EPTVisibility/Clarity in SC2 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
edahl
Norway483 Posts
| ||
|
Kentucky
United States63 Posts
On February 19 2010 11:42 Ryoo wrote: A spectator sport needs to be eye-friendly with a variety of age groups... I don't think adults can keep track of what's happening in SC2. My father once saw a shuttle/reaver micro vs 3 tanks on a Korean portal site and he said it was amazing, even though he doesn't like games. The problem is that the game is rendered in 3D, which is what I've been warning people about since more than 5 years before SC2 was even announced RTS gameplay is not 3D, it's played on a 2D grid and our minds conceptualize it as a 2D game. Taking gameplay from 2D and translating it into 3D adds a really thick layer of distraction to the human mind and there's no way of getting around it, it doesn't matter how good technology gets The game should have been designed in high resolution 2D with proper art direction and maybe some optional lighting and explosion effects, with an engine that borrowed from original Starcraft to preserve the overall 1 in a million feel of Starcraft gameplay If they did that, SC2 could have potentially been a major improvement on the original Starcraft (expanding the field of visibility with a higher resolution, better 2D graphics and new units and abilities all sound great to me). But they chose to make the game 3D because that's the safer play in terms of profit, 100% guaranteeing that SC2 could not possibly be an improvement over SC1 competitively And I'm not trolling. Trolls don't put thought into their posts, I'm being genuine. SC2 is beyond repair and has been for years, and the only hope is for Blizzard to scrap it and make the very bold decision to pursue designing a 2D game in the year 2010 This is the reason the RTS market is so tiny compared to other genres. It's because of this obligation every developer feels to make every game 3D. It ruins the game in the same way trying to render GTA IV in 2D would ruin that game. The visual element doesn't match the gameplay. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 19 2010 21:10 Scorch wrote: I'd like it if units had larger collision boxes so they don't cluster up that much. The units themselves are easy to distinguish as far as I'm concerned, it only gets difficult if there's one blob of tightly packed, overlapping units clusterfucking. i wouldn't mind that either. it's really hard to micro with your mouse cause they are so close together  .3d takes some getting used to but it's fine you just gotta remember scvs like to hide behind completed buildings. i also turn all my shader settings to low so i get less "wooo shiny" and it helps me pick things out a lot more quickly. having all high settings is just sensory overload for me, everything on the screen either has a shadow or a glare on it. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
There's no way around it though.. which is quite sad. If Blizzard truly cared about the e-sport scene they'd make the game in 2-2,5D(fake 3d) for better viewability. That is not the way to go if you want to reach the mainstream gamer though, and that is not the way to go if you want the most amount of profit from a videogame. Thats the reality. | ||
|
orangeshines
United Kingdom204 Posts
On February 19 2010 20:44 Kentucky wrote: The problem is that the game is rendered in 3D, which is what I've been warning people about since more than 5 years before SC2 was even announced RTS gameplay is not 3D, it's played on a 2D grid and our minds conceptualize it as a 2D game. Taking gameplay from 2D and translating it into 3D adds a really thick layer of distraction to the human mind and there's no way of getting around it, it doesn't matter how good technology gets The game should have been designed in high resolution 2D with proper art direction and maybe some optional lighting and explosion effects, with an engine that borrowed from original Starcraft to preserve the overall 1 in a million feel of Starcraft gameplay If they did that, SC2 could have potentially been a major improvement on the original Starcraft (expanding the field of visibility with a higher resolution, better 2D graphics and new units and abilities all sound great to me). But they chose to make the game 3D because that's the safer play in terms of profit, 100% guaranteeing that SC2 could not possibly be an improvement over SC1 competitively And I'm not trolling. Trolls don't put thought into their posts, I'm being genuine. SC2 is beyond repair and has been for years, and the only hope is for Blizzard to scrap it and make the very bold decision to pursue designing a 2D game in the year 2010 This is the reason the RTS market is so tiny compared to other genres. It's because of this obligation every developer feels to make every game 3D. It ruins the game in the same way trying to render GTA IV in 2D would ruin that game. The visual element doesn't match the gameplay. This guy pretty much nails it | ||
|
NeoLearner
Belgium1847 Posts
 | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On February 19 2010 20:44 Kentucky wrote: The problem is that the game is rendered in 3D, which is what I've been warning people about since more than 5 years before SC2 was even announced RTS gameplay is not 3D, it's played on a 2D grid and our minds conceptualize it as a 2D game. Taking gameplay from 2D and translating it into 3D adds a really thick layer of distraction to the human mind and there's no way of getting around it, it doesn't matter how good technology gets The game should have been designed in high resolution 2D with proper art direction and maybe some optional lighting and explosion effects, with an engine that borrowed from original Starcraft to preserve the overall 1 in a million feel of Starcraft gameplay If they did that, SC2 could have potentially been a major improvement on the original Starcraft (expanding the field of visibility with a higher resolution, better 2D graphics and new units and abilities all sound great to me). But they chose to make the game 3D because that's the safer play in terms of profit, 100% guaranteeing that SC2 could not possibly be an improvement over SC1 competitively And I'm not trolling. Trolls don't put thought into their posts, I'm being genuine. SC2 is beyond repair and has been for years, and the only hope is for Blizzard to scrap it and make the very bold decision to pursue designing a 2D game in the year 2010 This is the reason the RTS market is so tiny compared to other genres. It's because of this obligation every developer feels to make every game 3D. It ruins the game in the same way trying to render GTA IV in 2D would ruin that game. The visual element doesn't match the gameplay. There's no fundamental difference in looks for a 2D isometric game and 3D isometric projection camera game. The thing people fail to understand is that 3D doesn't imply perspective. You can use isometry if you wish, it's all camera programming. The difference is in costs and maintenance. SC2 already cost Blizzard a shitton of money, they simply cannot afford 2D development. You argument fails in a funny way because isometry itself is the closest thing to 3D feel that exists in the 2D world. And from the physics standpoint, SC2 is as 2D as SC1 is, height doesn't have any impact on the game (elevation and flight do, as boolean indicators of height, but so it is in SC1, isn't it?), so you're essentially playing on the very same 2D grid. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On February 19 2010 19:51 Bash wrote: Wow, TheAntZ sure enjoys being unpleasant to people on the internet, I wonder what his problem is. now that i look back on it, i could have made my arguments without being as much of a dick | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On February 19 2010 20:44 Kentucky wrote: And I'm not trolling. Trolls don't put thought into their posts[...] the only hope is for Blizzard to scrap it and make the very bold decision to pursue designing a 2D game in the year 2010 You lost credibility in this paragraph since it's self-contradictory. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
SC1 intially sold well because of its really nice graphics and this game needs to be the same. Ultimately its not even that big of a problem. The streams will eventually catch up. When SC1 came out there were no streams at all... then eventually we had bad streams... now we have pretty good streams. In time there will be lots of HD streaming available to watch SC2 with. The only obvious problem is zerg units on creep, especially certain colours. They should alter the colour of the creep so its more obvious. Other than that there isn't a big problem to be solved here, we just have to accept the reality of the situation and lower stream expectations for a while. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On February 19 2010 21:33 NeoLearner wrote: Maybe they were planning on creative camera usage to make eSports more visible, with 360 degree replays and close ups That would just end with clusterfuck, even in sc observers make mistakes. | ||
|
onmach
United States1241 Posts
Also one thing that sucks is zealots for instance, all their colors change to teamcolor including hand blades. But for zerg, there are glowing bulbs and spawning pool and banelings and other brightly colored stuff is all bright green and does not change with team color. Why not make the spawning pool have red goo when you are playing red? Maybe this will go into a later patch? | ||
|
milly9
Canada325 Posts
| ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
what they need to do is have a serious-for-competition video settings that make the game as clear and crisp as they can be, for both players and also observers | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
Zerg colors can mesh on creep a bit... in a low-resolution video. I don't have much issues with them in the game. Zerg could use some red and purple like they have in sc1 because right now they are all brown, but other than that I wouldn't have them changed a lot. Honestly I don't think brown even suits zerg, but Blizzard seems to have a Gears of War fascination going on with them. | ||
|
milly9
Canada325 Posts
On February 20 2010 05:25 Zelniq wrote: yes after playing 40+ games as zerg, still a huge problem imo. the clarity is just so difficult to make out. what they need to do is have a serious-for-competition video settings that make the game as clear and crisp as they can be, for both players and also observers I want my Keel/Bright models from Quake Live | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On February 19 2010 11:17 TheAntZ wrote: Anyone who isnt a blind fanboy sees it at this point tbh, even with the CLEAREST streams, its difficult to see zerg units properly Agreed. So many fanboys will crucify you if you say anything negative. Personally I find not only the graphics a clusterfuck but also somewhat ridiculous. The Zerg hive looks like it was made of fucking playdough, geysers are ridiculous, and the new photon cannons look lke they where made from Fisher price Also why change the original zerg buildings morphing? Even in its shitty 1998 2D-ness zerg buildings morphing in looked fucking awesome. If they could replicate that and clean it up using the improved graphics it would have been mindblowingly awesome. Now it just looks like shit...is there a scorpion or something inside the building while its morphing? | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On February 19 2010 17:22 Badred wrote: After having played a few dozen games and wistfully watching streams while at work, I think people are making more of this then there is. I watched a ZvZ just now on Psyonic Reaver's stream and was able to pretty much call what was going on. Once you know the units and how they look and move, it's much easier to differentiate them in a fair quality stream. With that said, I'm sure Blizzard is aware of the overall issue and are likely listening and taking steps to make everything for clear. One example of where they've taken the initiative is with zealots - when they die their "spirit/smoke" is the colour of the player, rather then always blue. I'm not saying there are no issues outstanding on this topic, just that I think the system actually works better than many people are giving it credit for as is. Zergling battles were always a clusterfart anyway. :p "Once you know the units"...no...Starcraft 2 dude, adjust expectations. On February 19 2010 19:51 Bash wrote: Wow, TheAntZ sure enjoys being unpleasant to people on the internet, I wonder what his problem is. I don't have any problems following what's happening, I think the problem many people have is that they don't know the units. BW wasn't exactly clear the first few games I saw of it, either, in fact I thought it was laughably unclear coming from a background of WC2. ZvZ can be extremely chaotic but can you honestly claim it isn't so in BW? Also, SC2 streamable VODs (whether there'll be any need to have those is EXTREMELY suspect) will obviously be in much higher quality as people are having better internet connections and can handle watching them, just like live streams and VODs in say, HoN are right now. Honestly In ScBW I can tell whats going on perfectly. Its much more clear and you really can't deny that. Even massive ZvZ ling battles where fairly obvious with the exception of yellow v white | ||
| ||
