On September 12 2004 03:34 Luhh wrote:

Nah a SC2 should be in 2D with locked resolution at 1024/768 so that no advantages/disadvantages can come from playing the game in 1600/1200.

SC2 won't be out for at least another 4 years , you think people will still use 1024/768 then? rofl 1600/1200 will be the minimum res

Breeze

Bulgaria989 Posts

September 11 2004 19:49 GMT

#142

At the start I've had the problem too of not distinguishing units in war3 because of it being 3d, but I think it's partly because the units are similar anyway... 90% of the units are women, man and animals wearing colorful clothes and carrying sticks or swords. That won't be such a big problem in sc2, considering how different all the units are. They said it's gonna be 3d and there's nothing that can be done about it, since they'll have a hard time selling a 2d game, no matter that it is probably better. I just hope there are not that much huge special effects because I can't see shit when a big battle happens in war3.

jacen

Austria3644 Posts

September 11 2004 20:25 GMT

#143

On September 12 2004 03:34 Luhh wrote:
There is NO reason whatsoever in a RTS-game to have a 3D engine when the camera mode is fixed.

while you might be right with something you said, you are definitely wrong on this one.
only in 3d you can add stuff like pixel and vertex shaders to add effects that REALLY blow your eyes out but dont affect the ui or the gameplay.
e.g.:
-) siege tank shock waves on impact
-) more realistic fire from firebats
-) real pixel shaded psi storm lightning forks that look different EVERY time
-) real great transparency effects for invisible units
-) better rocket smoke
-) real fog effects for dark swarm clouds

there are MANY things that could look MUCH better without changing the overall look and the ui.
edit: 3d also gives the ability to let the users change the resolution and maintain the same pov.

Nuttie

Poland302 Posts

September 11 2004 21:36 GMT

#144

The 3d engine is needed but not that way as it is used in war3, there are to many colours. And that's right the game, if ever, will be ready in min 2 years and the graphic and res will be better, higher etc.

Breeze

Bulgaria989 Posts

September 11 2004 21:49 GMT

#145

Yes the colors hurt! I bet everyone noticed War3 was way too colorfull right from the first published beta shots... a more techy and dark/desaturated look like broodwar might own with a similar (and better) engine, plus as Nuttie says the resolution/antialiasing will be better, and the models more complex and smooth

fearus

China2164 Posts

September 11 2004 21:59 GMT

#146

I think sc2 will be alot quicker than 4 years, since the foundations are already set and they shouldnt really chnage with the core of the game.

SpuniasauR

Australia1500 Posts

September 11 2004 22:46 GMT

#147

goodluck blizzard. steve, klogon, tkwl and I put in a big effort a little while ago, and i _hope_ the admins saw it. anyway well done steve, tl.net fighting~!!

vGl-CoW

Belgium8305 Posts

September 11 2004 23:58 GMT

#148

Oh God, I just read around a bit there.. That OvazioFrio guy.. wow...

Head... exploding...

*cries*

Geval

788 Posts

September 12 2004 01:53 GMT

#149

I dont understand why some of you guys dont like the SC graphics. I really think it's great for because of it's simplicity and clarity.

Muhweli

Finland5328 Posts

September 12 2004 02:08 GMT

#150

I dunno what's already been posted but here's what i think...

The game should be clear and simple by the means of control and visual effects and not weird and hard to comprehend like WC3. Lack of replays at first might make the game more competitive for a period of time too. So no 3D crap, or at least not by the means of really adding the up-down dimensions. Game should also be highly intensive.

And I think a blend of soft and hard counters is what should be implemented, but I'd prefer hard counters more to make the game easier to comprehend and more playable. I also think that spells shouldn't be in as high position as they're in WC3.

I don't think building units & such that disappear for the next map is frustrating at all. By the means of balancing the game and making it follow the plot, I think it's all better to have new units for each mission.. excluding possible story things that might want to include the same units there.

I've never really liked units gaining experience because it takes away some of the "clearness" of the game. While battling vs a group of units with every unit with a different experiencelevel, makes the fight pretty hard to control since there should be a very good and simple way of showing the unit levels. Of course units somehow transforming into something else along the gain of experience might be an art solution.

I think PCs (Windows + Linux(!!)) and macs are the best platforms for RTS games since the controller devices are absolutely the best we have for such purposes. Playing rts's on consoles is a pain in the ass without mouse and keyboard. Seeing a release on linux would also give the game more players and it'd be good to support it too - especially because it's getting more and more popular all the time.

Yup and i'm too lazy to post this in the forums but most of the stuff has probably been said already

Breeze

Bulgaria989 Posts

September 12 2004 02:11 GMT

#151

That's true I like them too... but it is going to be 3d no matter what anyone of us wants, so we should better find something positive about it than just getting all crabby and grumpy

FuDDx

United States5017 Posts

September 12 2004 02:11 GMT

#152

maybe we all should move this topic to the battlenst forums so they can see what we all think if u have thank you if not do so now plz ^_^

Geval

788 Posts

September 12 2004 02:23 GMT

#153

Great Idea. Any post after this one should have it's copy on the battlenet forum.
Go go Blizzard

Geval

788 Posts

September 12 2004 02:28 GMT

#154

"The Battle.net Forums Are Currently Down
Please try again later."

You guys are doing a good job

Bizkit

Sweden1137 Posts

September 12 2004 03:03 GMT

#155

What is sooooo wrong with 3D? with todays computers u could make starcraft in 3d and it would still be the same but more flashy and blizzard could lock the perspective and there would be no difference.

Payt1

418 Posts

September 12 2004 06:22 GMT

#156

On September 12 2004 11:28 Geval wrote:
"The Battle.net Forums Are Currently Down
Please try again later."

You guys are doing a good job

Wow.. the past two weeks, the bnet forums have been in the worst shape ever. ;(

up and down every couple of days..

Hoops

417 Posts

September 12 2004 06:51 GMT

#157

I'd like to see a 2D engine with 3D graphics. It would allow the game to move much like BW, but allow it to be much sharper and well better looking. I think a key element for the game is to make sure the units all are the right size, to allow microing and understanding the units quickly easy to do.

Two things that make starcraft what it is are how spells work. Almost all spells in the game have the potential to completely shift the outcome of the battle. War3 players make much more spell casters and the spells have much less effect on the battle. This is not to say that spell casters aren't important in war3, they essentially in many games seem to be MORE important because of how many of them are created. Second, the amount of macro and the importance on it in bw is simply huge. Maybe my lack of skill on war3 is why I found this to be weird, but it seemed like macro just wasn't important on war3. You could rebuild and army relatively quickly, and thus being fast with hotkeys didn't seem to have nearly the same effect. I don't mind being able to hotkey groups of buildings though, this can actually add to the skill of macro instead of diminishing it. It all depends on how it is done. If blizzard does it right, then the macro in sc2 could make bw look like nothing. Increasing supply liminites ect.

Also they have to decide if the game it more about team play or 1v1. War3 seems to be better for team play, and bw better for 1v1.

Excalibur_Z

United States12249 Posts

September 12 2004 06:59 GMT

#158

On September 12 2004 12:03 Bizkit wrote:
What is sooooo wrong with 3D? with todays computers u could make starcraft in 3d and it would still be the same but more flashy and blizzard could lock the perspective and there would be no difference.

The flashiness is precisely the problem. Look at War3. There are so many flashy spell effects: Bloodlust, Blizzard, Flame Strike, Lightning Shield, Slow, Dispel, Starfall, Shadow Strike, Fan of Knives, Cripple, Raise Dead, Disease Cloud, Chill (slow effect), Cloud, Unstable Concoction, Sleep, Carrion Swarm, Death Coil, Impale, Frost Nova, Frost Armor, Faerie Fire, Roar, Cyclone, Rejuvenation, Heal, Inner Fire, Dizzy (slow effect), all Aura effects. Even siege explosion effects are distracting. The list goes on and on and those were just the ones off the top of my head. The result is you have tons of units with all different kinds of icons and spell graphics surrounding them and it becomes hard to keep track of what you're doing. It's even worse if you're an observer. It becomes hard to tell which units belong to which player. It's not like that at all in Starcraft, where the units are plainly marked and there are no confusing or overly flashy spell effects.