"Too Toy-like": What Causes People to Think This? - Page 4

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next All

phyvo

United States5635 Posts

February 23 2010 19:52 GMT

#61

On February 24 2010 03:19 Tom Phoenix wrote:

Show nested quote +

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

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

+ Show Spoiler +

I thought I would be lost forever, but thanks to you I have regained my sanity and can leave this thread a healthy and happy man.

Klive5ive

United Kingdom6056 Posts

February 23 2010 19:53 GMT

#62

On February 24 2010 03:12 heynes wrote:

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]

What you've got there is a something designed in a 3D graphics engine vs something made with a 2D graphics tool. Therein lies the difference.
Blizzard doesn't want to use too many polygons or use super high-res textures otherwise the minimum specs for the game will be too high.

One thing I noticed when thinking about this was how low-res the textures actually are in SC2.
It seems like DoW2 has better graphics. Not that I think this is a bad thing because I don't really mind the graphics being average and I like the idea of being able to play this game on a lowish-spec laptop.

SubtleArt

2710 Posts

February 23 2010 19:56 GMT

#63

On February 24 2010 01:33 Misrah wrote:
Because of the sprites sc1 looks very gritty. Because sc2 is in 3D with all the crazy lighting effects everything looks like shiny plastic.

This more or less. The high quality and polishing of the graphics made it lose its "gritty" feel. The 3 that annoy me the most:

Photon canons: The new ones look like a McDonalds happy meal
Sunken Colony: Are you fucking kidding me? It looks like a beanstalk. I laugh every time I see it "attack" something
Protoss buildings: All of them look ridiculous IMO. Actually the concept is very very similar to SC1. the problem is in SC1 the graphics are so old you don't even notice how absurd the buildings are (look closely at a hydra den). Its kind of a pixel blob but its definitive enough to know wat the building is immediatly. In SC2 with everything polished and 3D you can clearly see how stupid a lot of the stuff looks

Sephy90

United States1785 Posts

February 23 2010 20:00 GMT

#64

On February 24 2010 04:56 SubtleArt wrote:

Show nested quote +

I laughed when you said cannons look like a Happy Meal. Terran buildings look like they've been built by Bob the Builder.

On February 24 2010 04:53 Klive5ive wrote:

Show nested quote +

When I saw that picture.. it definitely looks like Blizzard got Spore to create their lurker and pretty much 80% of the units in SC2.

Spawkuring

United States755 Posts

February 23 2010 20:14 GMT

#65

Some of these posts are getting kind of troll-like. Please avoid the whole "LOL LOOKS LIKE A *insert object that doesn't look anything like it here*" type posts since they don't really explain anything. I think EsX_Raptor's post is a good example of what to post in this thread, since it provides specific examples and what makes them look off.

I'm hoping that this thread can better help explain how people feel about SC2's current look and possibly help Blizzard understand where fan complaints are coming from.

cafaro

Netherlands32 Posts

February 23 2010 20:21 GMT

#66

The Thor reminds me of those robots in the Power Rangers lol:

Tbh, most of the SC2 graphics look horrible to me, I think the SC1 art was much better (seriously, yes)

Some stuff I really dislike are:
- All the shiny stuff (like shiny mineral patches etc.)
- From a distance, units are really hard to distinguish
- Most terran units/buildings don't have that dark metallic look, and look like toys instead (probably caused by all those light effects)
- The fact the game is 3D, and I don't like the tilted view on the map

Anyway, i will continue playing SC1, so don't worry about me

UdderChaos

United Kingdom707 Posts

February 23 2010 20:39 GMT

#67

I think blizzard recently have made improvements in thier art design to making the game look more gritty and less toy like. But it seems that the warcraft stylisation and art design is now stuck in thier head, and seems to have infulenced in thier work like starcraft 2. The use of brighter colours and curves instead of dead straight lines and murky dull colours, their use of certain shapes and also the lighting and after effects on the buildings, like the specular lighting mentioned earlier. It's nothing to do with moving to 3d really, it's just trying to update thier game and they have art designers re-doing all thier art for starcraft 2, when all they have done for the past 10 years is warcraft art(if most of the original team is even there). Heres a perfect example of how the art direction differs:

This is a screenshot from a 3d version of stracraft, someone took the original and mapped the textures in 3d and then put them in wc3, some of you may of heard about this mod. Anyways the point is that it still looks more gritty and dark than the new starcraft which has more detail, polygons and higher resolutions in its arsenal, becuase of course the new sc2 engine is much more graphicly advanced than the wc3 engine:

new vs old supply depo

new vs old spire

lastly 3d old wraith vs viking:

Spawkuring

United States755 Posts

February 23 2010 20:40 GMT

#68

On February 24 2010 05:21 cafaro wrote:
Some stuff I really dislike are:
- All the shiny stuff (like shiny mineral patches etc.)
- From a distance, units are really hard to distinguish
- Most terran units/buildings don't have that dark metallic look, and look like toys instead (probably caused by all those light effects)
- The fact the game is 3D, and I don't like the tilted view on the map

Anyway, i will continue playing SC1, so don't worry about me

Can you elaborate on the "dark metallic look" statement? The reason why I'm asking is because I noticed that a very common complaint is that the SC2 Terrans look plastic instead of metallic, but I find it strange considering that Terran units in SC2 are actually pretty dark.

+ Show Spoiler +

In the spoiler is a comparison between the Battlecruisers in SC1 and SC2, but aside from the lighting the SC2 Battlecruiser has similar colors to the old one. I guess I'm confused because I'm still not sure where the plastic vs. metal comparisons are all coming from.

XsebT

Denmark2980 Posts

February 23 2010 21:02 GMT

#69

Haters gon' hate...

SC2 looks stunning!

LunarC

United States1186 Posts

February 23 2010 21:27 GMT

#70

The reason that units/buildings look "toyish" to some is because most of the hard edges in Starcraft 1 have become rounder. Immediately this brings to mind the shape of children's toys, which are rounded for safety reasons and such. Let's not just blam Blizzard for "making it look like WoW" or something along those lines. In my opinion, SC2 looks amazing. I wouldn't want to be so stuck in nostalgia that I can't move ahead because of it. (Really? Specular is what is ruining Starcraft 2's looks?)

-orb-

United States5770 Posts

February 23 2010 21:31 GMT

#71

It looks toy like because for one, everything has specularity in starcraft 2. This makes everything shiny and plastic-like. For another, there is no dirt on the models. Look at protoss units. They are all completely clean and brand-new looking. None of them have scratches on the metal or dirt or stains, etc. Everything looks very pristine.

I don't really mind it much personally, but I do think it would look a hell of a lot cooler if everything was scratched up and battle-scarred so to speak.

minus_human

4784 Posts

February 23 2010 21:31 GMT

#72

Everything looks amazing and perfectly fine, except, in my opinion, some Terran Buildings (specifically CC, rax and factory) - they have so many round edges/corners, in BW the buildings are sprites with very sharp edges and metallic glow, it's quite a visible difference in my eyes.

EmeraldSparks

United States1451 Posts

February 23 2010 21:37 GMT

#73

As for the Terran, everything they have in Starcraft II is more bulky and more rounded. More rounded makes for softer light patterns and less contrast. Together these make the Terran of Starcraft more "toyish" than in Starcraft I. Props to the guy who posted the comparisons; it's really clear how there's many less part of buildings / units that are skeletal or thin, or that stick out prominently.

Rotodyne

United States2263 Posts

February 23 2010 21:40 GMT

#74

Can anyone post that picture of the old cartoon-y siege tank with the two eyes in the middle?....soo funny.

LunarC

United States1186 Posts

February 23 2010 22:00 GMT

#75

I wouldn't dismiss the old Starcraft 1 art direction in the name of "progress," but Starcraft 2 looks damn good. Starcraft 2 COULD have been designed to look less toy-like. Just look at the 3D unit portraits. BUT, if everything in the game had the quality and realism of the 3D unit portraits, it would shut out a lot of low-end computers and require pretty expensive equipment to run.

WaveMotion

United States147 Posts

February 23 2010 22:18 GMT

#76

@udderchaos's pictures. YES YES! the first supply depot looks fucking amazing! why couldnt they make it like that. IMO i really think they shouldve made it more gritty. when i look at BW i am still amazed sometimes about how simple the graphics are yet it looks so damn good. /// in fact when i heard that SC2 was coming out i had a vision in my mind that it would be basically Gears of war style.. but you know from top view. dark themes on the units especially terran but the colors of different players would be bright, LIKE BW. but now it seems they want the armies to blend more which is very fucking hard to follow in the late game. Though they did a brilliant job with zerg buildings. it is too late to revamp the art style, which is a shame i think. BUT BUT also they could fix almost every problem with the hard to see large battles by just upping the contrast on the unit types / terrain.

Nub4ever

Canada1981 Posts

February 23 2010 22:20 GMT

#77

Also the terran units tend to BOUNCE T_T especially the fusion core and factory...

hixhix

1158 Posts

February 23 2010 22:23 GMT

#78

I think the SC2 graphic could be clearer and better if:

1) Ground unit's collision sizes are bigger so they dont stack.
2) Zerg creep's color is brighter, maybe a little more red so zerg units are more visible on creep.
3) Less animation on buildings or reduce the animation speed. For example, looking at protoss pylons spinning for awhile gives me a headache. I believe if they spin slowly, it'd help. Also, the flashy electricity animation around protoss's building is annoying, it could be better if it appears once every 5 seconds instead of 1 second.
4) Darken protoss's buildings.
5) Change laser beam to plasma balls or shorten the beam, it's hard to see what's going on in big battles.
6) Simplify psi-storm animation.
7) Improve zergling model.
8) Improve hydra's attack animation.
9) Make mineral/gas and workers carrying resources less shiny.

Disarray

United States1164 Posts

February 23 2010 22:31 GMT

#79

the biggest thing that looks toylike to me, is the new seige tanks.

Manit0u

Poland17831 Posts

February 23 2010 22:34 GMT

#80

On February 24 2010 05:40 Spawkuring wrote:
I guess I'm confused because I'm still not sure where the plastic vs. metal comparisons are all coming from.

If you haven't already noticed, it's the same thing like with the older and new cars. Old cars were angular metal boxes, new cars are rounded plastic bulbs.

+ Show Spoiler [Examples] +

+ Show Spoiler [cars] +

+ Show Spoiler [SC] +

Simple as that. And I have absolutely no idea why Blizzard decided to make everything rounded... At least Terrans should have a lot of sharp angles on their stuff.

To sum it all up:
SC2 needs more manly (angular) stuff and some better sounds. For comparison I give you an example of how a real tank should look like/sound:

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next All

Please or register to reply.

"Too Toy-like": What Causes People to Think This? - Page 4

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming