"Too Toy-like": What Causes People to Think This? - Page 3

Tom Phoenix

1114 Posts

February 23 2010 18:06 GMT

#41

On February 24 2010 02:58 heynes wrote:and not to forget the lurker model looks like a protoss unit.

How.....in the world....did you come to that conclusion? o.O I understand if people did not like the Lurker model visually, since I was not much of a fan of it either. But even I never thought it looked ANYTHING like a Protoss unit.

Senx

Sweden5901 Posts

February 23 2010 18:09 GMT

#42

Starcraft 2 graphics are fine.. if anything, units lacks colors to help distinguish units from one another.

They need to make the contrasts slightly bigger between units and buildings

heynes

Germany201 Posts

February 23 2010 18:12 GMT

#43

Imagine all ogre/brown in blue and a little laser beam in the middle of those front theeth
looks like some fyling protoss thingy it´s only zerg because of the colors

It would look like a version of this

The model looks not biological to me. I doesnt look like its living, breathing, eating, roaring or hatching from an egg. Don´t know i just dont like it. The legs have no muscles or strings...

kinda more like this
[image loading]

Tom Phoenix

1114 Posts

February 23 2010 18:19 GMT

#44

On February 24 2010 03:12 heynes wrote:
http://www.ingame.de/pics//34183.png

Imagine all ogre/brown in blue and a little laser beam in the middle of those front theeth
looks like some fyling protoss thingy it´s only zerg because of the colors

It would look like a version of this
http://www.ingame.de/pics//76378.png

.............

I do not know why, but this statement reminds me of this:

EsX_Raptor

United States2802 Posts

February 23 2010 18:20 GMT

#45

Well then let's make a study here!

SC2 Terran Command Center
+ Show Spoiler +

Why Toy-Like?

If you take a good look at it, the first thing that makes it look like a toy is the ramp. It resembles one of those ramps that come with those big toys that act as other toy "carriers," as well as the popular Hot Wheels ramps used to make their cars jump. Here are a couple illustrations:

+ Show Spoiler +

+ Show Spoiler +

Another attribute that makes the Command Center look like a toy, are the big, bulky and round legs that serve as its foundation. This is a characteristic of Fisher Price toys that serve the purpose of making them safe enough to prevent them from tipping over and hurting the child or any nearby appliances or furniture. Here are a couple illustrations of this:

+ Show Spoiler +

+ Show Spoiler +

And the last thing I can think of that makes Terran buildings look like toys, are their accessories or artifacts. To give a better example of this, let's take a look at the Terran Orbital Command:

SC2 Terran Orbital Command
+ Show Spoiler +

Without taking into consideration the fancy symbols on the building, which are very characteristic of Lego toys:

+ Show Spoiler +

We can all agree that the first thing we noticed when we clicked that spoiler tag, was the huge antenna at the top, which is so big and thick, that it has a direct correlation to baby toys designed in such a manner to avoid them from breaking and serving as choking hazards to the kids playing with them.

+ Show Spoiler +

All of these things I've mentioned combined with the basic vivid colors that Blizzard is using to differentiate a player from another in-game, makes a good recipe for things to look like toys in a video game, specially if it is an RTS for the fact that kids have a bird's-eye view on their playground much similar to what RTS games provide to their players; total control of the situation.

It is not just the buildings and how round they are, it's all a combination of these factors that contribute a little but that is still enough for them to accumulate to a point where they create a noticeable but subtle characteristic much similar to that provided by kid toys!

Senx

Sweden5901 Posts

February 23 2010 18:22 GMT

#46

A graphical overhaul at this point is probably not on blizzards to-do list and never will be. GL HF though.

Tom Phoenix

1114 Posts

February 23 2010 18:28 GMT

#47

On February 24 2010 03:22 Senx wrote:
A graphical overhaul at this point is probably not on blizzards to-do list and never will be. GL HF though.

Probably not an overhaul, but I would not be suprised if some of the models were changed as the beta test progresses. A lot of the models during the original StarCraft`s development looked A LOT different to how they actually ended up looking:

EDIT: I included a video of the SC beta, but the example I provided was not that good.

zee

201 Posts

February 23 2010 18:49 GMT

#48

Terran does look very cartoonish.

_awake_

196 Posts

February 23 2010 18:56 GMT

#49

i agree.

too rounded, non-metallic, disproportionate sizes (ramp, orbital command) make the buildings look very cartoonish.

another factor could be the camera angle which is slightly different to sc1 which was more directly on top of everything

Mr.Pyro

Denmark959 Posts

February 23 2010 18:59 GMT

#50

On February 24 2010 01:35 ZeroCartin wrote:

Show nested quote +

Seriously though, every argument for Terran being cartoonish can just as well be applied to BW.

e4e5nf3

Canada599 Posts

February 23 2010 19:04 GMT

#51

The terran building designs do look like toys. I'm worried that this might be a deterrent to potential viewers of Blizz's planned esport scene. They might take one look at a terran base and think, this game is for kids.

Ballistixz

United States1269 Posts

February 23 2010 19:08 GMT

#52

On February 24 2010 02:16 Feefee wrote:
I actually like the new starport's design. Looks like a spaceship when it flies! One of the biggest changes I found though was the old vs new supply depots. In SC1 they had pipes and fans and looked all clunky and old-school. Now they look like zits that you can retract or protrude from the ground

i dissagree. the supply depots along with the extracter/refinery/assimilator are among the few buildings in sc2 that actually looks the same as they did in sc1. only with a more updated graphics feel.

eMbrace

United States1300 Posts

February 23 2010 19:09 GMT

#53

the visuals are just fine IMO

Spyfire242

United States715 Posts

February 23 2010 19:12 GMT

#54

Is it just me or are the models that people are using in their examples, really really out of date.

lgd-haze

Sweden547 Posts

February 23 2010 19:12 GMT

#55

I find it very amusing that people whine SC2´s cartoonish look, especially on this forum. Take a quick peek in "Random pics that make you laugh"- thread and the wallpaper one.

So much Pokémon and children Anime/Manga there.

Piste

6183 Posts

February 23 2010 19:15 GMT

#56

On February 24 2010 01:39 zazen wrote:
I think things look fantastic and definitely not toy-like, but I do agree with this guy...

Show nested quote +

+1

This is exactly what I think too..

Knee_of_Justice

United States388 Posts

February 23 2010 19:36 GMT

#57

You know what makes me feel like stuff is "toy-ish?"

The way the terran buildings land/take off.

Imagine that the Terran command center actually IS a toy (a fragile one like a lego), and you are playing with it at an appropriate age. Imagine that you want to make it take off. I cant speak for everyone, but i know that i would probably start by grasping it firmly in both hands and (making a jet-engine noise with my mouth) slowly, carefully lift it off the ground. I might even make it wobble a little bit as if it were a bit unstable. Then, if i wanted to put it down again, i would do the opposite: after bobbing in place for a second, i would slowly bring it to the ground.

The current terran buildings LEAP into the sky as if they were stung by a bee. Then, when they try to land, they just FALL out of the air as if their engines ran out. Even a kid would know that if you dropped a heap of metal from that high in the air, it wouldnt likely survive the fall. When a plane lands, it doesnt just fall out of the sky and miraculously land on its wheels.

The weight just seems totally wrong for liftoff and the landing is way too hard to be realistic. If the CC you were playing with was a plastic one, you probably would have no problem dropping it on the ground. Thats what it makes me think of.

If there is a legitimate gameplay reason for making them land like that, fine i guess, but honestly, im sure they can do better.

Spyfire242

United States715 Posts

February 23 2010 19:46 GMT

#58

+ Show Spoiler +

On February 24 2010 04:36 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
You know what makes me feel like stuff is "toy-ish?"

The way the terran buildings land/take off.

Imagine that the Terran command center actually IS a toy (a fragile one like a lego), and you are playing with it at an appropriate age. Imagine that you want to make it take off. I cant speak for everyone, but i know that i would probably start by grasping it firmly in both hands and (making a jet-engine noise with my mouth) slowly, carefully lift it off the ground. I might even make it wobble a little bit as if it were a bit unstable. Then, if i wanted to put it down again, i would do the opposite: after bobbing in place for a second, i would slowly bring it to the ground.

The current terran buildings LEAP into the sky as if they were stung by a bee. Then, when they try to land, they just FALL out of the air as if their engines ran out. Even a kid would know that if you dropped a heap of metal from that high in the air, it wouldnt likely survive the fall. When a plane lands, it doesnt just fall out of the sky and miraculously land on its wheels.

The weight just seems totally wrong for liftoff and the landing is way too hard to be realistic. If the CC you were playing with was a plastic one, you probably would have no problem dropping it on the ground. Thats what it makes me think of.

If there is a legitimate gameplay reason for making them land like that, fine i guess, but honestly, im sure they can do better.

Word, and zerg should also have to take time to dig a hole instead of instantly pushing through the earth like a hot knife through butter, and protoss templar should have to perform a long and boring ritual before they can merge into an archon.