EPTVisibility/Clarity in SC2 - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
| ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
On February 20 2010 06:19 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I'd much rather see this in 2d. As it is, units near the top of the screen are going to be harder to click on (smaller). Sounds like potential imbalance issues vis-a-vis attacking from the top or from the bottom. Sucks to start at 6. Why? The map is larger than the playable field. | ||
|
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
On February 19 2010 11:29 blade55555 wrote: If you have ever played another game other then sc you would realize its not that hard to follow. I find it easy to follow while the stream quality is decent in alot the psyonic_reaver stream seems kind of dark so makes it a bit harder to see whats going on but I still know whats going on. I don't find it hard at all its nice can only hope korea takes this game up ^^. Thats just wrong. I would say anyone who is a blind sc1 fanboy sees it that way you do. (im a sc1 fanboy too, but not blind) On February 19 2010 11:26 TeWy wrote: I find it very easy to understand everything, probably due to the fact that I plaid a lot of 3D RTS games. On February 19 2010 11:26 jalstar wrote: It looks fine to me, much better than the battle reports, and this was one of my biggest concerns. i agree with them. its quite clear and easy. The only thing which is doubtable is many different zerg units on creep. But also not really. Its cool. | ||
|
Gedrah
465 Posts
But to reiterate, when you play the game it doesn't look like that. Zerglings in particular look very distinct and I can assess approximately how many I'm looking at. Speedlings with their pair of translucent wings even moreso, they give each other a couple scale-feet of berth when they clump up and their animations are very crisp. Don't forget to turn on building placement grid when you get into the game. It can be very hard to line up buildings on creep with the angled perspective without it, but the grid makes it very obvious what needs to go where. I hope someone on Team 1 is reading these threads instead of the beta forums. | ||
|
zee
201 Posts
| ||
|
CoL_Fuehrer
Russian Federation124 Posts
| ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
Maybe, I say maybe, is there something wrong with them ? | ||
|
Gedrah
465 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. That's great, and ima letchu finish, but you can't call SC2 a spectator sport and expect its gameplay to be constrained such that it's easy to watch. Many people have chosen to spectate SC and SC2, but that doesn't make it a "spectator sport". It's a competitive real-time strategy video game. I love what I see in both SC and SC2. I spectate them. Who are you talking about when you say "adults?" Do you mean elderly people? 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 Oh boy, here we go, the oracle of time predicts the ruin we've brought ourselves to. SC2 goes down in flames, why didn't we listen to Kentucky?  On February 19 2010 20:44 Kentucky wrote: 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 I don't think you're trolling, but I think you're making a bunch of assertions that are easily disagreed with. They're certainly not facts. For one, I feel that the game looks great and accurately deliciously captures the colorful, blocky feel of the SC1 units while also adding appreciable and meaningful detail to the textures of nearly everything. I think pretty soon you'll be drowned out by people who see it all just fine and love the way it looks. I don't mean that as an insult, only a prediction, and I do that because you make all these flat assertions: "If they did that, SC2 could have.." as if the issue is already resolved. Guess what, friend, this game is going to sell millions of copies and people are going to play it for a decade unless the world comes to an end. "Could not possibly be an improvement competitively" is also a really presumptive statement. SC2 is going to be BIG, and whoever manages to get a yoke over the competitive scene is going to make bucks. Probably Blizzard. If die-hard SC1 fans and pro gamers and players decide not to play SC2, that's just fine, I appreciate a lot about competitive SC1 as well and if they keep playing it I'll keep watching it. That doesn't mean other people won't play SC2, or that people will follow their Luddite example. But flatly saying it's going to fail is just plain wrong, don't be delusional  On February 19 2010 20:44 Kentucky wrote: 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 My mind has no trouble abstracting the 3d-rendered units and maps out of the equation to where I have a 2d understanding of unit position in the various layers (sky, high ground, low ground, underground, stealth) while still visually processing the 3d pictures. You perceive depth due to color and shading changes in the images you're seeing, yes, but those are only two of the factors a brain processes to provide you a sense of depth perception. Many of these are missing and I never find that I'm "falling in" to the screen when I play or watch SC2, I don't feel like the depth has me mistaking the x-y distance between air and ground units. I feel that it's presumptive to refer to "The Human Mind" -- there's more than one, pal, and I suspect that mine deals with spatial processing better than yours does. Maybe you have some gift where I'm lacking, it takes me 5 minutes to tie my shoes sometimes! | ||
|
zee
201 Posts
| ||
|
milly9
Canada325 Posts
On February 20 2010 07:22 zee wrote: How about adding colored borders (same color as the color you are) around the healthbars? that would help a lot in seeing who is winning big battles. or just have different colored healthbar so we can distinguish who is who. that would save space too. This. I noticed with always on health bars it can be even harder to tell whose who | ||
|
Bash
Finland1533 Posts
On February 20 2010 05:57 SubtleArt wrote: 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 Muta vs muta? Anyway, it's clear that having years of experience observing and playing Starcraft will have its own effect. I don't claim that you (or I) should be able to tell things perfectly right now, I'm not even saying that you (or I) will be able to do it at 100% efficiency ever, I'm just saying passing such quick judgement on a game most people haven't even watched that much let alone played by comparing it to a game they've been familiarising themselves with for a decade. Only time will tell, it's premature to throw your toys out the pram now. | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On February 20 2010 07:28 milly9 wrote: This. I noticed with always on health bars it can be even harder to tell whose who Oh snap that may be one source of my trouble. I have health bars on all the time :x | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
| ||
|
zee
201 Posts
| ||
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
anyone else out there that tries to say viewing this game is as hard as viewing wc3 is sadly mistaken. im actually very happy with how ez everything is to distinguish from each other. Edit <- Link | ||
|
Kentucky
United States63 Posts
On February 20 2010 01:00 Klive5ive wrote: 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. I'd just like to point out that this is wrong and give a little history lesson. Up until Warcraft 3, Blizzard was not known for graphics. Blizzard was known for fun games. When Starcraft came out the biggest criticism was that the graphics were poor compared to other games and people complained that it was "fake 3D". Blizzard was way way late to the 3D jerkfest. It still went on to break sales records and become known as one of the greatest games of all time. This was an even bigger issue with Diablo 2, because by this time every other major developer had already committed to making every single game 3D. People initially complained about the graphics, said it was fake 3D, then the game promptly went on to break sales records and become known as one of the greatest games of all time. Then once Diablo 2 was an established success, Blizzard announced amid criticism that they'd be making all future titles in 3D. Only then did Blizzard start selling games by the quality of their graphics, and we've seen a tremendous degradation in the quality of the gameplay since then. I really don't believe games need to be 3D to sell in today's market. Just look at the success of Starcraft and Diablo 2. It was pure gameplay people were paying for, people didn't care about graphics. They cared about gameplay and artistic direction. They were much better games for it. | ||
|
Sandrosuperstar
Sweden525 Posts
 ) and smaller hitbox/shorter atk-range. Im talking about zerglings btw. i think the quality of vod's just gonna have to increase, they have riddiculosly badresolution  Edit: Agree with post above +1 bcus it's so true, gameplay over fancy graphics(altough sc graphic really roks!) | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
| ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
On February 20 2010 11:38 Polygamy wrote: That's an option to turn off/on btw.The way every thing has a life bar over it is just horrible looking... I think it makes it very tacky looking as well. | ||
|
StarcraftMan
Canada507 Posts
It's a good thing TL users are bringing this up because we are very concerned about the spectating aspect of SC2. Unfortunately, it appears that many fanboys don't care much about the spectating aspect of SC2 or worse - they actually LIKE the current colors. Just look at this thread here and all the fanboys that don't want the colors changed: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23307650832&sid=3000 I would suggest that TL people already in the beta test bring this to the forefront to Blizzard. Otherwise, the fanboys that like the existing colors will drown out our concerns and Blizzard will do nothing about it. | ||
| ||
