Is anybody else really anxious to see the zerg? The announcement was so long ago for the game and it just seems like the units are taking forever. There's a new unit announcement what? Every week or two? I don't know I'm just kinda venting because I check the site every day and never see anything new and then when I do it's nothing to get excited for.
I do think blizz will go a little too cartoony with them. Doesn't mean I don't want to see them. Protoss are the best imo but I think the zerg are the funnest and most unique.
lol if u know how to use zerg ull pwn with them if not well ur dead LOL i used to play sc i was good with zerg, zerg isnt so bad unless u get rushed by 12 zealots but apparently ur souposed to have some sunken colonys to take care of em backed up with zlings or hydras
Well yeah I can use both zerg and protoss well. I never really liked terran. I can use them if I have to but I don't like to. For me a protoss strategy is to make so many cannons that nothing can destroy me and then make 2 fleets of carriers and mow down the competition.
The thing is that the Zerg were created by the Confederation for military purposes example: They wanted to let the Zerg destroy their enemies and then they would come in and eraticate them! But that backfired... and in the final hour the Zerg destroyed all of the confedarates and most of everything else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I like the life I lived, because I went from negative to positive.
You know very well who you are, don't let them hold you down, reach for the stars.
You know, seeing those mutalisks in the Starcraft demo, I actually thought they looked kinda ridiculous. They were too colorful and cartoonish looking. And everybody tells me not to worry cause that was just an early demo; well, we shall see.
The thing is that the Zerg were created by the Confederation for military purposes
You mean they CAPTURED the Zerg for military purposes? The Zerg are made by XelNaga. Confederates cna't make such a thing. They had no idea what they are. They just captured some.
You mean they CAPTURED the Zerg for military purposes? The Zerg are made by XelNaga. Confederates cna't make such a thing. They had no idea what they are. They just captured some.
That's the way I remembered it!
You're probobly right but tell me, what are the XelNaga? I never heard of them before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I like the life I lived, because I went from negative to positive.
You know very well who you are, don't let them hold you down, reach for the stars.
all this anti-3D coming from you Equinox, do you have a high end PC, just wondering, can you play good 3D graphics.....
Low-polygon 3D is not good graphics by my standards. I think low-polygon 3D is some of the worst graphics possible. Ex: WC3, which is rather old now, my computer can surely run that.
I must say, UT III looks a lot better on my computer than WarCraft 3. Also, AoE 1/2 also look better than WC3. SC would look better than WC3 if it had a bigger resolution... D1 looks better than WC3... all those came out before WC3, they have bigger maps, greater detail, they hardly require any power.
I don't mind 3D as a concept, what I do mind, is 3D replacing 2D where it can't even compare to the quality of 2D. Where it decreases map size (see AoE III, map size has became ridiculous, also see Heroes V, same shit), where it decreases unit quantity (again, AoE III), and, to cap it all, lowers performance.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
you seem to have this incredible nostalga and love for the old 2D, its just so....old...
It's not my fault 3D in RTS is low-polygon and makes games look like crap. I don't care how old 2D is. 2D looks better, costs less, period.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
its like using black and white for Diablo 3
This comparison is idiotic. 2D is a perfectly working concept, it has plenty advantages over 3D.
I repeat. Games of mass unit number are DISADVANTAGED by 3D. They look worse, they are simplified to pay for the 3D, they take longer to make, again, they require users to buy new computers. 3D has no advantage over 2D. Except one. Hype. People like you, who don't know what art is and just chase after latest technology, like some chase after the latest shaders and crap like that. The look of the game is not defined by technology used in it, it is defined by its design. Except 3D makes it very, very, limited.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
hell lets make it like pong, that was a classic game, you can bounce diablo around
Stop making idiotic comparisons please. We are not in kindergarden. Well, I'm not, at least.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
old games get outstripped eventually, especially by 3D, black and white<Color, 2D<3D
Old music > new music. Old movies > new movies. Old games > new games. Hmm?
low-poly 3D is bad. low-poly 3D is not a technological breakthrough, it's a source of hype for new RTS/RPG games, nothing more. 3D is disadvantageous. If you can't see it, you are just chasing after new technology for the sake of new technology.
2D and 3D are two different fundamental ways of programming. Color, blackandwhite, 16bit, whatever, have nothing to do with this. before you make such comparisons maybe you should read some material first.
From what I remember the zerg were made by the people. I might be wrong. And Equinox just because I don't play SC like it is a religion doesn't make me a noob. I played it when I was young and didn't play again until about a year ago. You have no right to call me a noob.
Noob is just someone who doesn't play the game too well. So, yea, I can call you a noob. In fact, I am a noob, even tho I do play SC like a religion. It's just a very old game, pretty much everyone is a noob in there who came in, like, 2005+.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And Equinox, you're so positive.
That's awesome though. "I don't want to see Zerg, there can be nothing worse than Zerg in 3D". Can I put that in my signature? That was not sarcasm.
Zerg are slimy, they are like very soft, fleshy and stuff, it's very, very expensive to do that stuff in 3D.
Yea you can put that in your sig.
And thanks.
Kind of like the Aliens that were made by the Predators!
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
It was the UED that captured the new Overmind and through it, controlled the Zerg for a short period of time.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
That's the way I remembered it!
You're probobly right but tell me, what are the XelNaga? I never heard of them before.
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I must say, UT III looks a lot better on my computer than WarCraft 3. Also, AoE 1/2 also look better than WC3. SC would look better than WC3 if it had a bigger resolution... D1 looks better than WC3... all those came out before WC3, they have bigger maps, greater detail, they hardly require any power.
I don't mind 3D as a concept, what I do mind, is 3D replacing 2D where it can't even compare to the quality of 2D. Where it decreases map size (see AoE III, map size has became ridiculous, also see Heroes V, same shit), where it decreases unit quantity (again, AoE III), and, to cap it all, lowers performance.
It's not my fault 3D in RTS is low-polygon and makes games look like crap. I don't care how old 2D is. 2D looks better, costs less, period.
This comparison is idiotic. 2D is a perfectly working concept, it has plenty advantages over 3D.
I repeat. Games of mass unit number are DISADVANTAGED by 3D. They look worse, they are simplified to pay for the 3D, they take longer to make, again, they require users to buy new computers. 3D has no advantage over 2D. Except one. Hype. People like you, who don't know what art is and just chase after latest technology, like some chase after the latest shaders and crap like that. The look of the game is not defined by technology used in it, it is defined by its design. Except 3D makes it very, very, limited.
Stop making idiotic comparisons please. We are not in kindergarden. Well, I'm not, at least.
Old music > new music. Old movies > new movies. Old games > new games. Hmm?
low-poly 3D is bad. low-poly 3D is not a technological breakthrough, it's a source of hype for new RTS/RPG games, nothing more. 3D is disadvantageous. If you can't see it, you are just chasing after new technology for the sake of new technology.
2D and 3D are two different fundamental ways of programming. Color, blackandwhite, 16bit, whatever, have nothing to do with this. before you make such comparisons maybe you should read some material first.