[mGGDaedalus]

To make a less de-railing post than my last, I'll just say that Blizzard are good at making game engines with highly scaleable graphics. They allow their games to be played on a wide variety of specs while still allowing the flexibility in settings to look quite nice at higher settings. And really the ultra settings already look pretty nice, most of the extra features of something like the frostbite engine would be unwanted post-effects like lens flares etc (BF3 anyone?), which detract from the key principles of SC2 - ie being simple enough that you can always tell what's going on, without anything too distracting.

[Haza]

The time it takes for blizzard to produce their games they should've started on a next-gen graphics engine because by the time LotV is done, what's the use of making a SC2 when it won't have up to date graphics, like BW is atm anyway.

If graphics never mattered, why bother upgrading it in WoW? Why bother when transitioning from Sc to SC2?

Yes I realise people tend to like to play on low graphics, but why can't the viewers of a massively popular *spectators sport* not have a wider appeal. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone here that blizzard has always had the gameplay pretty locked down in terms of quality, but why stop there?

After reading a few posts a lot of people here bring up gameplay> graphics, yes this is true, but why not have the best of both worlds instead of putting all the eggs in one basket and being happy with average for the other?

Also this:

Originally Posted by FaDeDaedalus

I guess everyone got bored/sick of your whinging on b.net forums ey?

I've been having some technical issues over at the b.net forums, so I came here... Keep getting issues with the login, might re-install google chrome.

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Haza

Yes I realise people tend to like to play on low graphics, but why can't the viewers of a massively popular *spectators sport* not have a wider appeal.

The spectator sport aspect has already been covered. The onus is on tournament streams to display the highest quality graphics for our viewing pleasure, HD quality streams, high graphic settings etc.

By having a next-gen graphics engine, you are actually making the game appeal to a SMALLER audience. Older computers cannot handle the engine, and you shut them out. What Blizzard has done is gone for the middle ground, older computers still can play the game fine, and high end computers can make the game look really pretty.

[Hwangje]

Brood War required only 64MB of ram for online (correct if i'm wrong) which ment it could be run on almost all the computers that were available when it was released (once again correct me if i'm wrong) which ment that most people could play it, as such it may have only appealed to the smaller audience but the graphics weren't that great even still it's been popular for 13 years now i believe, I don't think starcraft II needs a graphics improvement you see what you need to see to react, I personally play on the lowest settings not because of lag issues of anything but because it's clearer to see and makes it easier for me to react whereas on a higher setting I think you're most likely to get distracted by little things. If starcraft wasn't an RTS high end graphics would be a nice update but in RTS graphics don't define how the game is.
@Haza i get issues with chrome try logging onto the account management page first.

[FSDele]

I still think HotS looks prettier than WoL, or am i just imagining it?

While an update to visual quality is always pretty welcome, that game as it stands now is good enough to last a long time.

[Haza]

Originally Posted by hwangje

@Haza i get issues with chrome try logging onto the account management page first.

Thank you!

Edit:
Actually it seems to be a bigger problem than I initially suspected.
http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/413951399

I will not underestimate Blizzard's site issues ever again.