have starcraft aged well visually? personally i think it still

It ages horribly. I have to get a new CD every few years since disk rot keeps ruining the graphics.

>>3467537
for a game from 1998 (nearly twenty years ago), I'd say it looks pretty good

>>3467545
there's mass recall now, its a pretty good remake of all SCBW, precursor and Stukov campaigns

Literally every game that has ever existed has aged like shit because it does not conform to the technical level and art direction of 2068.

>>3467537
It looks fine, it plays fine.

Not everything needs an HD remake, stop with your shit you already ruined cybernator.

>>3467596
>Not everything needs an HD remake

i don't think the rumours about that are true, more likely it's a compatibility patch with widescreen support. at least i hope it is.

Am I the only one who thinks the moving thingy underneath protoss dragoon looks like a dangling cock?

>>3467537
Yes.

Given Starcraft 2's abysmal art direction, I'd go so far as to say that I think Brood War still looks better than its sequel

>>3467537
it looks awful, it looked like shit back then too. compare it to red alert 2, which is still good.

File: ccra2004.jpg (148KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x600px

>>3468142
has more detail but in general i think it just looks plain.

>>3467787
>patch with widescreen support
exactly what microcockft calls Age of Empires "HD" hahahah that they didnt even produce because players had already patched the game on their own.

btw why havent koreans patched SC1 for any resolution yet? did blizzard employ a binary harder to hack than ensemble studios did AoE or westwood did C&C?

>>3467986
i believe i read some claim that after D1 SC1, and D2 probably, some art staff left blizzard and we got W3, D3, SC2 cartooney shit

>>3468304
you can run the game in a custom resolution, but they only run vanilla in tournaments, also it's bannable on bnet.

>>3468307


that is because metzen is a retard who loves rob liefeld's and michael turner's shit art, and samwise last bits of art good art, were made for War 3 and WoW

then they started with the cartoony shit

>>3467537
I really think it's timeless but it might look worse on very high resolutions though I can't say it myself because the last time I played was on a CRT at 1280x960 a long time ago. If it scales well, then it's definitely timeless.

>>3468307
>>3468368
>cartoony

Exactly. That's the key word here.

It all started with WoW, and that's where it should have stayed. It was a style that arguably worked for WoW since it's an MMO, but it never should have bled over into the Starcraft and Diablo series as well. Starcraft and Diablo both had a dark, gritty style to them prior to WoW. There was no reason for Blizzard to homogenize the style of all of their major series by making them have this shitty, cartoony style. It doesn't fit Starcraft or Diablo at all.

Then, when faced with the legitimate criticism about the art of Diablo III, they decided to mock the fans instead of addressing the problem. In hindsight, I'm glad that game tanked as hard as it did. Modern Blizzard is garbage

>>3468307
I had a friend in high school who refused to play WC3 with me even after I offered him one of my keys, he said that it looked crappy. I have to agree that the art is awful, even if I think it's an amazing game.

>>3469023
I think Hearthstone art is the pinnacle of shitty Blizzard art. Kinda fitting that their new infantile games have this babby tier art.

>>3469023
are you fucking stupid?

>>3469202
No.

Thanks for the quality post though

>>3469023
And the butthurt "Hardcore diablo players" made the fantastic Path of Exile.

Now with interchangable classes, thrice the grind, half the difficulty, the sphere grid from FFX, dying in hardcore isn't permanent, and there are some allegations they banned people for leaving bad reviews. And the fanbase thinks that it's "hardcore".

I'd like to see some screenshots of these "hardcore diablo players" old Battlenet characters. Unless you reached the level cap on Hell as a hardcore character, you are not a "hardcore diablo player".

>>3469023
The real reason modern Blizzard art is garbage is because the company literally hired fanboys and fangirls from deviant art that specialize in a revolting caricatured art style of classic Blizzard art and blend it with anime.

File: Tesla Disapproves.png (85KB, 229x269px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 229x269px

>>3469301
>dying in hardcore isn't permanent
Yeah, you just get your character moved onto a different ladder. How is that hardcore, exactly?

PoE is a dumbed-down Diablo for people who want their burizazon and hammerdin at the same time.

>>3467596
>Not everything needs an HD remake
Nah, but they need a new remake where you can just zoom out.
This is what makes all older RTS games almost unplayable but thankfully almost all the popular ones have a fix for post 2004 screens.

>>3469301
>
I'd like to see some screenshots of these "hardcore diablo players" old Battlenet characters. Unless you reached the level cap on Hell as a hardcore character, you are not a "hardcore diablo player".

Why would you bother with leveling your character up to 99? If I make an ez mode skellymancer [or some other fairly easy build like javazon or super-safe energy shield sorc], grind for good gear on cows/easy area 85 and then just spam baalruns until the cows come home, does that make me uber l33t?