's a burden of proof argument: you can't prove that Starcraft II looks bad (dated, whatever), so you put the onus on me to prove that it doesn't.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore he exists.

But see, it's irrelevant. It's already been established that the graphics score here (and elsewhere) doesn't focus solely on the technical aspect of graphics. It's just you won't accept defeat on that.

If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The Goatse vs Starry, Starry Night comparison was to highlight the fact that while something might have more graphical fidelity, it doesn't mean anything if you don't want to be looking at what is displayed. Again, there is more to graphics than just the technical side of things.

In a side by side comparison -- say the Mega Drive version of Mortal Kombat II versus the SNES version -- then sure, the graphics that are better technically are going to win out. But what game has better graphics: Streets of Rage II or Final Fight?

At this point you're not even arguing. You're just making ad hominem attacks and generally demanding that everyone prove you wrong or you are right. When you are proved wrong, you move the goal posts and then make reference to something that is more or less irrelevant to the topic -- such as a Star Wars reference.

I don't need to answer your question because it's a fallicious argument. However, I have addressed much of the topic at hand whereas you have not.

Now, I have a question for you: if you hate this game with such burning passion, hate subjective reviews so much, and hate apparently the multiple "fanboys" at this site, why are you still here?
You're an idiot. The fact that the game can still be played on AGP GPU's shows it has crappy graphics and the fact it isn't a challenge for any gaming GPU that's been out in the last 5 years.
Does it have high res textures? No. High detail models? No. DX10? No. AA???? No. You're nothing but an ignorant fanboy. So now knowing that please stop avoiding the question & tell me how the graphics are not dated.
And the Goatsee and Van Gough comparison is still retarded as they are two utterly different mediums, whereas SC2 and DoW2 are the same medium, no?
I'm still here because your utter ignorance and sheer arrogance gives me much amusement; this is hardly the first time I've spoken(RL or not) to someone like yourself and it is always amusing the utter gash you come out with.
 
 
-5
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Thursday 5 Aug 2010 11:58 PM Posted by Donutta
5 August 2010, 11:38 PM Reply to mazty
You're an idiot. The fact that the game can still be played on AGP GPU's shows it has crappy graphics and the fact it isn't a challenge for any gaming GPU that's been out in the last 5 years.
Does it have high res textures? No. High detail models? No. DX10? No. AA???? No. You're nothing but an ignorant fanboy. So now knowing that please stop avoiding the question & tell me how the graphics are not dated.
And the Goatsee and Van Gough comparison is still retarded as they are two utterly different mediums, whereas SC2 and DoW2 are the same medium, no?
I'm still here because your utter ignorance and sheer arrogance gives me much amusement; this is hardly the first time I've spoken(RL or not) to someone like yourself and it is always amusing the utter gash you come out with.
You just don't get it, do you?

You have yet to demonstrate how Starcraft II looks bad.

So it can be played on AGP cards? So what?

So it can be played on my MacBook that uses sh*tty on-board graphics? So what?

You're missing the point entire: it doesn't matter to anyone who isn't trying to make up for something.

If art style and design were not a huge part of graphics, we'd just be playing with immaculately rendered white mannequins that demand cutting edge hardware -- because Lord knows that's all that matters, amirite?

As I said, pointing out that your argument is a fallacious one (burden of proof) doesn't mean I'm avoiding the question. It simply means that you don't get to demonstrate that Starcraft II looks bad by demanding that I prove how it doesn't look bad (and then ignore what I say anyway).

You are really, really bad at arguing, so I guess it's no surprises that you resort to ad hominem attacks. You have nothing. All you're doing now is chucking around angry insults and pretending you are some kind of expert.

Let's just pretend, for a second and for the sake of argument, that your argument isn't completely fallacious and let's turn it around: how, exactly, are the graphics of Starcraft II bad? Keep in mind that if you use the words texture and resolution and the term value for money I'm going to laugh at you.

I'm beginning to think you don't even realize why people play video games. God knows you are the only person I've ever met in over a decade of posting on the Internet that thinks like you do.
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Donutta
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 12:09 AM Posted by Donutta
Holy sh*t! A TRIPLE STAR!
 
 
4
 
mazty
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 2:44 AM Posted by mazty
5 August 2010, 11:58 PM Reply to Donutta
You just don't get it, do you?

You have yet to demonstrate how Starcraft II looks bad.

So it can be played on AGP cards? So what?

So it can be played on my MacBook that uses sh*tty on-board graphics? So what?

You're missing the point entire: it doesn't matter to anyone who isn't trying to make up for something.

If art style and design were not a huge part of graphics, we'd just be playing with immaculately rendered white mannequins that demand cutting edge hardware -- because Lord knows that's all that matters, amirite?

As I said, pointing out that your argument is a fallacious one (burden of proof) doesn't mean I'm avoiding the question. It simply means that you don't get to demonstrate that Starcraft II looks bad by demanding that I prove how it doesn't look bad (and then ignore what I say anyway).

You are really, really bad at arguing, so I guess it's no surprises that you resort to ad hominem attacks. You have nothing. All you're doing now is chucking around angry insults and pretending you are some kind of expert.

Let's just pretend, for a second and for the sake of argument, that your argument isn't completely fallacious and let's turn it around: how, exactly, are the graphics of Starcraft II bad? Keep in mind that if you use the words texture and resolution and the term value for money I'm going to laugh at you.

I'm beginning to think you don't even realize why people play video games. God knows you are the only person I've ever met in over a decade of posting on the Internet that thinks like you do.
Are you incapable of reading? I said the graphics are


DATED & BAD GRAPHICS

Yes, dated and bad graphics. Am I mentioning the art style? No. You tried arguing the graphics are not dated or bad. You are an idiot. Now go back to your basement and oversized girlfriend and get off the internet because what you have to say only makes the reader thicker for having read it.
But on the note of the art style, do you really believe angry micro-machines coated in bloom is a good artistic style for a game which clearly is meant to be gritty?
Also why is it so hilarious that saying the texture resolutions are low, meaning the graphics are poor? Please enlighten me to that one or you so pretentious you can't look past your own bile?

It's quite funny you posted once again another reply which skirted the point that it has zero AA, poor res textures, low detail models etc etc and instead you just go "OMGOSH YOU SOOOO RONG! LIKE DUH SOOOO STOOPID!" without actually saying why...
So please, please, please elaborate as to why saying low res textures, no AA and low poly models aren't tell tale signs of bad graphics =)
 
 
-8
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
Donutta
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 8:37 AM Posted by Donutta
6 August 2010, 02:44 AM Reply to mazty
Are you incapable of reading? I said the graphics are


DATED & BAD GRAPHICS

Yes, dated and bad graphics. Am I mentioning the art style? No. You tried arguing the graphics are not dated or bad. You are an idiot. Now go back to your basement and oversized girlfriend and get off the internet because what you have to say only makes the reader thicker for having read it.
But on the note of the art style, do you really believe angry micro-machines coated in bloom is a good artistic style for a game which clearly is meant to be gritty?
Also why is it so hilarious that saying the texture resolutions are low, meaning the graphics are poor? Please enlighten me to that one or you so pretentious you can't look past your own bile?

It's quite funny you posted once again another reply which skirted the point that it has zero AA, poor res textures, low detail models etc etc and instead you just go "OMGOSH YOU SOOOO RONG! LIKE DUH SOOOO STOOPID!" without actually saying why...
So please, please, please elaborate as to why saying low res textures, no AA and low poly models aren't tell tale signs of bad graphics =)
10: Actually, I believe it went more or less like this:

Obnoxious troll: "ZOMG! HOW CAN THIS GAME SCORE BETTER THAN DoW2?"

Rational people: "Because Alan didn't review DoW2. You're comparing Alan's opinion to Tristan's."

Obnoxious troll: "BUT REVIEWS AREN'T SUBJECTIVE! GRAPHICS ARE UNIVERSAL!"

Rational people: "Actually, art style and design are a large part of the graphics score. Rating those things is totally subjective."

Obnoxious troll: "NO! REVIEWS ARE SCIENCE! JUST LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL! TEXTURE RESOLUTION! ANISOTROPIC FILTERING! POLYGONS!"

Rational people: "Yes, but that doesn't mean anything if what you are looking at is bland or uninspired."

Obnoxious troll: "ZOMG YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GRAPHICS! RESOLUTION! DAWN OF WAR IS BETTER! *FROTH*"

At this point most people left. I stuck around because a) you were amusing (emphasis on past tense) and b) I wanted to see if this review could get over 100 comments.

At this point, you've ceased to be entertaining and have just become depressing. You're like those morons over at NeoGAF who foam at the mouth and say they are never going to play a game if it runs at sub-720p or has screen tearing. If that's what you look for in a game, fine, more power to you. Who am I to tell you what you can't enjoy? But likewise, who are you to tell us that we should listen to your definition of good graphics? Most people here aren't stupid enough to claim a game is bad value for money if it's not rocking 8xAA or something.

Unfortunately, all you do is monotonously fall back on certain terms, without even explaining how they relate to Starcraft II. At this point I don't even think you've played Starcraft II, so your opinion is likely null and void.

You were defeated, if one can use such a term, ages ago. It was demonstrated how this game could have gotten a 9.5 for the graphics and you just chose not to accept it and started ranting nonsensically about the technical side of the graphics. There's no point even trying to discuss things like how Jim Raynor has gone from cross-eyed inbred to charismatic heartthrob cowboy because you just cover your ears and go "LALALA ANTIALIASING!"

The funny thing is, Alan is an ex-game developer with credits on some of my favorite games -- funny, since I so often disagree with his opinion on what makes a good game -- so I'm pretty sure he's got more knowledge about what makes good graphics, including your beloved technical side, than you do.

You'll notice that there is a little 10 at the corner of this post. That's because your replies are so monotonous now that you might as well imagine every reply of mine as simply "GOTO 10". You're never, ever going to make a point because you don't have one. At this stage, the community agrees you've been defeated and I have no intention of flogging a dead horse until it's glue. So, by all means hang around, keep spewing hatred and bile -- keep insulting people and I'm sure you'll get banned -- and by all means enjoy wasting your time. It was fun. I'm sorry you didn't learn anything about grace, humility, manners, or what truly makes good graphics.

Adieu.
 
* *  
10
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Xenojay NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 9:37 AM Posted by Xenojay
6 August 2010, 12:09 AM Reply to Donutta
Holy sh*t! A TRIPLE STAR!
So INTENSE! All the way across the sky!

100 comments. That troll is quite good at trolling. It also seems to keep repeating itself about bad graphics.

There should be an FFFUUU comic for the troll somewhere...
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
mazty
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 9:45 AM Posted by mazty
6 August 2010, 08:37 AM Reply to Donutta
10: Actually, I believe it went more or less like this:

Obnoxious troll: "ZOMG! HOW CAN THIS GAME SCORE BETTER THAN DoW2?"

Rational people: "Because Alan didn't review DoW2. You're comparing Alan's opinion to Tristan's."

Obnoxious troll: "BUT REVIEWS AREN'T SUBJECTIVE! GRAPHICS ARE UNIVERSAL!"

Rational people: "Actually, art style and design are a large part of the graphics score. Rating those things is totally subjective."

Obnoxious troll: "NO! REVIEWS ARE SCIENCE! JUST LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL! TEXTURE RESOLUTION! ANISOTROPIC FILTERING! POLYGONS!"

Rational people: "Yes, but that doesn't mean anything if what you are looking at is bland or uninspired."

Obnoxious troll: "ZOMG YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GRAPHICS! RESOLUTION! DAWN OF WAR IS BETTER! *FROTH*"

At this point most people left. I stuck around because a) you were amusing (emphasis on past tense) and b) I wanted to see if this review could get over 100 comments.

At this point, you've ceased to be entertaining and have just become depressing. You're like those morons over at NeoGAF who foam at the mouth and say they are never going to play a game if it runs at sub-720p or has screen tearing. If that's what you look for in a game, fine, more power to you. Who am I to tell you what you can't enjoy? But likewise, who are you to tell us that we should listen to your definition of good graphics? Most people here aren't stupid enough to claim a game is bad value for money if it's not rocking 8xAA or something.

Unfortunately, all you do is monotonously fall back on certain terms, without even explaining how they relate to Starcraft II. At this point I don't even think you've played Starcraft II, so your opinion is likely null and void.

You were defeated, if one can use such a term, ages ago. It was demonstrated how this game could have gotten a 9.5 for the graphics and you just chose not to accept it and started ranting nonsensically about the technical side of the graphics. There's no point even trying to discuss things like how Jim Raynor has gone from cross-eyed inbred to charismatic heartthrob cowboy because you just cover your ears and go "LALALA ANTIALIASING!"

The funny thing is, Alan is an ex-game developer with credits on some of my favorite games -- funny, since I so often disagree with his opinion on what makes a good game -- so I'm pretty sure he's got more knowledge about what makes good graphics, including your beloved technical side, than you do.

You'll notice that there is a little 10 at the corner of this post. That's because your replies are so monotonous now that you might as well imagine every reply of mine as simply "GOTO 10". You're never, ever going to make a point because you don't have one. At this stage, the community agrees you've been defeated and I have no intention of flogging a dead horse until it's glue. So, by all means hang around, keep spewing hatred and bile -- keep insulting people and I'm sure you'll get banned -- and by all means enjoy wasting your time. It was fun. I'm sorry you didn't learn anything about grace, humility, manners, or what truly makes good graphics.

Adieu.
Holy sh*t I can actually just re-post what I said before:
"It's quite funny you posted once again another reply which skirted the point that it has zero AA, poor res textures, low detail models etc etc and instead you just go "OMGOSH YOU SOOOO RONG! LIKE DUH SOOOO STOOPID!" without actually saying why...
So please, please, please elaborate as to why saying low res textures, no AA and low poly models aren't tell tale signs of bad graphics =)"

PS. Kudos on blindly ignoring my art style criticism and ranting nonsensically once again instead of answering the questions I posed to you.
 
 
-6
This comment has been down-voted by the community.  
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 11:51 AM Posted by PotatoLegs
holy balls didn't realise this was still going

hey guys tl:dr but keep it up
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
nimrod76 NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 12:05 PM Posted by nimrod76
6 August 2010, 11:51 AM Reply to PotatoLegs
holy balls didn't realise this was still going

hey guys tl:dr but keep it up
That thumbs up was from me ;)
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 1:31 PM Posted by Takuyafire
WE HAVE DONE IT! 100 POSTS! TRIPLE STARS!

This is officially the best comment thread on NZG.

Donutta has now got more stars than anyone will ever get in the history of this site...for this I vote he gets promoted and becomes an NZG official reviewer...in fact, send him a copy of SC2 or something.

Totally deserves it.
 
 
3
 
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 2:32 PM Posted by PotatoLegs
i dunno man, the other guy put in a heap of effort himself, and it'd be HIM that'd benefit the most from a free copy of the game ;)
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
PotatoLegs NZGamer.com VIP VIP Bronze
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 2:36 PM Posted by PotatoLegs
Actually, i'd benefit it most by being the objective voice of reason

hey guys, you're both not getting each other because Liam's arguing qualitatively and matzy is arguing quantitatively.

two totally different approaches broaching the same subject, that mean you'll never agree.

there, finished.

see, i can be a good guy nzgamer.com
 
*  
6
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Takuyafire
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 2:44 PM Posted by Takuyafire
6 August 2010, 02:36 PM Reply to PotatoLegs
Actually, i'd benefit it most by being the objective voice of reason

hey guys, you're both not getting each other because Liam's arguing qualitatively and matzy is arguing quantitatively.

two totally different approaches broaching the same subject, that mean you'll never agree.

there, finished.

see, i can be a good guy nzgamer.com
Thumbs down for trying to con Liam out of a free SC2 copy!
 
 
2
 
djkicks NZGamer.com VIP VIP Gold
On Friday 6 Aug 2010 3:06 PM Posted by djkicks
6 August 2010, 01:31 PM Reply to Takuyafire
WE HAVE DONE IT! 100 POSTS! TRIPLE STARS!

This is officially the best comment thread on NZG.

Donutta has now got more stars than anyone will ever get in the history of this site...for this I vote he gets promoted and becomes an NZG official reviewer...in fact, send him a copy of SC2 or something.

Totally deserves it.
Donutta used to be an "NZG official reviewer" wrote reviews for some of the biggest games like Halo 3 and GTA4. I liked his Bitter McRant-Pants articles.
 
 
4
 
Hellrend3r NZGamer.com VIP VIP Silver
On Saturday 7 Aug 2010 3:56 PM Posted by Hellrend3r
Hahaha holy sh*t

give 10's to everything from now on and lets see this escalate!
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
Soyerz
On Monday 9 Aug 2010 6:44 PM Posted by Soyerz
Cool, over 100 posts of some idiot trying to outsmart Liam.

Always good for a laugh.
 
*  
5
This comment has been promoted by the community.  
ChatterboxZombie
On Wednesday 11 Aug 2010 11:10 PM Posted by ChatterboxZombie
In unrelated news, Korea's economic productivity is down 98%
 
 
3
 
ChatterboxZombie
On Monday 16 Aug 2010 4:17 PM Posted by ChatterboxZombie
"Kekeke Zerg rush!"

*punches*

learn your place
 
 
0
 
Astarael
On Tuesday 17 Aug 2010 11:36 PM Posted by Astarael
Donutta you argued with a troll and you won.

I salute you.

By the way ShinyPants, there is nothing wrong with making star wars references. Especially if you do it right =D
 
 
2
 
linkedup453
On Saturday 21 Aug 2010 7:09 PM Posted by linkedup453
I WANT IT NOW!!!!!!!!!
 
 
0
 
apocalyptic_daydream
On Tuesday 24 Aug 2010 9:08 AM Posted by apocalyptic_daydream
LOL NZG HWO MUCH DID DEY PAY U TO RITE THIS REVEW IV SEEN BETTER GRFX ON DER ATARI2600
 
 
1
 
mattyj1974
On Tuesday 21 Sep 2010 7:10 PM Posted by mattyj1974
I'm with Donutta. The other guys an egg!
 
 
1
 
lol
On Sunday 3 Oct 2010 7:23 PM Posted by lol
OMG OMG CANT WAIT TO PLAY UGH IM SO POOR
 
 
0