I used to play Quake 3 and had this same issue, it was a lot easier to see the enemy with lower graphic settings but it isn't something you need to be good as some Q3 progamers used high texture settings.

In SC it's a little bit more useful I think as lower graphic settings make everything smooth and textures have a lot less details which makes identifying enemy units in the middle of a battle a lot easier, I might continue my tradition to play competitive games with low graphic settings as what is fun are the mechanics not the video output.

viletomato

Canada277 Posts

February 19 2010 20:37 GMT

#23

This reminds me of the quake 3 days when a lot of players would turn the graphics way down (eg r_picmip 5 basically all the walls just one shade). This would take out any visual detail so that they wouldn't have lighting effects getting in the way of their performance and see their opponent more clearly. In addition, I felt (as a quake 3 player) that I was way more focused on these types of setting. Just you, opponent with nothing inbetween. Even though quake 3 and sc are different games, I can see how many players on the competative level would want to turn down the graphics detail to have that kind of advantage.

viletomato

Canada277 Posts

February 19 2010 20:37 GMT

#24

hhaha rigun you posted about the same thing and same time as i did !! hahah

N3rV[Green]

United States1935 Posts

February 19 2010 20:40 GMT

#25

On February 20 2010 05:33 sysrpl wrote:
Are these graphics settings too high:

http://cache.codebot.org/nuke.jpg

I'd say it's too beautiful for this world xD

dextahr

United States47 Posts

February 19 2010 20:42 GMT

#26

I agree that it is easier to see what is going on from a competitive perspective with the detail on low. This is such a great thing though for e-sports. People automatically assume when they see a game that looks like SC1 that the game is bad just because the graphics are from '98. Maybe the new graphics will help attract potential fans of the competitive scene.

MorroW

Sweden3522 Posts

February 19 2010 20:46 GMT

#27

awesome screenshots, more of low vs high please !

id love some of spells and microbattles

also when were on this subject, is it possible to make it when u select a box that it doesnt make the box full of green?
in sc1 it just makes a green square but doesnt make it green inside but in sc2 its different and i find it annoying. can u toggle on/off on these sorts of things?

FreshNoThyme

United States356 Posts

February 19 2010 20:47 GMT

#28

Quake 3, CS/CS:S, DoD/DoD:S, and other games worked about the same. Turning settings down made things easier to notice. When ground textures are a single color, as opposed to varying degrees of a color (on top of this, the shine and glow of things), it is separate things on top of it.

Puosu

7029 Posts

February 19 2010 20:48 GMT

#29

On February 20 2010 05:37 viletomato wrote:
This reminds me of the quake 3 days when a lot of players would turn the graphics way down (eg r_picmip 5 basically all the walls just one shade). This would take out any visual detail so that they wouldn't have lighting effects getting in the way of their performance and see their opponent more clearly. In addition, I felt (as a quake 3 player) that I was way more focused on these types of setting. Just you, opponent with nothing inbetween. Even though quake 3 and sc are different games, I can see how many players on the competative level would want to turn down the graphics detail to have that kind of advantage.

go r_picmip 16 or go home plz

seriously though I am a huge fan of customization when it comes to graphics, I'll make sure to get as clear view as possible when I get in.

Chairman Ray

United States11903 Posts

February 19 2010 20:50 GMT

#30

hmm, low graphics kinda looks like lego, but Blizzard did do a good job of making low detail still good

hoborg

United States430 Posts

February 19 2010 20:57 GMT

#31

One problem Low has vs High in terms of readability is that the force fields are much harder to see:
Low:

Ultra:

Might be just one setting you can up to fix that, though.

viletomato

Canada277 Posts

February 19 2010 21:02 GMT

#32

On February 20 2010 05:48 Puosu wrote:

Show nested quote +

go r_picmip 16 or go home plz

seriously though I am a huge fan of customization when it comes to graphics, I'll make sure to get as clear view as possible when I get in.

ya 16, it's been so long that i forgot how high it went =P

RiGun

Argentina155 Posts

February 19 2010 21:04 GMT

#33

r_picmip 16 was banned on tournaments as negative bob pitch and really really low bias, nothing to do with SC2 but I'm a bit nostalgic, might even install Quake Live until I get a beta opt-in

GGTeMpLaR

United States7226 Posts

February 19 2010 21:05 GMT

#34

I run mine on medium and i've had no problems

semantics

10040 Posts

February 19 2010 21:07 GMT

#35

Ugh are we going to get into the 1.6 debate where people use console cmds to totally destroy their graphics so they can basically cheat by playing the game on lowest possible. Just think of it as the game will be played on ultra at a high level i would hope else why play a new game that looks like a really old game.

asdfTT123

United States989 Posts

February 19 2010 21:11 GMT

#36

On February 20 2010 05:57 hoborg wrote:
One problem Low has vs High in terms of readability is that the force fields are much harder to see:
Low:

Ultra:

Might be just one setting you can up to fix that, though.

If this is so, it might be nice to address this issue to Blizzard as feedback as it would put some players who either prefer low or have a lower end system at a disadvantage.

udgnim

United States8024 Posts

February 19 2010 21:25 GMT

#37

when SC2 comes out, I'll be playing with max graphics on SP and the graphics settings that makes it easiest to see what's going on in MP and probably use a 16: 9 resolution with my 16:10 LCD

Emon_

3925 Posts

February 19 2010 21:30 GMT

#38

On February 20 2010 06:07 Virtue wrote:
Ugh are we going to get into the 1.6 debate where people use console cmds to totally destroy their graphics so they can basically cheat by playing the game on lowest possible. Just think of it as the game will be played on ultra at a high level i would hope else why play a new game that looks like a really old game.

I remember reading an interview with top Counter Strike player Heaton who played the game on 640x400. Says he's used to it. I'm sure plenty others play it on 3 times the resolution.

Medzo

United States627 Posts

February 19 2010 21:36 GMT

#39

Im not having any problems seeing whats going on in large battles. I played a lot of wc3 though. You just need to adjust your eyes to the game. It might take like a week but you'll be okay. I had a similar problem with 2D when I went back to BW for awhile after playing tft for years.

What you might want to do is adjust things one at a time until you're more use to it. If things still aren't working out then turn off shadows as that probably causes most of the visual confusion.

mahnini

United States6862 Posts

February 19 2010 22:07 GMT

#40

it wouldn't really matter as long as the obs is on ultra. the problem with it is with the shader settings on high/ultra there is just too much visual clutter for some people. everything shines and has a moving shadow. your eyes pick this up and you have to process what's going on, you also have to look harder to find things at first glance as the first thing you will notice from anything is probably the bright glare as opposed to unit/building silhouettes.