I don’t think the game is all that bad, but I’m not a diehard SC fan, I like action/shooter games more, but for the price tag the game should be much longer, I’m not going to get into the online multiplayer crap because that what it is crap. Even tho I don’t think the graphics are bad, they are way under what the Unreal engine can do, just look at Batman: Arkham Asylum even without phys on its graphics are so much better “because they at least used a unreal engine 3”. SC is based on unreal engine 2. Because of the length, bad online and the decent but not up to date graphics this game should of came out with more of a $30 price tag, it’s almost like they couldn’t decide what game to make Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six it seems like to me they decided to make a dumb down version of both in the same game. I think the most frustrating part of this entire thing is knowing I have 2 ATI 5k cards, and a Nivida card for phys my in my pc, and this game can be played with several version earlier cards, and they blame it on being a port from 360 since it is dx9, so there just saying to everyone "yes were too lazy to make the game what it should be". I don’t agree with gamespot a lot, but I think there review of a 6.5 is about right where it should be. As long as they dont mess up Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. 2, I can forgive Ubi for this average game.
[Edited by Bucknuts77, 5/9/2010 11:55:33 AM]
You clearly have no idea what the Unreal engine is about. Stating that the game's graphics or physics are lacking due to it using UE 2 (actually, it's a highly modified UE 2.5) is pretty ignorant. Even if it's starting to get outdated, it still has a high level of modifiability (Speedtree, Havok/Physx etc. etc. - there are a lot of third party tools able to be used with the Unreal engine.) and that makes it really decent, even in today's measures.
(Bioshock 2 also uses a modified UE 2.5 engine - looks pretty decent, eh? Whereas Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas, Medal of Honor: Airborne and APB uses UE 3 - and they don't look better than SC:C.)
It's all about what the developers do with the base engine that counts - you can do a lot of magic with today's game engines (some of you may remember the strictness of the goldsrc and even Source engines - while they may be easy to work with, they're pretty strict in what you can do with them; and so all games using those engines will look quite alike). Whereas the UE2 and UE3 engines allow for loads of customization and 3rd party addon integration, so you can't really judge the game by it's engine.
I have to say the game is neatly made, although, yes - it's short. The MP part is a little lacking, though the co-op mode is a fresh wind in all the PvP bull**** we're drowning in these days. I'd say 7.5-8.0.
You say comparing the 2 engines is ignorant, but at the same time, you say getting outdated, so please make up your mind, but thats besides the point I was trying to make, sorry I didn’t make It clear enough for you, now I will, this is a game that even every causal SC fan has been dyeing for the release of, we have waited how many years for this game ?, and let’s stick to your point about UE 2, with that long of time, do you not think they could do a heck of allot better with the graphics ?, which let’s face it would make a lot of people care less about it being so short. Why I brought UE 3 into this is if you’re going to take this long on making it, and making so short at least give us the best graphics you can for a $60 price tag. You have a point about the other games, but how old are they? Besides Bioshock 2 the only newer game, and putting that game on comparison "made by another company", even more proved my point about Ubi being lazy, and their LEAD engine based on UE 2 is just not that good at least for this game. If you want to call me ignorant that’s fine, I saw no reason to put the Lead engine abilities here like you did since anyone can google what graphics engine can do, so you reading it abilities off a website means nothing to me, because my main point was 4 years of making a game just to do make it average at that price tag is crazy.
[Edited by Bucknuts77, 5/9/2010 5:35:37 PM]
It's still in the hands of the developer, not in the hands of the engine maker. You can't judge a game solely by the engine these days. As I said; back in the day, you often could do that - because of the strictness in programming games based on said engines. Today, however, they're so extremely customizable that you can't really compare them.
Of course SC:C could've been better looking - but then again, you can say that for every modern game, no matter what engine it's using. It's about balancing looks and effects with system requirements. (Mostly, this is actually a case of optimization - there are a lot of "ugly" games with ridiculous system requirements, this being due to bad optimization. Comparatively, there are good looking games requiring a lot less, due to good optimization programming.)
A good comparison is Company of Heroes, which, on the same settings, require just as much (or more) as Dawn of War 2 (same engine - though improved, same developer, but better optimization) while still not looking as good.
SC:C is definitely a quite good looking game considering the system requirements. And they've done quite good work of the UE2.5. And of course SC:C is comparable to Bioshock 2, at least engine-wise, as they use the same engine as base. The fact that they look and behave very differently just goes to show my point here.
To some extent, however, I agree - I love seeing the intricate new features of UE3 at work, and it's always good to see the development going forward. Still, that Ubisoft Montreal (and 2K Marin) show that UE2.5 still does the trick is quite impressive.
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics