Graphics vs Gameplay - Page 9

On February 20 2010 06:11 asdfTT123 wrote:


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.

On February 26 2010 02:02 intrigue wrote:
+1 to having incredible difficulty with the zerg graphics, i can't see shit or recognize buildings without checking their names. also their projectile attacks for the queen, hydra and muta are very very hard to see, which you wouldn't think is that big a deal but it's the easiest way to check if you are in range of something or if z is target firing something.

as for protoss, the forge and twilight council look very similar

On February 26 2010 07:56 Manit0u wrote:
I'm not talking about high graphic settings and model detail having anything to do with it. I just think that the models themselves are badly designed.

Take for example DoW2. Perhaps it's smaller scale but some larger battles there certainly provide the number of models equivalent to SC2 mid-game. Even in 2v2 you have absolutely no trouble of telling what, whose, how many and in what shape are the units involved.

The buildings are another story.

On February 26 2010 09:54 zomgzergrush wrote:



My comment was directed at intrigue and everyone else complaining about discernibility.

On February 26 2010 04:27 Manit0u wrote:


It should also be mentioned that the Zerg units and buildings look hideous (in a bad sense). So far I've seen it only on the streams, today I viewed some replays with ultra/high settings and seeing Zerg made me almost pluck out my eyes. Unit portraits are great but units themselves are beyond fugly. Also, the pink creep on the minimap is annoying as hell.
Next in the line are Protoss buildings, which are a bit too rounded for my taste and have too much unnecessary details. Protoss units are passable for the most part (except the attack animations on most things, excluding void ray).
My only biff with Terran is that most of their buildings look very much alike and it's sometimes hard to discern what's really there (might be it's just my lack of experience on the matter, maybe if I'll watch more games it'll be easier).
Another thing are the sounds, which are rather bad all the way through

I must say that I'm rather disappointed with SC2 so far. It's hard to see what's going on sometimes (almost like big battles with a lot of scrolls/spells in WC3) and despite maps looking/sounding great, I somehow can't stand how the units/buildings look.
But my personal, biased opinion aside:
It's pretty bad from the spectator perspective. In BW a single glimpse at someone's base would tell you a rough estimate of what's there. Now it seems almost impossible with everything being undiscernable from the background (zerg), looking too much alike (protoss and terran) and in most cases just lacking some characteristic features (all races).

On February 24 2010 12:43 Tdelamay wrote:
Fair enough, each player can use the settings they prefe - I'm wondering though, what settings are best for viewing/commentating a match? Units need to be distinguished from player to player and the graphics also need to be appealing to the eye.

Could anyone come up with an answer?

On March 02 2010 15:51 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I totally agree with day[9] here, I did the exact same thing. Although just now I was trying to find a happy medium because the animation for blings explosions is really bad, as well as the death animations of units killed by bling explosion.

Turns out that it's nothing to do with the graphic settings, the shit just looks bad lol. What ever happened to the green splat and blood corpses from the BR? Right now it's some generic combustion explosion for BOTH corpses and the blings..









I can't even tell how many men were killed, I can't even tell if my blings died, or exploded since they don't leave corpses when killed or exploded either.
Are the puff of red smoke the ones who didn't explode?

Infact, almost nothing leaves a corpse. Queens just vanish, wtf?