There should be no number one as no game can ever dethrone DNF...
Also, the fact that SCII twitter updates nowadays are about them adding doodads and making trees have better shadows makes it pretty obvious that the game is finished, they're just waiting on bnet 2.0... i blame WoW.
#4
LordRavage
I thought the title said...2009 Vampire awards.
I was like "They have award shows now?"
#5
Joe Johnson
LOL - between all the vampire and zombie movies we've had the past few years, there SHOULD be awards.
8 years vs 12 years... plus they released Starcraft and Diablo 2 and exps in the meantime... while WoW came out in 2004... with the first exp in 2007...
And i'm pretty sure WC3 came out somewhat less then 2 years after it was first announced.
Sure, they always delay their games (Starcraft was no exception, the "operation cwal" cheat code was a nod to a group that called itself that as in "can't wait any longer"), but at least they had some announced deadlines so one could at least a approximate how many months after that the game would come out.
8 years vs 12 years... plus they released Starcraft and Diablo 2 and exps in the meantime... while WoW came out in 2004... with the first exp in 2007...
And i'm pretty sure WC3 came out somewhat less then 2 years after it was first announced.
Sure, they always delay their games (Starcraft was no exception, the "operation cwal" cheat code was a nod to a group that called itself that as in "can't wait any longer"), but at least they had some announced deadlines so one could at least a approximate how many months after that the game would come out.[/QUOTE]
I meant that the graphics and gameplay are very, very similar to the Warcraft 3 engine. Blizzard Devs are lazy as fuck.
They have a fan base of rabid junkies who will scoop up whatever they put out and declare it to be the best ever. Why should they work hard when they don't have to?
They have a fan base of rabid junkies who will scoop up whatever they put out and declare it to be the best ever. Why should they work hard when they don't have to?[/quote]
Because they've done that so far with anything they've made. They have fans for a reason.
That was years ago... and the entire blizz forum was up in arms about it... the game looks way better now. http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/4.xml Still is meant to work on lower end PC's though, so it's probably not graphics whore material...
And the gameplay is closer to SC1, and let's face it, changing it would get them murdered by a rush of koreans sneaking in the back of the base by dropship.
---------- Post added at 11:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------
I believe this is the lates graphics upgrade:
#14
LordRendar
Is that concept art? or are the in-game unit actually gonna look like that?
#15
General Specific
Heh, for anyone complaining about SC2's release date, they haven't been paying attention to Blizzard's development processes, have they? Blizzard are perfectionists, but they know when a game is good enough. As a result, their games constantly get pushed back, but are always of high quality.
My parents paid for Diablo 2 for me as a Christmas present one year and I actually got the game a few weeks before my birthday... in July.
#16
@Li3n
@General Specific
Thing is, for SC2 they didn't even bother to announce any release dates, and the game has looked more finished then many released ones for over a year now and there's still no beta. And the reason the beta was delayed to 2010 is because of bnet 2.0, and not because of the state of the game (like i said before, they're now working of sp doodads and better shadows for trees).