[Raven2001]

See? You did not get my views pretty clearly
I have no problem against simplicity in game mechanics, quite the contrary. I think they are a good formula to get more people playing a certain game, instead of a select few.
But SC2 is not looking, by a long shot, like a "literally Starcraft with new graphics". Those graphics are everything but new, and thats what Im talking about.
Oh and given the nostalgia vs lazy choice you mention, I have no doubts it is the second

I dont want to convince anyone. In fact this would be the wrong forum to do so if I wanted... not many koreans here
To each their own. However, I know my conscience wont be heavy when the game industry goes even more downhill, due to people who willingly pay for lazy made games.

[TopAce]

I agree with Raven. Game mechanism should be the utmost priority during a game's development.

[Raven2001]

Nop

Game mechanics, graphics, and all the other factors should be all the utmost priority during a games development. This holds especially true when we are talking about a game house of Blizzards financial status

[Mongoose]

...I must have an entirely different definition of "good graphics" than a lot of people, because those gameplay videos I was watching left my jaw practically on the floor.  If those constitute "bad graphics," I'd hate to see what's considered "good."

[TrashMan]

Rather low poly, simple textures...the animated heads look great of course... Still, C&C3 beats this hands down.

But I'll reserve my final statement for the actual game release...

[Raven2001]

...I must have an entirely different definition of "good graphics" than a lot of people, because those gameplay videos I was watching left my jaw practically on the floor.  If those constitute "bad graphics," I'd hate to see what's considered "good."

Well all you have to do then, in order to get atleast my definition of good graphics, is take a peek at other RTSs (in order to maintain a certain degree of whats fair to ask), like Down of War, C&C3, Company of Heroes, etc
Im sure you will notice a big different as far as textures, models, map building, lightning, effects, etc is concerned

[Ulala]

I just wish they had gone with a dark, grungy, and evil look instead of a warcraft3-esque cartoony style. Maybe there's hope yet, but I'm not holding my breath.
Games like this don't bring the gaming industry down, MMOs like WoW do. Companys can only compete with the bank that Blizzard makes off just that by selling out to another huge conglomerate (EA). Someday every game might require monthly payments. 

[starbug]

i have just watched the 20 min gameplay vid, and i thought the graphics were good, better than war3. Alright they are not as detailed as company of heroes or world in conflict but i will say this at least the terrain is better detailed the Supreme Commanders(now if i said that at the SC forums they would shoot me dead, they seem to hate starcraft from what i have read on the forums). Now i do love the black hole effect for the protoss mothership and the Protoss head animations. As long as the game is well balanced and fun to play i am not that bothered if the graphics are at crysis level or not and why is every one saying that it looks cartoony? i don't think it does

[Raven2001]

I just wish they had gone with a dark, grungy, and evil look instead of a warcraft3-esque cartoony style. Maybe there's hope yet, but I'm not holding my breath.
Games like this don't bring the gaming industry down, MMOs like WoW do. Companys can only compete with the bank that Blizzard makes off just that by selling out to another huge conglomerate (EA). Someday every game might require monthly payments. 

True true and true

Just one thing though... do you think that Blizzard is much different than EA nowadays?

[NGTM-1R]

The second studio that was working on SC Ghost was owned by Blizzard for a year before the game was canceled. 

My turn to state the obvious?!
Of course they were "owned" (more like a direct subsidiary) by Blizzard, for the purpose of developig SC Ghost. Much on the same way that Blizzard North was owned by Blizzard for the purpose of developing the Diablo series, before they disbanded.
Only being there for only 1 year, and then Ghost being cancelled, is a testament that there were misunderstandings.

How's that obvious?

Hell, how does that logically follow?

[Raven2001]

Oops, bad typing from my part, forgot a paragraph to divide both sentences, as they were in no way related

[IceFire]

I think I've become less picky on the graphics front.  SC2 looks great.  C&C3 looks great.  I could probably spend allot of time and pick apart the graphical differences and the stylistic differences but both seem to be extremely sharp looking.  From the gameplay video it sounds like Blizzard has allot of work cut out for them in balancing the various abilities but it seems like its well in hand.

I do like the dynamics where you have units across all spectrums that have different abilities that fit into the overall army.  C&C didn't use to do this very well although C&C3 does it the best I've seen in the series where some low level units are still useful and probably even necessary in the late game.  I like how you have a unit in SC2 like the Warp Ray which is a great counter against other large units the enemy deploys (Battlecruisers, Siege Tanks, whatever else big) but is not as good against small cheap units because it takes a bit of time for the damage to build up.  So you really have to have a diverse set of units going in to deal with all tiers of an enemies army.

I'll stop rambling now

[Nico]

Well then there you have it, the Lineage vs WoW thingy just proves what I say. Among another number of things. But that aside all its left is the gameplay, which isnt much different from what you see from some games already (mentioned DoA for that reason, the gameplays of both are very similar, yet DoA looks much better, etc). The gameplay style of resource gathering and all that is not my cup of tea either, but thats not my point in this actually.

My "gripe" regarding SC2 is exactly that. The graphics are sub-par (euphemism too ), the gameplay is the same (not a bad thing, but since their not directing their efforts to that department, its only logical they do in others), their maps are extruded cubes (thats the worse of it, my jaw dropped when I saw a Protoss Immortal going through a "hill" like if it wasnt there). And of course, like you mentioned, that cartoonish style is awfull, becoz it doesnt look cartoonish at all
Even more, my gripe is that SC is going to be the second Blizzard universe they seem to be going to screw up, due to poor execution in their games. And im fond of their universes.

mmh, you're twisting my words, I was talking about warcraft, not Starcraft. Besides the scaling choices (that I hate), there's nothing cartoonish about SC at all (where did you get that? :/)
As for the "cubic" maps... hell, man, we've seen ONE map, one URBAN map, might I add, and there you go throwing that around as one major flaw of the game? Heck you've played warcraft3, you know they use a mix of smooth hills and abrupt breaks like that.
And, on a last note, that Lineage2 comment is truc against WoW, but it's also true against most games anyway (DOA? wazat?).
Anyway, the hardest I look at the screenshots and the youtube videos to see how exactly it looks subpar, the more I think you're not talking about Starcraft2...

[Raven2001]

Wasnt my intent to "twist your words". Just perceived your argument a diferent way than you meant.
Im talking about Blizzard titles in the last few years, not only a game in particular.

And ill keep my opinion: SC2 is looking cartoonish to me: all those bright colours, almost plain textures, etc. And their looking sub-par to me when I compare them to other titles, sorry.

By the way you mentioned SC: Ghost had crappy graphics before. Ive just been trough IGN to take a peek and see if my memory was blasted... heck those were decent (not groundbreaking, I dont need that anyways) graphics for 2001\2002. The models were well done, the textures actually had some character to them, the lightning was dramatic, etc. Especially in the XBox screens (for obvious reasons). And you could see those traits even in the earlier shots.
Do you see any of that in what we have from SC2 thus far (which is more than one urban map)? I dont. And I certainly didnt see it in Warcraft3 or WoW.

EDIT: about the terrain. yes you had smooth hills in W3, as you had abrupt terrain. Did that abrupt terrain look right? I dont think so. It looked like an extrusion of the terrain instead of actual terrain. And I see the same in the videos and screens we have from SC2 :\

[Prophet]

You're repeating yourself. And that's just boring...

[TrashMan]

You're repeating yourself. And that's just boring...

Apparently, so is Blizzard

[Raven2001]

You're repeating yourself. And that's just boring...

Aparently its because people keep debating about what I contested, so Im more than happy to re-explain what I think?

You dont like it?!? Dont read, plain and simple... And before you come whining that Im being agressive and blah blah, take a look at your post...

[Nico]

Wasnt my intent to "twist your words". Just perceived your argument a diferent way than you meant.

Just a remark, not a criticism.

By the way you mentioned SC: Ghost had crappy graphics before. Ive just been trough IGN to take a peek and see if my memory was blasted... heck those were decent (not groundbreaking, I dont need that anyways) graphics for 2001\2002. The models were well done, the textures actually had some character to them, the lightning was dramatic, etc. Especially in the XBox screens (for obvious reasons). And you could see those traits even in the earlier shots.

Yeah, exactly, thanks for proving my point: ghost was announced in 2002, to be released eventually for 2005. Get my point? It was crappy, it was old school, it was 3, even 4 years late

Do you see any of that in what we have from SC2 thus far (which is more than one urban map)? I dont. And I certainly didnt see it in Warcraft3 or WoW.

Actually I do, but heh

EDIT: about the terrain. yes you had smooth hills in W3, as you had abrupt terrain. Did that abrupt terrain look right? I dont think so. It looked like an extrusion of the terrain instead of actual terrain. And I see the same in the videos and screens we have from SC2 :\

Well, yup, I think it looked right. Every godamn game got super smooth terrains and hills and mountains that flow nicely from the ground. Last time I checked (and I get to check it often in the region I live), lands are tored apart by countless extrusions, the moutains don't go out of the ground like sheets pulled up, cliffs have no rounded edges, and so on. I don't mean Warcraft is impressive of realism in that regard, but nope, I don't think it's a bad thing. People kind of forget real landscapes are not made out of a nice wireframe with square polygons.
Well anyway, I made my point, so I'll leave it to that. Just wanted to voice my opinion, you're by all mean entitled to yours, I just tried to understand your point of view (I assume I failed tho, but it won't change my life so I can live with it )

[StarSlayer]

Yeah, exactly, thanks for proving my point: ghost was announced in 2002, to be released eventually for 2005. Get my point? It was crappy, it was old school, it was 3, even 4 years late

Wasn't Ghost supposed to come out the same time as Jedi Knight II?  I remember being stoked because  JKII, Imperium Galactica, and Breed? were going to be released around the same time.  Well 1 out of four, course Nexus ended up being enjoyable so i won't hold that against them

[Raven2001]

Yeah, exactly, thanks for proving my point: ghost was announced in 2002, to be released eventually for 2005. Get my point? It was crappy, it was old school, it was 3, even 4 years late

Nope, you didnt get mine
In 2002 the graphics were good. In 2005 they wouldnt be that good unless some new technology implementation would make its way trough.
But of course theres also this. Originally it was meant to be released for late 2002\early 2003, which would make the graphics still look good at its original release (even if you throw in the usual "things get done late" to a mid 2003).
It was the innumerous setbacks that made it go as far as 2005\06... and by the way, I would be talking crap about SC Ghost as well if by 2005 they wouldnt have improved those grafics (assuming a release of course). So yeah in these situation I would more than agree with you
On the other hand, I dont see the grafics being presented in SC2 as being good in 2006\2007.

Well, yup, I think it looked right. Every godamn game got super smooth terrains and hills and mountains that flow nicely from the ground. Last time I checked (and I get to check it often in the region I live), lands are tored apart by countless extrusions, the moutains don't go out of the ground like sheets pulled up, cliffs have no rounded edges, and so on. I don't mean Warcraft is impressive of realism in that regard, but nope, I don't think it's a bad thing. People kind of forget real landscapes are not made out of a nice wireframe with square polygons.
Well anyway, I made my point, so I'll leave it to that. Just wanted to voice my opinion, you're by all mean entitled to yours, I just tried to understand your point of view (I assume I failed tho, but it won't change my life so I can live with it )

Nop didnt look right because no terrain has those extrusions as repetitive and as angular (as seen from above) as you see in Warcraft or those SC2 shots. I might have worded myself before
You have those extrusions everywhere true (and they are represented in most games, but their not that "mathematic" as you see in W3.