While it's true that no early access for reviewers tends to mean the
company is scared of bad reviews, I agree with the arstechnica
article. In all truth, Blizzard doesn't need to submit the game to
any review sites, since people who were interested in the game
probably got a beta key and have been playing it online in the public
beta for a few months. Reactions to the beta have been overwhelmingly
positive, and that's all the reviews Blizzard needs. There's no
chance that Starcraft 2 is going to be a flop. Blizzard is well known
for producing quality games, and until that changes, they'll be
getting a large amount of zero day sales (plus people in the beta who
got those keys by preordering at Gamestop).
As for the sample that you uploaded, a game with graphics like that
would work, but it'd have to be free (or have some other selling
point). It honestly looks closer to a low quality web comic than a
newspaper comic, and I don't think it would mix very well with vector
art (mixing art styles is usually a bad idea unless it's handled
really well). Overall, it reminds me of Time Gentleman, Please
(
http://store.steampowered.com/app/37400/), an adventure game which
succeeded less due to graphics, and more due to a great and funny
story.
On Jul 26, 1:57 pm, Devin Moore <
devinmoore....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Starcraft 2 is being given no early access reviews, generally speaking
> this means that the company expects that reviews would hurt sales. I
> reject the idea that blizzard is scared that reviewers would pirate
> the game (because it's gonna get pirated anyways). Hopefully for
> their sake, it's not the "second most expensive flop in game
> history" (assuming DNF is the biggest).
>
> The review sites remain hopeful as well.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/07/no-early-starcraft-2-revie...