Disapointments with StarCraft 2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 11
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
963
Cortex is an RP map, so its very hit or miss.

Nexus Wars... eh, Castle Fight was better. Not that I really liked Castle Fight in the first place.

Also, SC2's models are sci-fi models. They do not even remotely resemble anything else. In order to create any map with a theme that is anything but sci-fi, you would need to create dozens of new models. Quite unfortunate, as WC3 had far more creative freedom in that regard; many of the models could easily be used for something they weren't.
 
Level 9
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
933
I liked cortex for about 2 games, but really I can only go so far with a game like that.
As for nexus wars, it just shows how well a person can polish a turd, but no matter how much you polish it, in the end, its still just a turd. SC2 isn't at the level of custom mapping that WC3 is at yet.
 
Level 9
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
498
Cortex is an RP map, so its very hit or miss.

Nexus Wars... eh, Castle Fight was better. Not that I really liked Castle Fight in the first place.

Also, SC2's models are sci-fi models. They do not even remotely resemble anything else. In order to create any map with a theme that is anything but sci-fi, you would need to create dozens of new models. Quite unfortunate, as WC3 had far more creative freedom in that regard; many of the models could easily be used for something they weren't.

sc2 is going through like wc3 did without its Expansion.

but i hate nexus wars (castle was better) and they risk map suxks needs game modes and more units/models.
i bet hive could beat all these fakes/fails of wc3 if we started to focus more on sc2.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
I was already bored of Roleplay in Warcraft III. In Starcraft II, I went to play Cortex Roleplay two days ago and... I just didn't know what to do. My creativity on medieval and fantasy is bad already, but for scientific fiction it is simply nonexistent.

mrzwach said:
[...]
Also, SC2's models are sci-fi models. They do not even remotely resemble anything else. In order to create any map with a theme that is anything but sci-fi, you would need to create dozens of new models. Quite unfortunate, as WC3 had far more creative freedom in that regard; many of the models could easily be used for something they weren't.
About the «they do not resemble anything else» and «Wc3 models could easily be used for something they weren't», I agree, completely! When I voiced that opinion in the chat, nobody agreed with me (which, ironically, came not as a surprise), but it is, in fact true.
In medieval games, you'll often find beings such as Dwarves and Goblins, who live in the medieval time but have more advanced weaponry, but such is not the case in scientific fiction games, for you'll rarely, most likely never, find beings which utilize medieval weapons. And it's only logical: who uses things like swords and arrows when you've got guns and nukes?
There is also the fact that Warcraft III came with scientific fiction models.
Starcraft II has better graphics, on top of this. While some have argued that this will give more freedom on polygons when modeling, I maintain my doubts; it's three textures, an animated and a static portrait more, after all, not to mention animations: in WC3, you could clone the animations of a Marine into your new sci-fi model, while in SC2 you have no Archer model to supply animations of such profession.
 
Level 27
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
11,326
Wc3 models only worked for fantasy and medieval (subset of fantasy) settings. Sc2 models only work for sci-fi settings. I don't see the issue.

One of the diasppointment factors for me as modder was also the high detalization. Why is it bad? That's simple, in WC3 you could actually use a barrel and wooden column doddad and table as wall (If manipulated with their XY correctly), in SC2 you can't. It's the same reason why in WC3 where there were no Sc-fi or modern units you still could use some of in-game units, but you can say SC2 Marine is a WW2 trooper and Tyhus got MG42 machinegun.
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
326
it was sucky too i bet and were talking abut sc2.

Whether it sucked or not isn't the issue, PP's point is that back before you guys had everything handed to you on a silver mod making platter people would make custom scenarios in SC1 where the triggers were sh*t, the archers were dragoons, and players actually had an imagination. Basically either learn to model or be creative with what you got.
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
Indeed. Hell, Warcraft didn't really have any more variety than SC2 does in terms of models; people just got so used to not playing SciFi maps (ever notice how few SciFi maps there are and how bad they tend to be?) that they assumed that Warcraft could do "everything", whereas in reality they constrained "everything" to what Warcraft could do.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
Sorry, but I disagree; Warcraft III has much more variety. If you wanted zombies, you had Zombies and Dalaran Mutants. You've got Wildkin, giant walking birds, Kobolds, underground pigs, Gnolls, some sort of mutated wolves, Centaur, Harpies, trolls, bear-men... need I go on? The variety of races and existing models for them makes it much easier to create something that hasn't been done, scientific fiction or not.
And, if you wanted a gunner, you could have a unit using the Marine model and an instant projectile. In Starcraft II, if you want an Archer, you're still stuck to a Marine shooting, what, marauder grenades? I'm not saying it's not possible, because it sure is, but it isn't credible, at all. Like mrzwach said, Starcraft II buildings do not resemble anything else. In Warcraft III, if I wanted a Gateway, I could use the Dark Portal or Dimensional Gateway models, or even that Dalaran purple Portal, if I wanted to replace a Nexus I could use the Nerubian Ziggurat or its hidden counterparts.
The point being: there are a lot of structures in Warcraft III that can replace StarCraft buildings, but I can't think of a single Starcraft II building that can replace a Warcraft building.
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
Sorry, but I disagree; Warcraft III has much more variety. If you wanted zombies, you had Zombies and Dalaran Mutants. You've got Wildkin, giant walking birds, Kobolds, underground pigs, Gnolls, some sort of mutated wolves, Centaur, Harpies, trolls, bear-men... need I go on? The variety of races and existing models for them makes it much easier to create something that hasn't been done, scientific fiction or not.
TL;DR fantasy, which we established.

And, if you wanted a gunner, you could have a unit using the Marine model and an instant projectile. In Starcraft II, if you want an Archer, you're still stuck to a Marine shooting, what, marauder grenades? I'm not saying it's not possible, because it sure is, but it isn't credible, at all. Like mrzwach said, Starcraft II buildings do not resemble anything else. In Warcraft III, if I wanted a Gateway, I could use the Dark Portal or Dimensional Gateway models, or even that Dalaran purple Portal, if I wanted to replace a Nexus I could use the Nerubian Ziggurat or its hidden counterparts.
And these don't look like Starcraft buildings! You simply used your imagination. I don't understand why you have this mental block preventing you from doing the reverse when you have so clearly done it one way.

The point being: there are a lot of structures in Warcraft III that can replace StarCraft buildings, but I can't think of a single Starcraft II building that can replace a Warcraft building.
That's because you don't think you can.
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
326
Sorry, but I disagree; Warcraft III has much more variety. If you wanted zombies, you had Zombies and Dalaran Mutants. You've got Wildkin, giant walking birds, Kobolds, underground pigs, Gnolls, some sort of mutated wolves, Centaur, Harpies, trolls, bear-men... need I go on? The variety of races and existing models for them makes it much easier to create something that hasn't been done, scientific fiction or not.

No offense Rui but it's a moot point because using all the things you listed in a Sci-fi WC3 game took imagination on the part of the player just as Poot said, and I'm sure there were quite a few people who were tired of seeing "OMG MARINEZ AND RIFELMAN FIGHT THE ZOMBIES AND MUTANTS REDUX EDITION!!!"
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
765
I'm with Rui on this one. Warcraft 3 had a much bigger variety of everything then Starcraft. While in Warcraft you can make midevil, fantasy midevil, future, fantasy future games with the models provided, you can only make future games with Starcraft (that is what is being debated right?). Simply put with the models you can do more with Warcraft 3 then in Starcraft in terms of time periods and "other worlds".
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
You couldn't make futuristic games with the provided models. They provided a total of one or two futuristic units (space orc firebat is arguable, marine is definite). Fantasy/Medieval/Future Fantasy are you trying to stretch one genre into three categories when you know very well that they are all part of the "Fantasy" category.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
765
You can take literally dozens of creep models and some regular unit models and say they are an alien race (in futuristic game) and it will pass. It might not look awesome, but it will pass. With the same group you can have them be from a pre-industrial period with primitive looking soldiers. They are in my opinion interchangeable. You can't do that with SC2 because their are no creeps, swords, bows, revolutionary styled guns (looking at you rifleman), simple mortar teams.

I played a Starcraft II Helms Deep. I was not immersed in the lord of the rings era at all. The game had an interesting twist though, being starcraft 2 and not warcraft 3 (seeing tons of zerglings charge was mildly enjoyable), but the replay factor wasn't there. It was just silly.
 
Level 3
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
34
My dissapointments were the following:

- The story. While the campaing was AWESOME, the story really prevented it form being perfect. Felt recycled, if not out of place. The dialogue was not good, it often felt like a cheap B-version of Mass Effect.

- Battle.net 2.0. I still don't know how it is better than previous Battle.net, other than it runs a more powerful game. It has maintance time like WoW, it forces online-24/7 which is sometimes annoying, no chat, no lan, you can only have one profile. Language and Region lock (WTF??!), and the popularity system for custom maps.

- Data editor complexity, the data editor is really putting me off everytime I want to start editing starcraft 2. What I'd like: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...r-too-hard-you-174750/index9.html#post1691412



I can also say that I see the lack of real improvements, or the lack of neutral creatures from WC3 as a bad thing. Keep in mind though this isn't a "dissapointment" since I knew from scratch that with Starcraft this was going to happen. I do miss having so many different units in the editor. I don't Know if WC3 base editor had enough for a space-themed map, but sure as hell it had a lot more variety. And FT brought ships into the table.
 
Level 22
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,971
Yeah, add the 'Cant type in your profile' another prevention to not type !@#$ in your profiles. You see where they went with 'let's remove all normal bnet 1 has so that ppl dont absue names, type in profiles or any words' because without them the game is SOOO safe with ppl using these words in-game...
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
Sorry, but I disagree; Warcraft III has much more variety. If you wanted zombies, you had Zombies and Dalaran Mutants. You've got Wildkin, giant walking birds, Kobolds, underground pigs, Gnolls, some sort of mutated wolves, Centaur, Harpies, trolls, bear-men... need I go on? The variety of races and existing models for them makes it much easier to create something that hasn't been done, scientific fiction or not.
TL;DR fantasy, which we established.
?

PurplePoot said:
Rui said:
And, if you wanted a gunner, you could have a unit using the Marine model and an instant projectile. In Starcraft II, if you want an Archer, you're still stuck to a Marine shooting, what, marauder grenades? I'm not saying it's not possible, because it sure is, but it isn't credible, at all. Like mrzwach said, Starcraft II buildings do not resemble anything else. In Warcraft III, if I wanted a Gateway, I could use the Dark Portal or Dimensional Gateway models, or even that Dalaran purple Portal, if I wanted to replace a Nexus I could use the Nerubian Ziggurat or its hidden counterparts.
And these don't look like Starcraft buildings! You simply used your imagination. I don't understand why you have this mental block preventing you from doing the reverse when you have so clearly done it one way.

Rui said:
The point being: there are a lot of structures in Warcraft III that can replace StarCraft buildings, but I can't think of a single Starcraft II building that can replace a Warcraft building.
That's because you don't think you can.
The level of similarity between the models I mentioned and Starcraft structures is much larger than the similarity between any Starcraft II and Warcraft III buildings.
On top of this, I can add effects to make it look futuristic, it takes a little triggering, but is doable. But to remove effects I'd have to edit the model and re-import it.
Also, I'm talking about putting things together for a single race. Of course I could (attempt to) use a Nexus as a Nerubian Ziggurat and a Gateway as a Black Portal, but one is a Nerubian building and the other is a Demonic one, which doesn't get me very far if I'm trying to put things together to create a race.




(...) and I'm sure there were quite a few people who were tired of seeing "OMG MARINEZ AND RIFELMAN FIGHT THE ZOMBIES AND MUTANTS REDUX EDITION!!!"
Which should have been taken only as an encouragement to put potential theme-changing resources into the game. Because «MARINEZ AND RIFLEMEN FIGHT THE ZOMBIES» is perhaps similar to «TERRAN FIGHT THE ZERG», which is the theme of 100% of the custom maps I've come across, which has bored me already, and I think it won't be long before a lot more people grow tired of it, too; it's extremely cliché.




My dissapointments were the following:

- The story. While the campaing was AWESOME, the story really prevented it form being perfect. Felt recycled, if not out of place. The dialogue was not good, it often felt like a cheap B-version of Mass Effect.
The dialog of the campaign was annoying at times, yes.
I am replaying the campaign on Brutal, and I completed the "Breakout" (I think that's the name) colonist mission (the one with lots of Infested Terran that attack during the night). Then I went to the Armory and Swann said something about making a living on Meinhoff (the planet in which this mission takes place), but I did not understand what he said because of all the abbreviations. I understand that's the way they talk, but the script is incomprehensible at times.

gmgo said:
- Battle.net 2.0. I still don't know how it is better than previous Battle.net, other than it runs a more powerful game. It has maintance time like WoW, it forces online-24/7 which is sometimes annoying, no chat, no lan, you can only have one profile. Language and Region lock (WTF??!), and the popularity system for custom maps.
[...]
I think this was actually an improvement.
I'm not sure if you're one of those guys, but I had friends which created a new account every (few) month(s) but didn't stop using the old ones, making it both impossible to keep track of them and store all of them on the friends list because of the 25 friends limit.
I am totally with you on the popularity system. It's counterintuitive. I've seen the same maps on the top for ages now. People don't look past page 2 (if we define «page» and as the limit between the top or the last «Show More» to the next «Show More» button). I agree with having popularity as a possible arrangement, but it should, by no means, be the default arrangement. People are silly and lazy, and they'll pick whatever is in front of them without looking further.

gmgo said:
I can also say that I see the lack of real improvements, or the lack of neutral creatures from WC3 as a bad thing. Keep in mind though this isn't a "dissapointment" since I knew from scratch that with Starcraft this was going to happen. I do miss having so many different units in the editor. I don't Know if WC3 base editor had enough for a space-themed map, but sure as hell it had a lot more variety. And FT brought ships into the table.
I was hoping there would be creeps, too, not because of creeping, I understand that it doesn't fit into the Starcraft II gameplay, I was looking forward to them because of the extra models, but without heroes to earn experience or pick items, it becomes pointless.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
765
You couldn't make futuristic games with the provided models. They provided a total of one or two futuristic units (space orc firebat is arguable, marine is definite).

Honestly that's just not true. Their are Wildkin, giant walking birds, Kobolds, underground pigs, Gnolls, some sort of mutated wolves, Centaur, Harpies, trolls, bear-men you can simply make from the future as the alien populace. This of course would be more of a Star Trek/Star Wars universe where their are many species of aliens, opposed to Starcraft where their are 3 (H/Z/P). Imagination is important for gamers.
 
Level 22
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,971
Agreed. You cant say 'SC2 doesnt offer anything ready to use in a war3 map, all is futuristic'. War3 is just the same, these villagers shacks, barns or houses are no where even for a modern City map, not to say futuristic. War3 offers just as much. Now there goes the problem that in war3 you could easily create models and make your space map but here making a war3 map will be a lot more difficult. So good luck.
 
Region Lock? Tell me. Would a server be able to stand 1 million people playing on the same server? No really. WOULD THEY?
Wc3 servers had 10k players. So it wasn't a problem, but there still was slight lag. This is to prevent massive lag. What if all the EU players decided to play on the US server? KABOOM. AT&T would blow up. Their servers would crash down. Nobody would be able to play.

Seriously, now, games are hosted by Battle.net itself. The game has maany more instructions, and has to run multiple checks, in case a player is cheating. Seriously. Those are made to avoid major problems.

WoW has around 80 servers, for 11 million people. Divide it. It's like 150k people per server. What if they all played on the same server? BOOM. They lock the servers instead.

If a server is locked, you can't connect. Would you like this to be implemented in Sc2? And people who have bad connections would be unable to play. Which would make them angry, and troll the forums.

Seriously. They made it that way for a reason. Not just random "We like it this way". If you disagree, use your brain.
 
Level 3
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
34
Region Lock? Tell me. Would a server be able to stand 1 million people playing on the same server? No really. WOULD THEY?
Wc3 servers had 10k players. So it wasn't a problem, but there still was slight lag. This is to prevent massive lag. What if all the EU players decided to play on the US server? KABOOM. AT&T would blow up. Their servers would crash down. Nobody would be able to play.

Seriously, now, games are hosted by Battle.net itself. The game has maany more instructions, and has to run multiple checks, in case a player is cheating. Seriously. Those are made to avoid major problems.

WoW has around 80 servers, for 11 million people. Divide it. It's like 150k people per server. What if they all played on the same server? BOOM. They lock the servers instead.

If a server is locked, you can't connect. Would you like this to be implemented in Sc2? And people who have bad connections would be unable to play. Which would make them angry, and troll the forums.

Seriously. They made it that way for a reason. Not just random "We like it this way". If you disagree, use your brain.

I'm sorry, but you being a NA region user (basically the "original" region), you don't seem to fully understand the situation regarding regions. So shut up.

Look, I play latin american region. The region lock is gay. Every previous Battle.net 1 game works great with region choice. You join a region, it lags? you change. As simple as that. Right now you can't change region. That DOESN'T mean you can't get another region. I could be playing NA if I had chosen to pay for that region instead, so you are not stopping anyone from playing any region. In fact, if someone has bad latency, they can't change once game is bought...

Now, we have half the latin american users using the NA version, and the other half using LA. Not only that, but the LA region is limited to Spanish and/or Portuguese. Yes, I can't even play the f***** game on the original language (english). That's part of the reason half the LA users went to NA region in the first play, and now our community is stuck splitted in between those 2 regions. It is as gay as that.

Also you talk about "using your brain" but assuming "a single Region=a single server" isn't very smart from you...
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
No, Rui, the Warcraft structures look nothing like the Starcraft ones and the only resemblence is the name. I seriously don't understand this mental block of yours.
Sorry, we have a disagreement, then; in my opinion, it is much easier for a Warcraft structure, plus any effects, to resemble a Starcraft one than the other way around.

The problem is that not only are harpies, trolls etc totally fantasy races, but more importantly they are still using medieval weapons. I guess you could call it sci fi with magic and with low tech for most people, but by that point it's just fantasy with a guy with a gun somewhere in it.
I should have pointed out that, when I mentioned those models, I was arguing for the larger variety of races and models in Warcraft III. I know that not all those races would pass as Aliens, but like I said, most of them, with the right effects attached to them (to their weapon, more specifically) and the right projectiles, could make their «futuristic» weapon look much more realistic, whilst in Starcraft II there's absolutely nothing you can do to make a weapon more medieval except remove effects, which requires model editing -- I think it's safe to say that, at least, it's not as easy for people who have no experience on that field whatsoever.


Agreed. You cant say 'SC2 doesnt offer anything ready to use in a war3 map, all is futuristic'. War3 is just the same, these villagers shacks, barns or houses are no where even for a modern City map, not to say futuristic. War3 offers just as much. Now there goes the problem that in war3 you could easily create models and make your space map but here making a war3 map will be a lot more difficult. So good luck.
This has been debated; Warcraft III might not offer a lot, but it certainly offers more than Starcraft II.
Actually, it is much easier to accept a barn as part of a modern industrial sector than accepting a structure full of radars, lights, and other sci-fi-looking things as medieval. Because we can assume that time goes forth, and the Barn remained the same. However, it is much harder to imagine that building full of radars, sensors, and lights as medieval, for obvious reasons. Time is an argument against this, and it's much harder to accept that it went back.
The same principle applies to other models.

Lol ! Wasn't this about models and the editor? This place is getting weirder and weirder.
It is about disappointments with Starcraft II.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Sorry, we have a disagreement, then; in my opinion, it is much easier for a Warcraft structure, plus any effects, to resemble a Starcraft one than the other way around.
I felt the same way when I transitioned from Olde Starcraft to Warcraft 3. It's the graphical standards, really. In Olde Starcraft, "Archer" was a title that could be given to pretty much anything ranged. People rarely cared about what the unit looked like, and could name one thing anything to fulfill a specific purpose. With improved graphics came stricter aesthetics and more limited imagination. That's just how it is.
 

TKF

TKF

Level 19
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
1,267
The SC2 lacks much the magics which exists in WC3. I wonder how you would create good spells in SC2, at least it would be high tech.


But I think Cruiser Command and Solar Conquest would indeed look much better in SC2, but the problem is that the editor isn't so user friendly as I thought and it's unlogical made in many ways.


Well I'm to lazy to make those from scraths and leave them to Callex which will most likely use a few months by creating one of them as a SC2 remake.



But I'm sure we will see very good space theme futuristic maps in the future in SC2, while some will miss the medival looking stuff in SC2.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
I felt the same way when I transitioned from Olde Starcraft to Warcraft 3. It's the graphical standards, really. In Olde Starcraft, "Archer" was a title that could be given to pretty much anything ranged. People rarely cared about what the unit looked like, and could name one thing anything to fulfill a specific purpose. With improved graphics came stricter aesthetics and more limited imagination. That's just how it is.
I don't think the advance of graphics is entirely the problem, but part of it is due to this as well. I've recently installed Starcraft 1 to play the campaigns, and the first time I spotted a Protoss Zealot, he had this yellow thing on his head, he almost looked like an Elf with blond hair (except for the portrait, of course). The same can't be said for SC2 Zealots. It'd be easy to accept the SC1 Zealot as an Elf warrior in a possible LotR map.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
765
Again I refer to my lotr Helms Deep in sc2 experience. Aside from the gameplay not living up to the typical wc3 helms deep gameplay, I really felt disconnected from the lord of the rings universe. Seeing marines with guns shooting bullets at zerglings, that just isn't immersion. And immersion is what we are talking about here right? While in Warcraft 3 I could play parasite (without custom models) and I would feel like im on a space station in the future, trying to kill the alien (which could be played by many many wc3 models).
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
765
If you were playing parasite without imports, you would have to use the dalaran texture or something similar (go immersion), the same marine model tinted differently for the various suits (go immersion), custom gun icons that looked like blunderbusses (go immersion), and so on.

I never said it would be an awesome experience :p But It would be better then the flip flop of Starcraft 2.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
765
If you say so.

I find it funny how you are so determined that you need to convince people that SC2 can't have immersive maps that you said that you could do something in wc3 then, in your next post, said you can't.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said you won't get fantastic results, but you can still do it, opposed to SC2 where you flat out can't do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top