So I'm one of those lucky nerds who got a beta key, and I'm having a rather weird issue regarding the graphics! I have a really nice computer so I can handle the maxed graphic settings which, I will have you know, look absolutely fantastic.
However, in trying to learn the competitive flow of the game, I have an extremely hard time parsing what's going on. So, I dropped the in game graphics settings to low to see what it was like!
Oddly enough, the graphics didn't look "low quality," they just looked completely different. It was like a different art director managed the "low" setting. Surprisingly, I found playing on low WAY WAY easier. I felt greater comfort w/ my micro, I could see stuff better, my brain grabbed the important stuff faster etc. I'm curious if anyone else has had the same experience? Once I've built more comfort w/ the game, I wanna go back to the high settings to see if I'm just making everything up. For now though, discuss away!
I haven't had any problems with the settings on high. I haven't really played a whole lot of matches yet. so that may change. I heard some people felt this way about WC3 as well, but I didn't have the problem there either. I guess it's, like everything else, completely subjective.
I've been running on 'ultra' maxed settings and like you said, especially during big battles after macroing, my ability to compute everyone is really slowed. I am not sure if the sc1 graphics are just engrained in my head or that the sprites really make a big difference... but my ability to disect a massive battle needs work.
I might try what you say, did you just put them on "low" or actually bring everything down to worst possible (or is that same thing, not home atm). It might be a great tool to help trigger your brain learning the game better then simply increase to max graphics once you are mechanical again.
To me when you put on low settings it almost feels like there is no terrain, that it's just some background, units are so clearly visible etc. It totally reminds me on crashing details in some fps games (remember ugly quake2 becoming even uglier for this very reason).
imho i'll play on low settings for 1v1, and on high for campaign/custom games because game looks beautiful.
I saw lots of screenshots from low-detailled stuff, I can't stand it. For me personally, Starcraft 2 is a new game and it comes with new graphics. Right now I don't have a problem to handle anything in particular. I can tell the difference between the units and I didn't have a problem in fights yet.
Can you name an example of a situation where you have the feeling that the low settings might be better for competetive play?
You probably just didn't take enough time to get used to it
I know when I started playing Heroes of Newerth, which looks strikingly similar to SC2, I found it extremely disorienting and even at times headache inducing.
But a couple days of playing I was completely used to it, and had no complaints
Day, I completely agree with you. Although I don't have an account, I've been watching replays in my client and when the graphics are maxed, it definitely does look good but all of the effects can be extremely distracting.
When turned down to low (graphic detail wise...I still keep resolution at 1920x1200), the graphics are "clean" and it seems well suited for a competitive level of play. Scrolling around the map using the mouse at the edge of the screen is also noticeable smoother because the game doesn't have to render the details of the terrain. The graphics do not, by any means, look bad. I would definitely keep the graphic detail at low when playing seriously.
This might also be good to point out to those who don't have the beefiest of systems...if you plan on playing competitively it might be wise to leave the settings on low anyways. So you might not have to invest in a pricey GPU or new system once you get past the novelty of maxed graphics.
My specs: Core 2 Duo 3.16 @ 4 Ghz, 4 GB DDR2-800 RAM, HD 4870 1GB, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
I was thinking the same thing, although im not in the beta. I wonder if sc will be like quake/cs where the competitive turn down the settings to gain a bit of an edge. That will be kindof sad really because sc2 looks so good maxed ;(
I see it like you day. following the low-quality stream is much easier, but hq just looks better Lets hope you can get used to high quality - or its low quality for competitive play.
I am sure lowering the settings may make my play better and easier to focus on stuff, but I am not going to do it. I know people always say Gameplay > Graphics, but a good looking game adds to the fun.
Maybe its just that you are not used to all the flashy graphics and thausonds of hours of SC1s grey and flat look made your eyes go over sensible. On the other hand, SC2 in low grafic does look extremly colorful with all the shaders and "grit-effects" removed. Oh well ...
i did the exact same thing. Unlike most people I'm 25 and used to playing games with shitty graphics. been playing SC1 and CS since they were born and i don't really like the pretty graphics as much as my nephew.
I don't think there will be a long term super competitive advantage to running on low, but what Day9 is saying is that while we are new to the game it may be advantageous. If you play with low graphics at first you can get a feel for what's going on without having screen cluttered up with fancy graphics. Then after you feel comfortable raise them up. It's something to consider. Having said this I will probably stick to max.
I've only fiddled with some replays in the client for a few minutes, but so far I think the game looks better at low settings. Less realistic, of course, but rather than looking "bad" it just looks more abstracted. I wouldn't be surprised if the standard for casting/VODs becomes Low Quality.
i didnt restart so not all the graphics settings went into effect and i keep the terrain on medium i believe. it's a lot easier to pick things out quickly without a glare and shadow on EVERYTHIGN. :D
doesnt look too bad in pictures because you have time to see what's what imagine scanning over your base real fast it's a lot harder to distinguish.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
ya 16, it's been so long that i forgot how high it went =P
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
On February 20 2010 07:34 Bash wrote: Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
What? Watching CS players they most def do NOT dial it down to the lowest setting so I don't know where you are getting your sources from.
ionno about these people that want lowest settings you're def not playing the game as indented and if anything you just sucked the fun out of the game it's clear when you choose lower visuals to win vs the original visuals that you're only playing to win not because you like the game or anything imo.
The huge difference in color and general appearance of things between the graphics levels makes me cringe. I've done enough realtime 3D development and optimization to know that they could make things (for example force field and general color of the terrain / buildings / units) at least the same color across all detail levels. It's like they take lighting / specular off of everything without changing the color to compensate. what?
Maybe what Day was talking about though is that lack of specular makes the game easier to read, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's right.. I think they really need to look at their color pallets and re-arrange them for maximum readability, then make sure they keep that same readability across detail levels.
That said, by my criteria SC1 also has big readability problems, soo I think primarily people just need to play it more and get used to it.
On February 20 2010 07:34 Bash wrote: Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
What? Watching CS players they most def do NOT dial it down to the lowest setting so I don't know where you are getting your sources from.
Meh, I don't know a damn thing about CS or COD, I don't really see them as worth my attention. Players in every incarnation of Quake, QWTF, TFC, ETF, Natural Selection, TF2 and any other fast-paced FPS do exactly as I've described, and any player that originates from said games does it in other games he plays as well.
On February 20 2010 07:34 Bash wrote: Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
What? Watching CS players they most def do NOT dial it down to the lowest setting so I don't know where you are getting your sources from.
Lol, if you look at the setups for ANY professional or serious players, they use mainly 640x480 or 800x600 resolution, lowest graphic settings possible (yep, no AA or AS). Here is proof of the configs from the overall best team, fnatic. http://www.fnatic.com/players/CS/
Playing on 640x480, like the best players f0rest and n0thing, looks like playing with legos. You should know that; you're Swedish. Swedes are gods at CS.
Of course the spectators and videos always use the highest quality possible, though.
Ugh - Even Starcraft 1 has more character then this. . . It just looks bland and ugly. The highest settings looks amazing though.
quickly open and close the ultra setting picture and try to pick out which unit is which you'll have a much harder time than with the low setting.
most of this is just for the sake of discussion anyway, no one is stopping anyone from playing on ultra or low. play what you prefer
We just have your pictures to go by =) Maybe there are settings to turn down the unit textures and keep the detailed environment. Could possibly make it more distinguishable.
I used to play FEAR a ton really hardcore, I would run it at lowest possible graphics, and I found a setting in my videocard drivers that made the game run in black and white, this is how I played.
Weird as it seems, I always felt that the absolute least amount of information my brain had to process, the better. I swear I had faster reaction times in black and white.
I unfortunately dont have a key yet, but normally when I play games I put it in either the lowest or 2nd lowest settings possible..
I run War3 and Heroes of Newerth in the lowest settings.. even tho my comp can handle the highest..
Im not sure my comp can handle SC2's highest, so i might not have a choice, but either way, I suspect there'll just be too much "detailing" to make things clean for me to see properly in heavy competitive play with too high of settings.
I've played CS, CSS, and TF2 competitively, each one I've run lowest, or just very low settings. I've always played better like this, and so has everyone on my teams.
I didn't expect starcraft 2 would be different, though I can't test it out to be certain.
Here's something to think about though - Warcraft 3/WoW have a "Spell Effect" detail level - if you turn that completely off you can't see exactly where some area-effect abilities hit (and you can't move units out of the way if you don't know where the danger area is).
I don't know if SC2 has/will have something like this, and I doubt it'd apply to anything important like Psi-storm (can't name any similar abilities off the top of my head) but best test it first to be sure.
I'm sure there are other things you would want to see as well (e.g. leftover smoke effect after burrow gives away a burrowed unit for a second or two - but again I haven't played the game so don't know if that applies ).
On February 20 2010 08:04 Virtue wrote: ionno about these people that want lowest settings you're def not playing the game as indented and if anything you just sucked the fun out of the game it's clear when you choose lower visuals to win vs the original visuals that you're only playing to win not because you like the game or anything imo.
What? PLaying the game "as intended" has nothing to do with the video settings. And a game doesn't get less fun because it doesn't look as good, we're on a site covering an 11 years old game, rofl. If choosing lower video settings makes it easier to actually play, then I think that's a good enough reason.
On February 20 2010 10:15 wolfy4033 wrote: Your logic is illogical.
You can just claim something i can say up in down but frankly when you said logic you have to give your reasoning and explain why mine is wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong but i have a valid point atmosphere is a valid part of the game the ultra graphics is by intent and servers a purpose. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier to me just seems like people who want to exploit the game for winning and not for enjoying the game.
If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
Frankly more concerning to me is the ability to toggle on HP bars on units which to me seems like a discrease in micro as if one isn't paying attention to well people can micro away injured units and wont get targeted unlike if health bars are clearly visible.
RTS frame rates are irrelevant... the original sc runs at NTSC ~24 fps i believe.
On February 20 2010 10:15 wolfy4033 wrote: Your logic is illogical.
You can just claim something i can say up in down but frankly when you said logic you have to give your reasoning and explain why mine is wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong but i have a valid point atmosphere is a valid part of the game the ultra graphics is by intent and servers a purpose. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier to me just seems like people who want to exploit the game for winning and not for enjoying the game.
If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
I think winning is a pretty big part of playing competively and you should do everything (legal) you can to make it easier to watch and play the game. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier is obviously a very good thing. I'd rather be able to see what's going on than admiring the beauty in the middle of a game.
It's still fair. Everyone has the option to play on lowest settings if they want to.
On February 20 2010 10:15 wolfy4033 wrote: Your logic is illogical.
You can just claim something i can say up in down but frankly when you said logic you have to give your reasoning and explain why mine is wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong but i have a valid point atmosphere is a valid part of the game the ultra graphics is by intent and servers a purpose. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier to me just seems like people who want to exploit the game for winning and not for enjoying the game.
If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
I think winning is a pretty big part of playing competively and you should do everything (legal) you can to make it easier to watch and play the game. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier is obviously a very good thing. I'd rather be able to see what's going on than admiring the beauty in the middle of a game.
It's still fair. Everyone has the option to play on lowest settings if they want to.
Frankly i find that to be against the spirit of competition it's not innovation but exploitation(it's figuratively how low do you want to stoop :D) i would hope in leagues people don't need to do that.
On February 20 2010 10:15 wolfy4033 wrote: Your logic is illogical.
You can just claim something i can say up in down but frankly when you said logic you have to give your reasoning and explain why mine is wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong but i have a valid point atmosphere is a valid part of the game the ultra graphics is by intent and servers a purpose. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier to me just seems like people who want to exploit the game for winning and not for enjoying the game.
If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
I think winning is a pretty big part of playing competively and you should do everything (legal) you can to make it easier to watch and play the game. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier is obviously a very good thing. I'd rather be able to see what's going on than admiring the beauty in the middle of a game.
It's still fair. Everyone has the option to play on lowest settings if they want to.
Frankly i find that to be against the spirit of competition it's not innovation but exploitation(it's figuratively how low do you want to stoop :D) i would hope in leagues people don't need to do that.
So someone who cant play the game on ultra high settings is exploiting? I just dont get it...
If it's easier to control and play the game on lower settings, that's what you "should" do if you plan on competing. I find that pretty darn obvious.
I made screenshots of all the shader settings on a screen that shows toss and zerg, with everything else set to max. It's mostly the "Shader" setting that makes a difference. There's a big difference between Low, Medium, and High, but not too noticible between High, Ultra, and Extreme. (I didn't restart between settings, though, except for the Extreme shot)
IMO high and up looks best for zerg, but medium or lower looks best for toss 'cos its harder to make out how many zealots there are at a glance on high.
On February 20 2010 11:10 hoborg wrote: I made screenshots of all the shader settings on a screen that shows toss and zerg, with everything else set to max. It's mostly the "Shader" setting that makes a difference. There's a big difference between Low, Medium, and High, but not too noticible between High, Ultra, and Extreme. (I didn't restart between settings, though, except for the Extreme shot)
IMO high and up looks best for zerg, but medium or lower looks best for toss 'cos its harder to make out how many zealots there are at a glance on high.
Thank you, wondering if anyone else could do a comparison like this on other tilesets like the desert tileset? I hardly see any difference at all between ultra, high and extreme settings.
On February 20 2010 10:15 wolfy4033 wrote: Your logic is illogical.
You can just claim something i can say up in down but frankly when you said logic you have to give your reasoning and explain why mine is wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong but i have a valid point atmosphere is a valid part of the game the ultra graphics is by intent and servers a purpose. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier to me just seems like people who want to exploit the game for winning and not for enjoying the game.
If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
I think winning is a pretty big part of playing competively and you should do everything (legal) you can to make it easier to watch and play the game. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier is obviously a very good thing. I'd rather be able to see what's going on than admiring the beauty in the middle of a game.
It's still fair. Everyone has the option to play on lowest settings if they want to.
Frankly i find that to be against the spirit of competition it's not innovation but exploitation(it's figuratively how low do you want to stoop :D) i would hope in leagues people don't need to do that.
So someone who cant play the game on ultra high settings is exploiting? I just dont get it...
If it's easier to control and play the game on lower settings, that's what you "should" do if you plan on competing. I find that pretty darn obvious.
That's not what you're saying you want to go low graphics not because you can't go high graphics but because you believe you gain an advantage settings it on low. :D don't try to do that bullshit logic with me keep on target. As has been pointed out very small diff between high and ultra and frankly if you're playing it near processionally but you can't afford a computer to play it on at least high you should rethink your profession.
maybe you're gaining an advantage by going high settings? ever think about that? :D
it doesn't even matter because settings are available for everyone to change to their liking equally. i don't see what the problem is if some people prefer low and some prefer high.
On February 20 2010 10:15 wolfy4033 wrote: Your logic is illogical.
You can just claim something i can say up in down but frankly when you said logic you have to give your reasoning and explain why mine is wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong but i have a valid point atmosphere is a valid part of the game the ultra graphics is by intent and servers a purpose. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier to me just seems like people who want to exploit the game for winning and not for enjoying the game.
If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
I think winning is a pretty big part of playing competively and you should do everything (legal) you can to make it easier to watch and play the game. To redo the graphics so you can see things easier is obviously a very good thing. I'd rather be able to see what's going on than admiring the beauty in the middle of a game.
It's still fair. Everyone has the option to play on lowest settings if they want to.
Frankly i find that to be against the spirit of competition it's not innovation but exploitation(it's figuratively how low do you want to stoop :D) i would hope in leagues people don't need to do that.
So someone who cant play the game on ultra high settings is exploiting? I just dont get it...
If it's easier to control and play the game on lower settings, that's what you "should" do if you plan on competing. I find that pretty darn obvious.
That's not what you're saying you want to go low graphics not because you can't go high graphics but because you believe you gain an advantage settings it on low. :D don't try to do that bullshit logic with me keep on target. As has been pointed out very small diff between high and ultra and frankly if you're playing it near processionally but you can't afford a computer to play it on at least high you should rethink your profession.
But considering it's "better" to play it on lower settings I woudln't need a better comp to compete. No one would be getting an unfair advantage by going on lower settings since EVERYONE can do it.
On February 20 2010 10:14 Virtue wrote: Okay would you play any boardgame that had no game art or was drawn by a 2 year old?
No that's my logic it makes perfect sense.
And playing an 11 year old game vs intensionally crippling the looks is much different.
Would you turn up the gamma on your tv when you watch a horror movie so you could see everything better?
Imo it ruins atmosphere.
When I used to pub l4d wth friends I put my settings on medium and had the gamma wayyyy up. I often saw stuff they couldn't. I don't want to strain my eyes searching for minor details in black on black, when I could change a couple of sliders and BAM! Improved readability! Game looked awful, but if you want the best settings to be able to play, why wouldn't you drop them? Shaders and shadows in pretty much every game serve no purpose other than to look pretty.
If you care about competitive edge at all (which you clearly don't and is completely acceptable) there's no reason to not adjust settings up or down, depending on the game or situation.
Instead of taking all the non personal advice I suggest the following (oxymoron or not that made sense!) -
Play the game on full graphics for at least 14 days (insert own number). I would make the arguments of how would adjust or how there is more info with more graphics or whatever you can say but Ill make the simple argument as the main one instead.
The game is REALLY pretty on Ultra and the game displays everything you need to know in Ultra. With those two facts in mind, if you can get used to that, you will have x% more fun playing like that (x = your love of graphics). If you downgrade... you will be allowing the possible I GOT USED TO THE LOWER SETTINGS + NEVER GOT USED TO HIGHER to take effect. Ask yourself, do you want to question in 5 years that you might have gotten used to high settings at the start REALLY fast and never played on low for that? IF you get used to low, but some people you see at high level play on the super high, wouldn't that just be a disappointment not to be in the high ghx crowd?
I say try what pleases the sense (not the OMG I WINNING AT BETA) FIRST and then adapt.
I say all this with HoN/DotA background. HoN throws you for a loop at first... Now I can read the battles 100% fine. I just tried beta of sc2 today btw... while i was like LOL what hotkey does what (i only had an hour to play) I was never asking what unit is what or what spell was that I knew because I followed the development. Short of this - The GPX UI can be followed on ultra very easy if you are used to to his kind of UI in 3d (HoN being the only one like this... even dawn of war is way different!).
On February 20 2010 12:14 vaderseven wrote: Day[9]
Instead of taking all the non personal advice I suggest the following (oxymoron or not that made sense!) -
Play the game on full graphics for at least 14 days (insert own number). I would make the arguments of how would adjust or how there is more info with more graphics or whatever you can say but Ill make the simple argument as the main one instead.
The game is REALLY pretty on Ultra and the game displays everything you need to know in Ultra. With those two facts in mind, if you can get used to that, you will have x% more fun playing like that (x = your love of graphics). If you downgrade... you will be allowing the possible I GOT USED TO THE LOWER SETTINGS + NEVER GOT USED TO HIGHER to take effect. Ask yourself, do you want to question in 5 years that you might have gotten used to high settings at the start REALLY fast and never played on low for that? IF you get used to low, but some people you see at high level play on the super high, wouldn't that just be a disappointment not to be in the high ghx crowd?
I say try what pleases the sense (not the OMG I WINNING AT BETA) FIRST and then adapt.
I say all this with HoN/DotA background. HoN throws you for a loop at first... Now I can read the battles 100% fine. I just tried beta of sc2 today btw... while i was like LOL what hotkey does what (i only had an hour to play) I was never asking what unit is what or what spell was that I knew because I followed the development. Short of this - The GPX UI can be followed on ultra very easy if you are used to to his kind of UI in 3d (HoN being the only one like this... even dawn of war is way different!).
yes but on higher settings, physical problems also arise such as FPS lag in larger battles.
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.
CS 1.6 is retarded and gives you different recoil based on resolution though, so that's a different case.
Imo everyone should just play on ultra. Reason being? Its a freaking beta, its not like the official game has been launched. Its a beta for people who play it, find some problems with it and then tell it to blizzard. U guys gotta chillax, its just the first few days of beta and everyone is talking about competing effectively in starcraft 2. Those who got the chance to play the open beta, relax! Play it, admire what blizzard has done and continue to do so. Why are u all trying to compete for?
competition breeds innovation where would any builds come from if no one wanted to win? if everyone was just mucking around looking at units and admiring how pretty it was you wouldn't get any actual balance testing done.
what are you talking about? if i set goatse as your desktop would you not change it because it would violate the sanctity of your desktop or something? it's not like low settings makes it 2d, it's just less shiny and some people prefer it that way i don't know why you seem so offended that people prefer to play on low settings. does it bother you when people play on low resolution when their monitors can't handle it too?
I'm not complaining about those who can't i'm complaining about those who can run high graphics but choose to do other as their motives are what they are and it is to win at all costs which makes them exploiters.
On February 20 2010 12:14 vaderseven wrote: Day[9]
Instead of taking all the non personal advice I suggest the following (oxymoron or not that made sense!) -
Play the game on full graphics for at least 14 days (insert own number). I would make the arguments of how would adjust or how there is more info with more graphics or whatever you can say but Ill make the simple argument as the main one instead.
The game is REALLY pretty on Ultra and the game displays everything you need to know in Ultra. With those two facts in mind, if you can get used to that, you will have x% more fun playing like that (x = your love of graphics). If you downgrade... you will be allowing the possible I GOT USED TO THE LOWER SETTINGS + NEVER GOT USED TO HIGHER to take effect. Ask yourself, do you want to question in 5 years that you might have gotten used to high settings at the start REALLY fast and never played on low for that? IF you get used to low, but some people you see at high level play on the super high, wouldn't that just be a disappointment not to be in the high ghx crowd?
I say try what pleases the sense (not the OMG I WINNING AT BETA) FIRST and then adapt.
I say all this with HoN/DotA background. HoN throws you for a loop at first... Now I can read the battles 100% fine. I just tried beta of sc2 today btw... while i was like LOL what hotkey does what (i only had an hour to play) I was never asking what unit is what or what spell was that I knew because I followed the development. Short of this - The GPX UI can be followed on ultra very easy if you are used to to his kind of UI in 3d (HoN being the only one like this... even dawn of war is way different!).
yes but on higher settings, physical problems also arise such as FPS lag in larger battles.
I read his OP as "guys my comp doesnt lag on this game on highest settings." With that given, I stand by my statement.
If there is LAG, and reducing settings will fix that... no brainer.
Hi Virtue. I can see here that you're eager for a little buddy, and so am I. So let's cuddle.
On February 20 2010 08:04 Virtue wrote: ionno about these people that want lowest settings you're def not playing the game as indented and if anything you just sucked the fun out of the game it's clear when you choose lower visuals to win vs the original visuals that you're only playing to win not because you like the game or anything imo.
If the game has included X setting which is easily adjustable by the user, then any extrapolation about "not play as intended" was pulled from your rear and not anywhere intelligence might stem from.
If a user has adjusted his graphics settings so that he's more comfortable, be it low or ultra settings, then he's helped himself have *more fun*. If it helps someone win, then it will likely benefit how much fun they're having, because if you haven't been paying attention, people around here like having fun not just be winning, but by crushing their opponent.
Imagine how much *fun* one might have if they couldn't select their units properly because of the graphics. You can't, because it would be thoroughly frustrating.
On February 20 2010 10:53 Virtue wrote: If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
It's an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so you're comfortable? Furthermore, is it an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so they don't slow down your computer?
Is it an exploit of the graphics if you adjust your brightness and contrast settings?
On February 20 2010 10:07 Virtue wrote: People in this thread make blizzard's artists cry.
The same ones that made the buildings and units and terrain and everything else in the game still look pretty damn good on the low setting? If it's hard to see what's going on with the "Ultra" setting, then the Blizzard artists should be crying, because it's hard to see what's going on. It's their job to make the game look fancy as well as clear. Maybe the graphics setting is what this is for, but until that is either confirmed or denied, I think it's an important issue to give feedback on.
On February 20 2010 13:52 Virtue wrote: i'm complaining about those who can run high graphics but choose to do other as their motives are what they are and it is to win at all costs which makes them exploiters.
I mean i've played plenty of games where effects like invis would become much more obvious at certain settings and i know people who will use those settings to get an edge over other people.
The way i'd think about is like people who run 5mph over the speed limit becuase police can really only ticket at 11mph over the speed limit, it's not that they can't do something it's that they choose to do something.
It's the ability to choose that makes it exploiting; you are exploiting the game's graphics to your advantage what the like perfect combo of high and low settings is so you can see everything best ionno but i'm just saying i'd like competition to be like all high settings play the game how it was meant to be.
On February 20 2010 08:04 Virtue wrote: ionno about these people that want lowest settings you're def not playing the game as indented and if anything you just sucked the fun out of the game it's clear when you choose lower visuals to win vs the original visuals that you're only playing to win not because you like the game or anything imo.
If the game has included X setting which is easily adjustable by the user, then any extrapolation about "not play as intended" was pulled from your rear and not anywhere intelligence might stem from.
If a user has adjusted his graphics settings so that he's more comfortable, be it low or ultra settings, then he's helped himself have *more fun*. If it helps someone win, then it will likely benefit how much fun they're having, because if you haven't been paying attention, people around here like having fun not just be winning, but by crushing their opponent.
Imagine how much *fun* one might have if they couldn't select their units properly because of the graphics. You can't, because it would be thoroughly frustrating.
On February 20 2010 10:53 Virtue wrote: If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them.
It's an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so you're comfortable? Furthermore, is it an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so they don't slow down your computer?
Is it an exploit of the graphics if you adjust your brightness and contrast settings?
On February 20 2010 10:07 Virtue wrote: People in this thread make blizzard's artists cry.
The same ones that made the buildings and units and terrain and everything else in the game still look pretty damn good on the low setting? If it's hard to see what's going on with the "Ultra" setting, then the Blizzard artists should be crying, because it's hard to see what's going on. It's their job to make the game look fancy as well as clear. Maybe the graphics setting is what this is for, but until that is either confirmed or denied, I think it's an important issue to give feedback on.
Really how many times do i have to go over this, the topic is for competition settings should be on like high or ultra or something not some special settings so you can get an advantage
It's an exploiting because you are exploiting the games graphics to your advantage
I'm not talking about the avg joe who running a computer from 2006 struggle to get 30 fps i'm talking about the guy who can play well on high/ultra and chooses not to so he get's an advantage in game.
Is it an exploit to stack workers in SC and go over to their base and destory it? It's in the game so it must be legit? really that is what your thinking is to me.
On February 20 2010 10:14 Virtue wrote: Okay would you play any boardgame that had no game art or was drawn by a 2 year old?
No that's my logic it makes perfect sense.
And playing an 11 year old game vs intensionally crippling the looks is much different.
Would you turn up the gamma on your tv when you watch a horror movie so you could see everything better?
Imo it ruins atmosphere.
I want to weigh in here. My answer is yes. Alot of boardgames do not have amazing art. Checkers. Would I play chess with badly carved pieces? Yup. Because I like chess. How about monopoly without the art? Yup, it's a fun game. The colours don't make it fun. They are a tiny detail. Stratego - no real art to speak off. The pieces all look the same because that's the point - only the back has symbols so each player's positions are secret. Risk. I've played it with plastic pieces that look like cannons, horses, infrantymen. I've played an older version with wooden pieces that are uncarved. Still fun.
Oh and when I watched Coraline some scenes were incredibly hard to see, so I needed to turn up the gamma to see them clearly. So
On February 20 2010 14:03 mahnini wrote: i don't think you understand what exploiting means and i don't understand your argument against having people play at their preferred setting.
to exploit is to "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" the people's argument that even though your computer can well run the game on higher settings you choose to set up your computer to see the most, how is that not exploiting?
And your justification for it is that because all people can run it on low it makes it okay.
I'm not talking specifically about low i'm talking about the settings that will make the picture the cleanest to see things which happen to be lower graphics and i'm sure something like higher on particle effects and other things.
I'm talking about your intention is to exploit the graphics so you get see things easier then others.
What i'm saying is for competition like pro league, tournaments and crap the settings should be like on all high how the game was meant to be played, if it wasn't meant to be played on high ultra why did they bother to put it in there.
Lol as an option? Because pretty things are nice? Because good graphics sells games? It sounds like ur saying that ppl with bad computers shouldnt be allowed to play. Unless they tell their opponent first so that both can use lower graphics settings. Ok I'd probably be inclined to play on high/ultra but hearing this rant go on and on I'm seriously considering switching to low just in the hopes I beat someone who thinks I'm exploiting using it.
It's an exploiting because you are exploiting the games graphics to your advantage
"It's exploiting because someone can see their units. Nooooo...!!!1"
On February 20 2010 14:01 Virtue wrote: I'm not talking about the avg joe who running a computer from 2006 struggle to get 30 fps i'm talking about the guy who can play well on high/ultra and chooses not to so he get's an advantage in game.
Nobody has said that adjusting the graphics gives any advantage other than changing how the units look. On some settings it appears that the units are easier to see to different people. Hilariously, the low setting seems advantageous, which would be totally available to mr. avg joe. If this is so, and it is, then avg joe and the guy with the GTX295 are still on a level playing field, no matter how much they exploit their default user adjustable settings.
On February 20 2010 14:01 Virtue wrote: Is it an exploit to stack workers in SC and go over to their base and destory it? It's in the game so it must be legit? really that is what your thinking is to me.
You're comparing a unit related stack bug in SC1 to a graphics related setting in SC2.
Think about this a littler harder, but not too hard. Or at least, not as hard as I am.
Come on Virtue, we'll get through this together! I can feel it.
On February 20 2010 14:01 Virtue wrote: I'm not talking about the avg joe who running a computer from 2006 struggle to get 30 fps i'm talking about the guy who can play well on high/ultra and chooses not to so he get's an advantage in game.
Nobody has said that adjusting the graphics gives any advantage other than changing how the units look. On some settings it appears that the units are easier to see to different people. Hilariously, the low setting seems advantageous, which would be totally available to mr. avg joe. If this is so, and it is, then avg joe and the guy with the GTX295 are still on a level playing field, no matter how much they exploit their default user adjustable settings.
Lol yeah. And also, a few pages earlier note the poster who said they found sc1 harder to play after playing TFT for a while. So evidently it is a personal preference
Don't forget to use a 16: 9 resolution so you see the most. =p
I'm not talking about the avg joe but for like tournaments and crap (that aren't on-line based because who can seriously verify that)
Although i do frown upon the guy who chooses his settings(he can well run it at higher settings or w.e) so he get's the best view of things doesn't it seem cheap to you, no shame eh?
Hey come on. I'm debating here too. Where's the reply to my "are boardgames playable with bad art" response? I feel like everyone gets a personal reply but me
edit: Actually dw I'm just kidding . I understand what u mean about wanting everyone to play with the same settings. That was my first thought as well. But after hearing some good arguments against it and the comparision made to light/dark settings I feel it's fine.
lol wtf? if it was meant to be played on high ultra why did they put low in there? exploiting means that you are doing something other people are unable to do or was not meant to be done, except in this case everyone can play at low settings.
obviously if some graphics setting allows you to see the cloaked units blur more easily, for example, this is something that needs to be fixed by blizzard and is not the fault of any graphics setting.
But that's the intent of changing up graphics esp in FPS games in CS you can set it so poorly with console cmds you can practically see though objects, that's what i'm really talking about.
Also low isn't perfect some spells don't show up as good as on like ultra
I feel tournaments should all be played with the same graphic settings which i would hope would be high.
It's just that the intent to me is rather mean wouldn't you agree so far ionno what settings is the "easy to see mode" but come on you're playing a game and you made the decision to make it easier on you then how others have it that to me is against the spirit of competition. Competition is fair even if it's a little something it's fair.
I also wonder peoples thought on the ability to see health bars imo i think in tournaments and leagues shouldn't be allowed.
Because it forces people to pay attention more i mean if i micro away an injured unit you have to follow it vs just take a glance and notice that the unit has low hp i just think some of the higher end micro in sc1 really benefited from not having health bars just in your face for everyone.
If u have health bars u can put your APM to better use than having to manually click every single unit. Same goes for intelligent spell-casting. It's not like gamers only need 300 apm to do everything and anything beyond that is a waste. Even the fastest players can't micro and macro everything.
On February 20 2010 10:14 Virtue wrote: Okay would you play any boardgame that had no game art or was drawn by a 2 year old?
No that's my logic it makes perfect sense.
And playing an 11 year old game vs intensionally crippling the looks is much different.
Would you turn up the gamma on your tv when you watch a horror movie so you could see everything better?
Imo it ruins atmosphere.
When I used to pub l4d wth friends I put my settings on medium and had the gamma wayyyy up. I often saw stuff they couldn't. I don't want to strain my eyes searching for minor details in black on black, when I could change a couple of sliders and BAM! Improved readability! Game looked awful, but if you want the best settings to be able to play, why wouldn't you drop them? Shaders and shadows in pretty much every game serve no purpose other than to look pretty.
If you care about competitive edge at all (which you clearly don't and is completely acceptable) there's no reason to not adjust settings up or down, depending on the game or situation.
Audio cues can help much more than gamma in that game. What helps even more than audio cues? Turning on subtitles so you can SEE the audio cues!
In any case, play with what you're comfortable with. For a casual gamer like me, I'll be playing on ultra. If you're competitive, play with whatever you want, or whatever helps you win - but keep an open mind and try everything. Once you've learned how the game ticks, try ultra, etc. Hopefully graphical lag will go away by release >_>
It's competition, if someone uses a widescreen and sees more stuff than you he has an advantage, if you have a shitty mouse and he has a top of the line one, he has an advantage. If he uses more optimal graphic settings, he has an advantage, etc... In competitive play you always have to maximize your edge as much as possible (legaly) because your opponent most certainly will. You can play however you feel like in single player or when you're just messing around but when you're competing every tiny detail counts.
On February 20 2010 04:59 Day[9] wrote: Surprisingly, I found playing on low WAY WAY easier.
Though I don't have beta... YET, I imagined it would be "easier" on low settings (especially after viewing some "low quality" videos!).
Honestly, I think over time people might just switch to low settings for better gameplay... It's just how it is! If you care about graphics a lot but can't micro ur lings well because you just can't tell them apart quick enough, you'll be either forces to change ur settings or DIE!!!
In BroodWar everything was so.... BEAUTIFUL yet simple! In SC2 everything's definitely amazingly pretty but hard to see what's going on, at times, because a lot of things sorta blend in!
I think it's the over-the-top death/attack animations, etc... I mean when you have ~6 different unit types duke it out and all 6 have different attack/death animations - it's total chaos! On lower settings it's just not as... flashy! ^^
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people never migrate to SC2 and stick to good ol' broodwar (or try it and hop back) , purely because of the graphics... Time will tell tho.
Play to win. Do everything within the rules to give yourself an edge. If you find it easier to play on lower settings then you should play it on lower settings.
On February 20 2010 10:21 Kentucky wrote: Somebody has probably already said this but I don't have time to read every page
In competitive FPS games it's completely standard for every top player to completely neuter the graphics settings for any game they're playing
Jon Wendel still plays FPS games at 640x480, when he plays the graphics look like they're from 1999, etc
They do this not just to maximize framerate (which is important in RTS too) but also to make the game more visually simple
As a competitive player I can't see any reason why you'll ever want to raise the graphics settings above their lowest levels
In fact, as a competitive player you'll probably wish you could drop the graphics settings even lower. Like, to 2d. The underlying game is coded in 2d so it wouldn't be impossible if Blizzard wanted to do it.
I noticed that I have trouble selecting individual units which are behind a group of other units. Especially when they are moving. I noticed that when I watched some roaches run downwards and I tried to select the last (uppermost) one. I must have tried like 5 times until I got it. I would have been trying to spread them apart because the last one was already dark red but failed to even select it. Luckily it was just a replay. Also happens for workers. That's always the big concern with 3d rts I think.
On February 20 2010 07:34 Bash wrote: Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
From what I've seen, SC2 allows you to run replays on *different* settings than what you play at (if you run your replays from within the game).
I've dinked around with the settings (replays only) following the various hack-for-replay-only posts for the client (on other sites, not here) and because of the format used for replays, even though the settings for the players may be higher/lower, you can dial the replay viewing settings up (or down, if needed) depending on your own system's capabilities.
For instance, I can view the replays at 1360x800....in a window (and rather smoothly at that, even on medium detail/32-bit color), despite GPU capabilities that would be considered (by many, including me) weak/wimpy (HD3450 PCIe, 256 MB DDR2).
SC1 can't run in a window at all. (Worse, it has no in-game resolution settings option.)
As far as SC1 goes, I do have that package (Anthology, which is an updated BattleChest), so I'm not talking out of my hat there. (By the by, what are the typical resolution settings for Anthology? 640x480? 800x600?) If they keep that option (and I see no reason why not), it will definitely change the way map-making (one of SC1's strangths) is approached! (I can actually see most maps being created at the tallest resolution and color depth the designer has on call, letting the back-end itself dial down, or up, as the viewer/player desires. While common in other RTS titles, this is something that SC1, naturally, lacked; I am actually hoping that Blizzard keeps this in the final package, as it's too darn useful, not just for players, but in the AAR/post-mortem, and for mapmakers as well.)
On February 20 2010 16:13 Asta wrote: I noticed that I have trouble selecting individual units which are behind a group of other units. Especially when they are moving. I noticed that when I watched some roaches run downwards and I tried to select the last (uppermost) one. I must have tried like 5 times until I got it. I would have been trying to spread them apart because the last one was already dark red but failed to even select it. Luckily it was just a replay. Also happens for workers. That's always the big concern with 3d rts I think.
That is a problem with any RTS with high resolutions (even C&C Generals/Zero Hour has that problem, and doesn't scale as high as SC2); it's not unique to a 3D RTS.
If, like most of us, you're coming to SC2 from SC1, it's actually made worse by SC1's deliberately-limited resolution capabilities in comparison. (The same applies whenever a generational change occurs within an RTS cycle; imagine what those of us that had cut their RTS teeth on the original C&C faced when moving up to Tiberian Sun (which has greater resolution and detail options than the original C&C); it's a paradigm shift, and a major one.)
It's not unique to SC2 by any means. Still the twelve years between Brood War and the SC2 beta (and capability increases in hardware and software along the way) show not just how far ahead of its time SC1 actually was as far as details went, but how far the fall has been since.
On February 20 2010 10:14 Virtue wrote: Okay would you play any boardgame that had no game art or was drawn by a 2 year old?
No that's my logic it makes perfect sense.
And playing an 11 year old game vs intensionally crippling the looks is much different.
Would you turn up the gamma on your tv when you watch a horror movie so you could see everything better?
Imo it ruins atmosphere.
Actually I couldn't give less of a shit about the art of boardgames. I dont play monopoly cause it's so pretty. Also the OP is a competitive gamer, its not comparable at all to watching a horror movie. Starcraft multiplayer doesn't really have any great atmosphere anyways, were not talking about single player here.
It's not that it's "exploiting", but it's certainly unfortunate that competitive SC2 will be uglier than "casual" SC2 . It creates another barrier to entry, and one that the first game didn't have.
On February 21 2010 02:17 Cybren wrote: It's not that it's "exploiting", but it's certainly unfortunate that competitive SC2 will be uglier than "casual" SC2 . It creates another barrier to entry, and one that the first game didn't have.
Observer can always have graphics maxed so even if that is the case (and the pros themselves play with low-end graphics), we as spectators will still enjoy the eye-candy
On February 21 2010 02:17 Cybren wrote: It's not that it's "exploiting", but it's certainly unfortunate that competitive SC2 will be uglier than "casual" SC2 . It creates another barrier to entry, and one that the first game didn't have.
Observer can always have graphics maxed so even if that is the case (and the pros themselves play with low-end graphics), we as spectators will still enjoy the eye-candy
Precisely!
That is why I love the customization options for viewing replays in the beta, as it actually makes whatever resolution the players used irrelevant - instead, you can dial up as far as YOUR computer can stand!
That alone makes in-game replay viewing better than streaming (for the most part) if you have a PC within the SC2 playability range, which seems to be far wider than is typical for an RTS.
In other words, competitive SC2 will only be "uglier" than casual SC2 if you watch a streamed/screencapped replay from outside the game. From within the game (or BNet 2) however, the resolution settings used by the players will be pretty much irrelevant.
I tend NOT to play an RTS online (I seldom played SC Anthology over BNet); instead, I played campaign, skirmish, and (where supported) LAN play. However, with the ability to custom-view replays, I may well grab some replays to view/dissect to hints/tips/etc. (This is, from my experience, unique to SC2; I know of no other RTS that lets you view replays at a resolution independent of the players - in either direction.)
On February 20 2010 07:34 Bash wrote: Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
What? Watching CS players they most def do NOT dial it down to the lowest setting so I don't know where you are getting your sources from.
CS players aren't allowed to anymore, otherwise they would. It's like forcing 32bit instead of 16bit for smokes. We would do everything allowed to mess with smokes and textures, but they all got banned pretty quickly.
What Day9 is talking about is common practice for any competitive game.
I think that part of the competition is being able to discern what information is important and what is not. In real life, you can't turn visual settings down. You are forced to hone your visual filter in dangerous situations.
I have only watched a few hours of Beta streams, and I can almost tell everything perfectly (and the Beta streams aren't full res).
On February 20 2010 14:19 Virtue wrote: But that's the intent of changing up graphics esp in FPS games in CS you can set it so poorly with console cmds you can practically see though objects, that's what i'm really talking about.
Also low isn't perfect some spells don't show up as good as on like ultra
I feel tournaments should all be played with the same graphic settings which i would hope would be high.
That may very well happen in lan tournaments, but it's by no means unfair because every person has access to the same options, and they're built in to be readily accessible by players. Stacking workers is a glitch. Going to the options and video settings menu is not.
16 bit smokes were the single exception in CS. Everything else that got banned were console commands, not easily available, that were part of the game engine and couldn't be easily restricted without server mods (which actually became required at one point.)
If you don't think "exploitation" is part of competition, then I have to believe you've never competed in anything before. The best competitors, in any arena, push the limit on what they can get away with to earn an advantage. The "spirit of the game" is ridiculous. If you have a legal advantage, you use it until it's no longer legal. The Olympics are a perfect example.
One thing I do notice is that there is a lot of clutter, in the form of shadows, shiny objects, bangs, w/e. I don't suffer too much from it, but it's there.
I have only watched a few hours of Beta streams, and I can almost tell everything perfectly (and the Beta streams aren't full res).
Your brain is solely concentrating on watching the screen. When watching the screen becomes secondary, because your brain is focused on actually playing, you want ms shaved off reaction times in any way possible.
Methinks that all the SC1 players that could find the motivation and time to overcome its limitations and get crazy APM should be more than capable to overcome SC2's interface limitations. =)
I think that players that try to adapt will, with ease, over a fairly short time. 1-6 weeks of adjustment vs less graphics appeal. Its a personal choice I guess.
To people with a nice computer : I suggest you go to graphics options and change shaders from Ultra to Extreme.
On February 22 2010 04:35 vaderseven wrote: I think that players that try to adapt will, with ease, over a fairly short time. 1-6 weeks of adjustment vs less graphics appeal. Its a personal choice I guess.
To people with a nice computer : I suggest you go to graphics options and change shaders from Ultra to Extreme.
1. I think it is extremely silly to discuss graphics settings as a moral issue. No-one is going to be peer-pressured and/or argued into using more "virtuous" graphics settings than he (she?!) likes. But this is not a problem, since (a) you don't have to look at the other guy's monitor, and (b) if you really feel disadvantaged by the other guy's willingness to play with ugly graphics, then you can just refuse to play games with him and create games called "D- Lost Temple ULTRA ONLY!"
2. I think Blizzard should get some feedback that (a) there are some concerns with the shader effects and visibility, (b) there are issues with low graphics settings and the force field and (c) do they realise that quite a few people will want to use low settings.
3. How would you feel about Blizzard taking this whole idea a step further and creating a graphics setting that is specifically designed around making everything easy to see? I'm thinking of a sort of uber shift+tab that kills all graphics crap and just shows you what you need to see. I'm sure this would prevent a LOT of headaches in future progamers and lead to better games. It's also probably not that hard to implement.
Regarding the screens posted, I would love to see a Shift+Tab ability that cahnges the units to be more dominately the color assigned and bypass all the shine and junk.
Let me say that extreme shaders + AA make the game alot easier for me to read. I played alot of HoN though so maybe I just read 3d RTS easier.
A color mod that made the units just more SOLID colors would be the best path imo and I fall in the more the graphics are fine as is than the need to dumb em down camp.
It might not seem like a big deal from 16 : 10 to 16 : 9 but I find that it's a significant convenience to have that extra inch of screen. I'm not sure if all competitive players will automatically use 16 : 9 resolution ratios but I don't see why not.
It might not seem like a big deal from 16 : 10 to 16 : 9 but I find that it's a significant convenience to have that extra inch of screen. I'm not sure if all competitive players will automatically use 16 : 9 resolution ratios but I don't see why not.
It was actually made by a TLer and posted here earlier.
It might not seem like a big deal from 16 : 10 to 16 : 9 but I find that it's a significant convenience to have that extra inch of screen. I'm not sure if all competitive players will automatically use 16 : 9 resolution ratios but I don't see why not.
I like the Idea of a competitive graphics setting or a new "shift+tab" function for clearer colors, especially with Zerg.
Don't think the issue with the screen ratios will be changed. It's just too big an issue for the "bulk" of casual players if Blizzard fixes it to one ratio. Though something could be included in a "competitive" graphics setting that locks everything to equal settings for all players and can be checked by observers or kinda set as a requirement for tournaments
On February 20 2010 07:34 Bash wrote: Every single competitive FPS player plays his game of choice at the lowest possible graphics settings (my TF2 nearly looks like Quake1, for example), even going as far as to use 3rd party programs to take it even further, if it's allowed. I'm sure the same will be true for SC2.
Hopefully it'll be easy to switch between graphics presets so that you can watch replays on high but play on low if you want to, though.
hah, my TF2 graphic settings are pretty high up there. As long as your gpu can get maintain a good fps, there's no reason to lower the settings on tf2.
Ugh, it sucks to see StarCraft optimized for 16, but it seems to be the trend with so many 16 monitors coming out. I didn't even realize the difference between 16 and 16:10 until somebody told me about it, and ugh ;_;
Interesting point. I'm not sure if they did this, but I wonder if Blizzard made a concentrated effort to find a nice balance between displaying near-maximum clarity and still having the game look good. Art direction is so important with games like these IMO (for both spectating and playing), especially if this is supposed to be the next big thing in competitive gaming. "Ultra" visual settings are fantastic for a more immersive single player experience and casual multiplayer, but is obviously not optimal for competitive gaming (esp at the top levels).
Unfortunately, as I'm not in the beta, all I've seen are screenshots and I'm not necessarily impressed with the lower visual quality settings, but I do appreciate the fact that they clear things up a lot...
Man, I would have killed to have been the art director for this game :D
On February 20 2010 14:15 Virtue wrote: Although i do frown upon the guy who chooses his settings(he can well run it at higher settings or w.e) so he get's the best view of things doesn't it seem cheap to you, no shame eh?
I have never cared much for graphics. For me the underlying mechanics of the game means everything, and the less graphic detail and more clarity the better for me.
I love to play Super Mario Bros 2 (The lost levels) because of the clarity and the cleverness of the game design. For a long time now I have suspected )and noticed) that the newer games with all fancy graphics instead lacks behind or atleast never surpasses the DESIGN and programming of older games.
Take Fallout 1 and 2 as perfect examples. The game Fallout 2 with its lousy graphics are the best game I have ever played (after Starcraft), and the funny thing is that when you compare the depth of Fallout 2 and the new graphically better Fallout 3 you will find that Fallout 2 still have more depth. If you do not believe me, try and play them, or ask anyone who played both. After a decade or more when releasing Fallout 3 the depthness did not increase but did slightly decrease, compared to Fallout 2.
The same goes with the Mario Kart series, the newest installment is lacking behind in everything but in graphics (and online play ofc), and the list can be made much longer. It seem as though in the last ten years any improvement in games have solely been on the graphics side (ofc with exceptions), and Starcraft 1 is a great example. Back in the 90ies the programmers had reached the reqiured level that would make it possible to create the perfect RTS, and so they did. Nothing have surpassed it yet, because all they seem to be able to surpass is the graphics, and for me graphics means nothing.
With Civilization IV I did my best to lower the graphics as much as possible, and the optimum would be if I could just have symbols for everything, and this was just single player games. I guess what also matters is how a person use their imagination when playing a game. Perhaps I should do a survey how people that prefer books over movies and vice versa, rank the importance of good graphics to enjoy a game.
I wish Starcraft 2 would be in 2D, but I know that they need 3D to enthrall the masses. However, I am going to turn down the graphics and enhance the clarity as much as I possibly can, and that means in single player aswell as on B.net. Would you call this an exploit?
Heck, I am planning to post a thread about the need to add an option so that you can turn the units of different players into bright different colors (to differentiate in big battles), so you clearly can tell who is who. I guess that would really enhance the viewing pleasure for a non gamer that just want to watch it on TV as other sports. I guess that is what made SC1 so popular, because even the non gamer could grasp what was happening. When watching the BETA replays now, I guess a non gamer would have hard time to pick who is winning in a big battle 2v2.
On February 20 2010 05:29 Bosu wrote: I am sure lowering the settings may make my play better and easier to focus on stuff, but I am not going to do it. I know people always say Gameplay > Graphics, but a good looking game adds to the fun.
On February 20 2010 14:23 Virtue wrote:you made the decision to make it easier on you then how others have it
Correction: You make it easier on yourself than it would be if you used the high settings.
What everybody else uses is entirely up to them and their preferences (and to their computer limitations).
It blows my mind that anyone would consider it unfair to adjust the options that are readily available in the main menu. As I said, each person has their own preferences and it is not your place to tell others how they should set their main menu options, especially when the settings you demand make it difficult for them to play the game and understand what is going on. You seem to restrict others to your own idea of "fun". For you, fun = the flashiest graphics possible. I accept that. Why can't you accept that some people find more fun in being able to compete to the best of their ability?
Lol you did no read any of my posts it is directed at what is fair for tournaments not what is fun and what i determine as fair is the usage of the higher end graphics playing the game as the designed intended.
Oh you say they only made the high end graphics because it sells, so what you're thing on game-play doesn't sell? i though that all that mattered...
read the long shitfest i had to clarify time after time.
Although i do find it morally pethic for you to mess with the graphics settings so you can see everything, ie setting everything except particles to low put particles on high play on a 16: 9 resolution turn on health bars etc just seems if you can play at higher resolutions all you are doing is playing to win w.e makes that possible it seems rather desperate to me.
I'm no to wild on how having health bars always visible can change gameplay at high level. but that's for another discussion.
Multiplayer: If I play multiplayer I generally do so because I want to have fun testing my mechanical skills against other players, rape their mineral line, counter their attacks, outwit them with my strategical skill and so on. I don't really care what graphics I have turned on as long as it doesn't interfere with my game play.
Single player campaign: I just love Blizzards single player campaigns and if I play the campaign I want to immerse myself with the saga of Starcraft. High-end graphics will most likely boost just that.
I played the first day on medium graphics (high made me lag during larger fights), and then dropped to low to avoid lag during streaming. I felt more comfortable with the game on low, but that could also have something to do with it no longer being my first day playing. I have yet to try going back up to medium, so I can't say for sure, but I think low DOES help you, simply because the game is unfamiliar, and the lower the settings, the less there is going on on your screen; since they have to make the game play the same regardless of settings, they obviously can't omit any of the crucial graphics, so you're left with the bare minimum--everything you see is important. As things get flashier, you have more trouble identifying the important things from the special effects. At least, that seems logical to me, and seems to be true from very limited experience.
First off, yes, I read the whole thread. I'm aware that you are adressing tourneys/competitive play only, and that you have no problem with people on lower end systems using low graphic settings.
You asked earlier on how your logic was flawed, let me demonstrate a few examples:
Premise 1: Better graphics make for more fun Premise 2: People deliberately lower graphics to improve winning chances Conclusion: People value winning more than having fun
Premise 1 is false, premise 2 might be.
Premise 1: Low graph settings are only there to allow low end system users to run sc2 Premise 2: Some high end system users chose to run low graph settings Conclusion: Some high end system users exploits
Premise 1 is false.
This is probably much more elaborate than what was needed, but it seems you haven't realized what causes most peope here to disagree with you. It is not a given that better graphics are desirable. Many people here point out that good graphs helps selling the game, and this is true, but it sells the game to certain kind of audience. I would have bought starcraft 2 even if it wasn't one bit prettier than its predecessor. And even though the graphics are probably breathtaking the first time around, I will hardly notice them (if they function well) once I start to play this game competitively. To my gaming experience aesthetics aren't important. Yes, I would play a board game with no art work if the gameplay was good.
What's just as important to your arguement is your understanding of exploits, and here opinions are merely subjective. I have a hard time seeing how you will make the case that a readily available system setting is an exploit, however - even if I buy the notion that people only chose this to improve their chance of winning. If anything, it points to a flaw in the design of the game's visuals if people chose to avoid them in order to increase their performance. It is not the same case as with a game where the tweaking of graphics make you see through walls/camouflage etc, it is merely a matter of clarity. Everything you see on the screen in sc2 is supposed to be clearly visible (as long as undetected units don't show), and thus tweaking the graphics to enhance visibility isn't an exploit. It is rather a compensation. Worker stack-attacking in sc1 is not a good comparison since it is not a feature that was ever intented in any way.
On the topic of health bars. That's merely a design choice to me, and one that I might and might not disagree with. It's like multiple building/unit selection and intellignt spell casting - it changes the game a lot but it is a deliberate design choice on blizzards part. Making such features unavailable in tournament play is out of the question. It's a vital part of the game mechanics in this sequal, and if you don't like it you should try to have it removed during the beta (yeah, good luck), because it will be a natural part of the game and not something you can remove/ban later on.
Graphics aren't that important for me in competetive games, but I think SC2 had to make the step into 3D to be a successful game. It's also true, that most of the time, flashier graphics with more effects and stuff, make it harder to focus on whats actually going on and 3D-graphics tend to make controls a bit more difficult, which is especially true for RTS-Games.
I do think that the only advantage of a 3D-game over a 2D-Game is, that it looks better and you can zoom in and stuff, but it serves no advantage at all to the gameplay (considering RTS-Games, because in this genre it's quite easy to make a comparison).
The important thing is, and from what I've seen so far on the beta-streams is, that you find a good balance between the visuals of a game and the gameplay, or in other words: The visuals should never interfere in a negative way with the ability to play the game properly on a very high level. As for SC2, I think Blizzard did a really good Job, although SC2 has to measure up against it's predecessor which was almost flawless in terms of gameplay, simple but awesome visuals and controllability.
Looks like they just remove the specular/bump maps, the actually models still look the same so it shouldn't effect gameplay. I plan on playing low settings for competitive gameplay as long as low level effects won't hinder me.
I find having my settings on 100% ultra is too much, my computer can run it, but it does chug in spots so I crank everything down to high and that's absolutely fine.
Although i do find it morally pethic for you to mess with the graphics settings so you can see everything, ie setting everything except particles to low put particles on high play on a 16: 9 resolution turn on health bars etc just seems if you can play at higher resolutions all you are doing is playing to win w.e makes that possible it seems rather desperate to me.
Your morals are bogus and have no place in competitive play.
There, I said it. No competitive gamer will disagree. SC1 had no modifiable settings to speak of, besides shift+tab, but in every other competitive game on the planet, this is standard practice. We're not even talking about modifying anything or using console commands. We're talking about using the settings available through in-game menus that make information most readily understandable.
Why would you want to impose an artificial limitation on major competitions if extreme graphics are going to make players perform worse?
So far the only difficult part of the graphics for me is that I can't really tell which units are being targeted to pull back as the attack animations are either too bulky(too much explosion) or non existent. I liked the little dots from the marine rifles in SC1. Makes it VERY easy to see what unit is attacking what.
On February 20 2010 05:06 floor exercise wrote: You probably just didn't take enough time to get used to it
I know when I started playing Heroes of Newerth, which looks strikingly similar to SC2, I found it extremely disorienting and even at times headache inducing.
But a couple days of playing I was completely used to it, and had no complaints
THIS was so true 4 me aswell. just wanted to say Also i think as for now medium gives best clarity.
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.
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.
It's not a bug or design flaw. This is prevalent if you play a lot of FPS games (smoke grenades in CS:S anyone?) and actually mess around with graphics settings a lot there. Graphic settings here in SC2 like many other games aren't just "ultra/medium/low" settings on a dial cut n dry, but rather they should be thought of as a preset "profile" for options on ALL your graphics options. It is simply a convenience option for those users who don't know/don't care how to set the individual graphics settings fields.
There are other factors that affect how things are displayed. I haven't messed with it in game but the issue here is likely a shader setting. Blizzard was actually good to include descriptions of what the different graphics display settings will affect what aspects of the display.
You can play the game on a low quality profile and just fine tune that one particular graphics setting that deals with the transparency of the forcefield and similar renderings to a higher setting so that it will display properly.
+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
at first i had trouble w/ zerg graphics, but now i can easily recognize all the different zerg buildings. i think it just took some getting used to, but I still dont like how overlords are so hard to spot when hiding on top of hatcheries or other buildings
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
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).
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.
Medium settings already look very fine, High settings just adds details and i cannot see what ultra does. I can kinda always make out what unit is where, i think graphics are very nice.
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.
My comment was directed at intrigue and everyone else complaining about discernibility.
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.
My comment was directed at intrigue and everyone else complaining about discernibility.
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
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).
word. it's too bad that a pokerstrategy.com TSL win couldn't land the winner as lead designer of sc2 for its remaining pre-release time. sc2 needs a serious overhaul for competitive RTS players
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?
from the streams i saw when the beta first came out, playing at a lower resolution obviously meant it was easier to distinguish the units and buildings. and while higher settings looked better, lower settings were better if you were streaming
Above is a picture comparison between low and high/ultra. When you enlarge the image, I think it explains why some people are reporting better visual clarity in low settings. The environments in low settings are much darker while the units are brighter, while the opposite is true in higher settings. You'll also notice that the building colors in low settings are different from the creep color, while in high/ultra the Hatchery is almost the exact same color as the creep. The drones in high/ultra are also slighter darker and harder to see. There's some other differences when you look closely.
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?
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?
lings didn't have corpses in BW either, they just made blood...
I love the "D-Lost Temple ULTRA ONLY" comment. Seriously, what's next? + Show Spoiler +
Lost Temple ULTRA - MEDIUM MOUSE SCROLL AND KEYBOARD SCROLL SETTINGS - ENGLISH HOTKEYS - RIGHT HAND MOUSE - MUST HAVE NO LIGHTS ON IN BACKGROUND - AND NO TV - ONLY
.. sorry, that's the first time I've ever used all caps in a forum.
I've been playing SC2 for about 2 evenings now and am not impressed. Art is subjective and moves ppl differently, but SC2 and these 3D Warcraft3-like cartoon images aren't moving me. And wtf? I'm never going to scroll to watch shit in this eye-level 3D perspective. Ya low settings for this old timer. I only wish there was a 2D setting option as well.
i honestly cant stand the graphics on super low settings. on super low setting zergs bases literally look like someone puked all over it with food chunks for buildings. toss look like bubbles and make it seem like all of the buildings have been powered done (none of them have the power up effect look when a pylon is there so it looks like a pylon is not even there) and terrans look like leggo toys. the low settings is just so awfull to look at. almost to the point where PS1 and N64 graphics were better.
everyone has diffrent play preferences but id prefer it if when commentating a game the graphics are on ultra high so that the viewers have a visually appealing game to look at while listening to great commentary... cuz the low graphics seriously turns u off very quick. so ya its perfectly fine to play the game on w/e setting u want to play it on. but when ur commentating a replay for the viewers id prefer if the commentator puts graphic setting on ultra high for its viewer.
I don't like the graphics on any setting. It all looks distracting to me and prefer the old 2D iso games as other members have expressed as well. The title of this thread is Gameplay vs. Graphics and I prefer the former. There's just too much going on. Similar to the pic of a Pornstar at 5million pixels and you see every pimple on her ass. More details don't always make a better experience.
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?
lings didn't have corpses in BW either, they just made blood...
they left a puddle of blood on the ground, you can tell when lings have been raped. In this game most units don't leave a trace. they just poof. It's really gay
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?
lings didn't have corpses in BW either, they just made blood...
they left a puddle of blood on the ground, you can tell when lings have been raped. In this game most units don't leave a trace. they just poof. It's really gay
Go watch BR2, you can see how good the graphics were there for blings explosions. and the death animations of things killed by them is really good. Also when blings morph, it's clear that they are not completed yet, as it is currently, the morphing blings just look like browner blings that can't move, I get confused all the time by them.
I really struggle mentally with the graphics myself. I began playing on ultra on my first days of beta, because well its called ULTRA. They could brand anything at the grocery store with ultra and I would buy it because clearly ultra is good. But alas I like to play the game competitively and I had the same issue of wanting less distractions so I set it to low. Then I got nuked in TvT and realized that you can see neither scanner or nuke dot on low, which is just retarded. And I loved the low setting, it is awesome for parsing all the info fast.
I don't have a problem with the high quality textures etc on high my issue is that everything is reflecting light and it is distracting. On low the units are brighter and the map and random stuff is contrasting to that but on high everything has a fucking spotlight.
So, does anyone know if it is a bug that important things like scanner or nuke dot don't show on low? And if blizzard has already been made aware of this. Because clearly this is something they would want to fix.
I haven't tried the game on low, the moment i started up the game i looked at the graphics settings and it put it all on max straight away, which was nice lol, it runs so smooth in game even when there is a big battle going on with a lot of effects, I don't think i would turn down the graphics though.
I prefer the low quality setting, because firstly, it's easier to see what is going on, and secondly, because the low quality looks aethetically (or however you spell that) good.
On April 15 2010 09:23 dethrawr wrote: I play on low and I can see both scan and nuke dot.
Could you write down or post a screenshot of your graphics settings menu so I could see exactly what you got set to what? Cause those effects are probably linked to one specific setting and believe me I've tried to narrow down to which one and I can't make it work on anything but shaders/light/shadows on low.
On February 20 2010 05:29 Bosu wrote: I am sure lowering the settings may make my play better and easier to focus on stuff, but I am not going to do it. I know people always say Gameplay > Graphics, but a good looking game adds to the fun.
I have to agree. I'd really rather play a game that looks decent haha.
Another question is.... do we play health bars auto displayed.
On February 20 2010 05:29 Bosu wrote: I am sure lowering the settings may make my play better and easier to focus on stuff, but I am not going to do it. I know people always say Gameplay > Graphics, but a good looking game adds to the fun.
I have to agree. I'd really rather play a game that looks decent haha.
Another question is.... do we play health bars auto displayed.
At first I didn't because I didn't know you could have it turned on, so then I turned it on and it was fine but as soon as games progressed to midgame or later I just for the life of me couldn't manage my armies well enough because the bars just clutter up everything and its impossible to see individual units inside a huge ball. So then I switched it over back to off again and I just use the alt key to show it. I am going to experiment having it on during the early game and then just turn it off during the actual game as soon as units start to reach critical mass. If I can do that without it messing up my gameplay.
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?
lings didn't have corpses in BW either, they just made blood...
they left a puddle of blood on the ground, you can tell when lings have been raped. In this game most units don't leave a trace. they just poof. It's really gay
As far as a battle computation, I believe there is a setting for animations.
On higher settings the units make this pretty death animation, unfortunately it takes a split second for you to notice the unit is actually dead. The benefit, though, is a very visible corpse.
On lower settings, the unit instantly explodes into a puff of blood with no trace. Banelings/queens disappear, etc.
So even though on lower settings, things contrast well, easy to see units, etc, there are many things missing from it that need to be tweaked up for optimal competitive gaming. Low, medium, high, or ultra are not "one sized fits all" settings by any means. Each needs to be tweaked.
It's just a matter of mixing and matching settings like those to give the perfect fit for you, the gamer, while still maintaining enjoyability as well as function. The "darker(enhanced) textures" thread helps greatly in this respect.
Ultimately if you're too lazy, I think just setting it to medium and turning down textures/models would be the best way to go competitive-wise.
I just noticed that my FPS was like 30-60 during late game battle. and I was losing frames with mostly low settings and only a 2 of them set to high. I just set everything to Low and it only gave me 80ish. Is this normal? I have a Geforce 260 and an intel c2d e6750 with 2gb ram.
On April 15 2010 11:41 CharlieMurphy wrote: I just noticed that my FPS was like 30-60 during late game battle. and I was losing frames with mostly low settings and only a 2 of them set to high. I just set everything to Low and it only gave me 80ish. Is this normal? I have a Geforce 260 and an intel c2d e6750 with 2gb ram.
With your specs, yeah that is pretty normal.
On April 15 2010 11:50 stormtemplar wrote: I play on ultra NP, but I'm used to this stuff, being 13 years old, I'm used to flashy graphics.
Lots of kids these days will have 0 interest unless it's shiny.
I can certainly understand the desire to play with low graphics in a competitive setting, but I like the way the game looks on Ultra and it's nice to present it in that way for those who are not as concerned about the intricate details of the battle and more interested in the overall spectacle.
On April 15 2010 08:02 ymirheim wrote: So, does anyone know if it is a bug that important things like scanner or nuke dot don't show on low? And if blizzard has already been made aware of this. Because clearly this is something they would want to fix.
Take a screenshot and report this to Blizzard. You should be able to see the nuke dot or scanner regardless of your settings - it's not a "feature" to be unable to see the nuke dot or scanner on low settings.
I always play low graphics (with like models and terrain set to the highest) because I have this texture problem, like 5mins into the game an incorrec tpixel or whatever just stretches out, and I can't fix it unless I alt tab, I don't know if that made any sense to any of you guys lol. But yea, I don't mind it on "low" graphics it doesn't really bother me, especially since I came from, StarCraft 1
ever since i fried my GFX, i had to switch to lowest settings.
worst part: there's no indicator whatsoever for cloaked hostile units. you cannot see an observer wobbling about over your base _at all_. even if i had ghosts, i wouldn't know where to aim the EMP unless i get a detector
On April 15 2010 23:59 roemy wrote: ever since i fried my GFX, i had to switch to lowest settings.
worst part: there's no indicator whatsoever for cloaked hostile units. you cannot see an observer wobbling about over your base _at all_. even if i had ghosts, i wouldn't know where to aim the EMP unless i get a detector
I found that it was just as easy to see cloaked units on low. If not easier.
On April 15 2010 23:59 roemy wrote: ever since i fried my GFX, i had to switch to lowest settings.
worst part: there's no indicator whatsoever for cloaked hostile units. you cannot see an observer wobbling about over your base _at all_. even if i had ghosts, i wouldn't know where to aim the EMP unless i get a detector
I found that it was just as easy to see cloaked units on low. If not easier.
He means ENEMY units! On low cloaked units are completly invisible. Also, on low if the enemy has just some DTs mixed in with his army you won't see any indication they are attacking your units such as Marauders splitting in half.
On April 15 2010 11:41 CharlieMurphy wrote: I just noticed that my FPS was like 30-60 during late game battle. and I was losing frames with mostly low settings and only a 2 of them set to high. I just set everything to Low and it only gave me 80ish. Is this normal? I have a Geforce 260 and an intel c2d e6750 with 2gb ram.
My PC suggests ultra, but during 2vs2 its really on the edge, not because of the graphics (2gb VRAM) but rather because of the 1 core cap. I usually run Win7 and some messengers in the background so I was close 100%
Anyone knows if they gonna implent multi-core support?
However, I use custom settings: It's the set of "high", with reflections, shader and all bling bling off or medium, shadows on medium (enough to see the overlord shadow but I dont want to waste fps on "soft" shadows I dont give a damn about), 2D Portraits (because they sometimes distract me) and effects on ultra (I LOVE these animations). It works with between 60-90 fps mostly idling on 88 or sth.
So it's like the medium way, I love the spladder and stuff so I got it in but the other "improvements" like reflections etc. just eat performance unneccesary.
Besides that, I hate getting bad performance due to battle.net and that weird micro-lagg issues many ppl complain about - really annoying -.-
For the "show" or for casts I'd prefer Ultra since the game is really nice and sth to see. Especially if people who do not know THAT much about SC2 it's definately more entertaining than some pixelguys beating each other up. For play: a matter of comfort, same as keyboards for instance - if you feel comfortable with it - do it - period.
On April 16 2010 03:19 MorroW wrote: i have lowest settings and i can see the dts and observers just like in sc1 o,o using lowest cause my computer cant take any higher btw xd
Enemy cloaked units? (not your own). I can only imagine either you have lighting set to medium or higher or this is a graphics card issue.
I am a complete newb but I can't see things properly in high detail. I have a pretty high end machine but for some reason screen scrolling seems to really tax the PC - so I drop the left column to lowest for everything but I keep the cool physics and explosions - ditching the lighting, shaders, shadows etc though.
Looks fine - especially since I'm an ex War 3 player anyhow.
EDIT: Single player - max detail, of course - can't wait to play it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2289/screenshot005ec.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3761/screenshot004eb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6130/screenshot003jb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7062/screenshot002s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6403/ff1v.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/719/ff2u.jpg)
quickly open and close the ultra setting picture and try to pick out which unit is which you'll have a much harder time than with the low setting.
, but it seems to be the trend with so many 16
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/605034/sc2%20screens/screen_low.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/605034/sc2%20screens/screen_medium.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/605034/sc2%20screens/screen_high.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/605034/sc2%20screens/screen_ultra.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/605034/sc2%20screens/screen_low_hp.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2574/visualclarity.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2q2nxxx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/2dw6lhh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/m9x479.jpg)
