It's something that's been bothering me a long time, but seeing as how the point of beta is to give feedback, I think it needs to be asked: Why do people keep saying that Starcraft 2 looks cartoony or toy-like?
I'm not saying it's a wrong opinion, but it's an issue I'm genuinely curious about because I really don't know what makes people think this. At a glance, SC2 looks almost completely similar to SC1. The unit sizes are similar, the building sizes are similar, and even the environments look similar. Yet for some reason Starcraft 1 is seen as perfectly fine while Starcraft 2 is bashed for being toy-like or Warcraft-like. The Terrans in particular get the most complaints in this regard, and people really seem to have a problem with how they look.
A part of me wants to say it's just nostalgia, but after seeing how practically every game forum has people, even those who have never played SC1, saying that the game looks toy-like leads me to believe that there might be a problem. It's just that I don't know where exactly that problem exists. So for those of you who believe that SC2 looks too cartoony or toy-like, can you provide SPECIFIC reasons why the game looks cartoony that SC1 didn't have? And when I say specific, I mean specific. Please avoid overly broad comments like "It has WoW gayness" or "Too colorful".
EDIT: Picture comparisons would also be appreciated.
Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
terran looked very toy like (esp the seige tank) but blizzard listened to our pleas and added a lot of grit to the terran buildings and redesigned the seige tank, so it's better now (for the most part)
I used to think Terran looked toy-like but they've changed it since. In the current build if anything looks toy-like it's the Zerg. A few of their units looks like cuddly toys, especially the Ultralisk. That's not the only concern with Zerg though, there's also the problem of distinguishing units on creep and Lings clumping up so much you can't really see where they are. (from a stream perspective)
On February 24 2010 01:36 Jonoman92 wrote: Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
I agree, the battles seem ridiculously impossible to micro. Too much going on, and sutff dies too fast to be able to tell which unit too micro. Maybe the units attacks too fast, or the battle sequence actions the units take aren't significant enough.
For example, when a dragoon fires, u know exactly where the shot is coming from ,and who it targets. In sc2 its just like PEWPEWPEW and then dead, kinda like a huge muta vs muta battle, where there is a cloud of glave and then all of a sudden you see one player with an army remaining, and it was almost left up to chance.
As for the graphics, i feel that some of the buildings are too rounded. They look like they are made of play-doe or something. I think a sleeker edgier look might make the buildings and graphics more appealing.
I think things look fantastic and definitely not toy-like, but I do agree with this guy...
On February 24 2010 01:36 Jonoman92 wrote: Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
Yeah I'm not sure people are still complaining too much about teh cartooniness.. The old zerg buildings really did look like they were coated in delicious pink peptobismol. The new terran buildings kinda still look a bit too smooth. The old barracks were alot more square, and the old cc had alot more pipes/gimmicks on them. That's probably all part of the step to 3d but meh. I think the "too cartoony" crowd were the wc3 haters that still call the mothership and the thor "hero units"
Mhmmm... I like how SC2 looks, but nevertheless I too kinda think it looks a bit cartoonish:
1) The Buildings are unproportional to the Units. Okay, thats true in many RTS-Games, but in SC2 it's kinda more obvious. 2) It's very colourful (No bad thing IMHO, but some ppl may perceive this as "cartoonish") 3) I've noticed 1 thing that was a bit too "cartoonish" for my taste: The Terran Factory shakes too much when sth is being built inside. 4) it's just not a realistic ArtStyle, not just because it's a Sci-Fi-Setting, but because of Unit-Size compared to the Buildings or compared to one-another, or just because of the proportions of some of the Units. (Again, I don't say that I don't like that ArtStyle - it's just not a very realistic one) 5) Ppl may compare SC2 to non-sci-fi/fantasy RTS-Games, that aim at a very high amount of realism etc., like for example Company of Heroes. With those extreme comparisons, SC2 may look more "cartoonish", than when you look at it as a Sci-Fi-Game. 6) There may also be some ppl that are just afraid that SC2 could look or is looking like WoW or sth and are therefore overly sensitive to this thematic and tend to whine a bit more because of that.
On February 24 2010 01:39 MyHeroNoob wrote: Buildings look like plastic. Terran buildings in sc1 looked very metallic
How so? Both plastic and metal can look shiny. What exactly is the difference that makes you say that the buildings in SC1 are metallic and that SC2 are plastic?
Not attacking your opinion or anything. Just curious.
I realize some peeps will probably think i am fanning fires here by saying this, however:
Starcraft always had some of the ugliest graphics in gaming. Even by late 90s standards... have to be totally honest here ...
Tilesets are dag nasty ugly, many of the units are kind of cheezy looking when looked at objectively. The overall look and vibe is very dim, dirty, blocky, and dreary.
Yes the concepts behind much of the art is cool. And yes the visibility is exceptional.
But I dont think anyone that has not been mainlining SC on a constant basis for the past 10 years like a heroin addict would go as far as to say the graphics were exceptional in any way, or some kind of high standard of gaming environment and art.
Really man. The graphics were just not what made it a great game.
On the other hand, the graphics and art in this new game are some of the best I have seen anywhere. They up the sheer cool factor about 10 levels over Starcraft. Its simply gorgeous in ever aspect imo, and other than a few visibility issues (zerg on creep, some unit distiction in large battles) it its light years ahead of what you have ... and *does* set a new standard for RTS gaming. Theres nothing else out there that touches it.
I think a lot of the complaints coming out online are coming from people that are seriously emotionally attached to the old look of the game, and would not recognize how awesome the new on is unless you completely cut them off from the old one for months, and kept banging them over the head with a large hammer.
I think it's because of the 3D that a lot of the units, Terran especially, are very round and "bubbly". For example, if you compare the sharpness and the toughness of the past siegetank to the now rounded siege tank, or the starport's sharp angles to the bubbly starport now, you could think that everything is more toylike and cartoony.
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
On February 24 2010 01:36 Jonoman92 wrote: Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
I think this as well, far more difficult to follow what is going on and micro effectively in larger battles.
On February 24 2010 02:07 Superiorwolf wrote: I think it's because of the 3D that a lot of the units, Terran especially, are very round and "bubbly". For example, if you compare the sharpness and the toughness of the past siegetank to the now rounded siege tank, or the starport's sharp angles to the bubbly starport now, you could think that everything is more toylike and cartoony.
I agree with this. There are no edges, it is not rough enough, especially for terran. This gives me the cartoony impression, which I don't like at all. If you compare the artwork of terran images on the website, e.g. tychus findlay, to the visuals in the game, it seems so completely different.
SC1's graphics are so low-res that they become visually abstract, I think. After all, some people play for years without noticing the turret operator. What I think the units look like based on the SC1 graphics are usually vastly different than how they are depicted by Blizzard in cutscenes and such. It's kind of like the uncanny valley--SC1 is so unrealistic that people simply mentally substitute imagery, whereas SC2 is realistic-looking enough that it can paradoxically look more toylike since everyone will see the graphics themselves and not abstract images.
On February 24 2010 01:41 kickinhead wrote: Mhmmm... I like how SC2 looks, but nevertheless I too kinda think it looks a bit cartoonish:
1) The Buildings are unproportional to the Units. Okay, thats true in many RTS-Games, but in SC2 it's kinda more obvious. 2) It's very colourful (No bad thing IMHO, but some ppl may perceive this as "cartoonish") 3) I've noticed 1 thing that was a bit too "cartoonish" for my taste: The Terran Factory shakes too much when sth is being built inside. 4) it's just not a realistic ArtStyle, not just because it's a Sci-Fi-Setting, but because of Unit-Size compared to the Buildings or compared to one-another, or just because of the proportions of some of the Units. (Again, I don't say that I don't like that ArtStyle - it's just not a very realistic one) 5) Ppl may compare SC2 to non-sci-fi/fantasy RTS-Games, that aim at a very high amount of realism etc., like for example Company of Heroes. With those extreme comparisons, SC2 may look more "cartoonish", than when you look at it as a Sci-Fi-Game. 6) There may also be some ppl that are just afraid that SC2 could look or is looking like WoW or sth and are therefore overly sensitive to this thematic and tend to whine a bit more because of that.
OH give me a break. 1 is even MORE true in Sc1 again thats the ol' nostalgia glasses.
If people are afraid that SC2 will look like WoW then that's their problem and they would have to play the game for themselves won't they?
i wish sc2 buildings had more details and didnt look like toyfactories (some of them, especially terran buildings) and the sc2 spells not to be so shiny and blind me when im watching. sound effects r pretty toylike too, not so threatening
Anyways else finds it funny that people talking about a video game that takes place when the earth goes out and finds aliens and stights fighting with them, including how a lady get transformed into one of those aliens and in fact becomes their queen.
I want my absurdly sounding sci fi to look super real man.
I'd say turn up your settings and that effects pretty much dissapears esp on the zerg.
On February 24 2010 02:41 Virtue wrote: Anyways else finds it funny that people talking about a video game that takes place when the earth goes out and finds aliens and stights fighting with them, including how a lady get transformed into one of those aliens and in fact becomes their queen.
On February 24 2010 02:41 Virtue wrote: Anyways else finds it funny that people talking about a video game that takes place when the earth goes out and finds aliens and stights fighting with them, including how a lady get transformed into one of those aliens and in fact becomes their queen.
I want my absurdly sounding sci fi to look super real man.
I'd say turn up your settings and that effects pretty much dissapears esp on the zerg.
Still had a feeling that something was kind of toyish even on 1920x1080 with everything on Ultra. Maybe I just need to grab my HDMI cable from home...
I think there are two reasons for this kind of perception:
1. With some of it`s designs, Blizzard was a bit too faithful to the designs from the original. What happens then is beacuse of the transition to 3D, something that looked fine in 2D just end up looking akward and weird when modeled in a 3D environment. Take the Starport, for example. Blizzard made the Starport in SC2 preety similar to the original Starport. But beacuse the SC2 engine lacks the limited colours and rough edges of the SC engine, the design comes off as "toyish".
2. I also think people have a false perception of "realism" as far as the original StarCraft is concerned. Again, due to the limited colours of the old engine, people gain the false perception that models in the original were realistic. But nothing could be father from the truth. Infact, being too realistic is bad for a competitive game, since realistically-modeled units do not have strong enough silhouettes to be recognisable at a glance.
An example of this misconception is the frequent criticism that units in SC2 are disproportional in size to buildings. Yet, that is no different to the original StarCraft. A Dragoon, for example, was almost a quarter of the size of a Command Center, even though CC`s are supposed to be these humongous buildings. Another example are Battlecruisers, which are supposed to be these giant capital ships, yet a control group of M&Ms matches them in size in-game.
it's just a ting there but i believe it's the techno color like base of the colors the effects and post processing evens it out a bit in color making things less solid colors but i'll admit it's still there. The buildings not being full of stright edges is not a cartoon effect, do cartoon not have stright edges???
It's a futuristic setting effect obv you never see movies about the future that isn't streampunk inspired fluid designs and curves is common.
Look at Starcraft 1 again and I assure you, it will be a LOT more colorful than you remember. Creep is straight up purple and each race's color is extremely vibrant. The units in Starcraft 2 may look toyish because of limited 3D model complexity compared to Starcraft 1 where everything is a 2D sprite, but I honestly don't see the problem as it makes things rounder/blockier and easier to click on in 3D.
I have to say iám a huge warhammer 40k fan (playing/collecting/reading for 5 years now) that being said i awlways compare unit models no matter the rts game with the ones of Dawn of War Dawn of War has the best looking unit models ever ! What makes them so special is not just the level of detail but the model itself. Don´t know how to say this correctly but, the outter shape of the models are much more edgy and ruff, while in sc2 the styles are more circular and round. Everything looks so shiny and new in sc2. I´m sure they will be going over /polish mosts models before shipping. Just look at some warhammer 40k stuff u blizzard designers as u did in the past, and things will be good.
This really reminds me at the d3 artpanel discussion at the very early stage when all people used to say d3 is too light and the dark midage style was gone.
and not to forget the lurker model looks like a protoss unit. Go hire some Warhammer 40k designers blizzard !!!!!!11elf
*edit*Just looked over the models again, and man do they only have 1 design team for wow, w3 and sc2 ? Everything looks like wow it´s a shame. Gladly graphics doesn´t matter
I edited the OP in order to request picture comparisons. I think comparing using visual aids would go a long way into better pinpointing the "problem".
I think that some of the posts are on to something. People seem to be bringing up "roundness" a lot, so there may be a real issue regarding that.
I think part of it all is people perceptions are jaded now. Remember when SC1 came out in 1998...ya...12 YEARS ago...it was the newest most cutting edge graphics engine, video card, etc. Compared to it's predecessor of the line Warcraft 2...it was the most beautiful thing. The way a zergling exploded, the light of the shields when they were being attacked, the beauty of a nuclear mushroom cloud. It was amazing. And then again with WC3, it was new engine and 3D environment, while it was more "cartoony" it was a fantasy-world based game so it maybe was able to get away with it.
I think people were expecting perhaps a little bit too much in terms of graphics on that same arc of improvement that the Blizzard team is famous for...while the Blizz boys (and girls) were delivering an incredibly in depth gameplay design/storyline/multiplayerverse etc...everyone is wanting it to be all Pixar/Halo styled...at the end of the day kids it's a satellite view of a planet...things tend to look small and toy-sized from orbit. =D
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.
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...
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
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:
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:
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:
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
On February 24 2010 01:36 Jonoman92 wrote: Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
I laughed when you said cannons look like a Happy Meal. Terran buildings look like they've been built by Bob the Builder.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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:
I hate thors, they are just too big and clunky looking. They look absurb when they are trying to move around in groups cause they spin around/freak out. It's like goliath pathfinding all over again but it could totally be avoided by just not having a walking barracks as a unit.
well one thing that could make the units feel toy like is the rounded edges with some people have said and the scale of detail. Because of the 3d engine, its more difficult to add in tiny details that make buildings like the supply depot feel large. Of course that can also be a stylistic choice as blizzard seems to do that with their 3D games.
and as for the clarity, its a matter of contrast between ground and figure. If they mute the ground (map terrain etc) colors and contrast their value with those of the units, they will pop more. You can see that happening on that one lighter sand map (i cant remember it's name).
Things that need to be fixed that the majority would agree on (democracy in action):
1. Terran music. It's terrible compared to Zerg/Protoss's new music. 2. New player notification sounds. ..2a. Zerg overmind. Sounds too cheesy and high pitched instead of serious and deeper toned. ..2b. Terran has lame delays on some, like.. "Our forces.... are under attack!" ..2c. The Protoss Zealot doesn't sound nearly as good as the old version. 3. Models. ..3a. The new Zerg Sunken/Spore colonies look like total ass. ..3b. Hydralisk shooting spines? Talk about anti-climactic and lame. Yeah yeah I read the SC1 ........manual too, the spitting looks infinitly better. ..3c. Terran Hellion. A worse looking vulture that doesn't even have mines. Looks like a 5 year olds ........RC car. Nice. Not. ..3d. Protoss cannons, almost as bad as the new zerg defensive structures. ..3e. Thor / Mothership? WTF? This must have been the point in development when Blizzard saw ........the game Supreme Commander released and thought to themselves "Hey, super units would ........be cool in our game." Sorry, wrong. Not only that but then they decided to nerf them, so now ........they're not really super units anymore and still have that epic look. Talk about tacky.
On February 24 2010 06:31 -orb- wrote: 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.
It would be really cool if Blizzard would inherit one thing from DoW2 - unit looks changing as you gain ranks. Imagine if you would be going up in ranks and your units/buildings would start to look more gritty, battle-worn etc. It's not only a way to attract more people and convince them to play more (we all love to get some achievements that we can proudly display), but it would also add a cool aspect to the game itself, where, just by looking at the units/buildings you could tell if you're fighting a newbie (shiny, brand new units) or a grizzled veteran (battleworn units).
It's all in the sharp edges. It's more difficult to do it in 3d while still thinking of polygon count. A little contrast might help but that's the situation.
On February 24 2010 07:54 Talic_Zealot wrote: It's all in the sharp edges. It's more difficult to do it in 3d while still thinking of polygon count. A little contrast might help but that's the situation.
Isn't DoW and DoW2 3D? They somehow managed to do it...
It all looks awesome while having much lower system specs. How? (maybe not DoW2, but DoW1 for sure).
I haven't played any of them, but now looking at the DOW1 screenshots you cant tell shit.. it looks terrible. Looks like a jaggy mess.. In 2 it looks pretty cool, but i don't think that you will se the amount of units you di in a sc match.
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
that's so funny because you actually can retract them into the ground xD
also agree on more blood. the best part about starcraft 1 for me was goon-blood evrywhere, and marines dying and hydras busted open.
On February 24 2010 01:59 Von wrote: I realize some peeps will probably think i am fanning fires here by saying this, however:
Starcraft always had some of the ugliest graphics in gaming. Even by late 90s standards... have to be totally honest here ...
Tilesets are dag nasty ugly, many of the units are kind of cheezy looking when looked at objectively. The overall look and vibe is very dim, dirty, blocky, and dreary.
Yes the concepts behind much of the art is cool. And yes the visibility is exceptional.
But I dont think anyone that has not been mainlining SC on a constant basis for the past 10 years like a heroin addict would go as far as to say the graphics were exceptional in any way, or some kind of high standard of gaming environment and art.
Really man. The graphics were just not what made it a great game.
On the other hand, the graphics and art in this new game are some of the best I have seen anywhere. They up the sheer cool factor about 10 levels over Starcraft. Its simply gorgeous in ever aspect imo, and other than a few visibility issues (zerg on creep, some unit distiction in large battles) it its light years ahead of what you have ... and *does* set a new standard for RTS gaming. Theres nothing else out there that touches it.
I think a lot of the complaints coming out online are coming from people that are seriously emotionally attached to the old look of the game, and would not recognize how awesome the new on is unless you completely cut them off from the old one for months, and kept banging them over the head with a large hammer.
.
Don't have the time to read the whole thread to see if anyone else mentioned this but, wouldn't the hammer make them die and hate you/blizzard/anyone else who may actually consider this? Also, if you believe in Heaven,God,Devil,and Hell, wouldn't this send you to Hell?
I think the graphics are just fine. For everyone who is complaining that it looks too cartoony: it's a science fiction game. Comparing it to DoW and DoW2 is like comparing apples and oranges. The creators of the games have their own idea of what their universe should be like.
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
that's so funny because you actually can retract them into the ground xD
also agree on more blood. the best part about starcraft 1 for me was goon-blood everywhere, and marines dying and hydras busted open.
I just liked the goons' blood. I mean, how many times do you get to see BLUE BLOOD?!? I was like this when I marched out my goons for an attack: goons O PLEASE DIE!
On February 24 2010 07:54 Talic_Zealot wrote: It's all in the sharp edges. It's more difficult to do it in 3d while still thinking of polygon count.
Huh? Rounded surfaces take more polys
Look at the two supply depots. With the level of detail in for example the fans it will require more polys. In sharp edges i do not mean blocky and texture ontop. It is easier to make a simpler but rounder building that looks descent with the use of good textures than to make a more sharp edged but more complicated one.
On February 24 2010 07:54 Talic_Zealot wrote: It's all in the sharp edges. It's more difficult to do it in 3d while still thinking of polygon count.
Huh? Rounded surfaces take more polys
Look at the two supply depots. With the level of detail in for example the fans it will require more polys. In sharp edges i do not mean blocky and texture ontop. It is easier to make a simpler but rounder building that looks descent with the use of good textures than to make a more sharp edged but more complicated one.
excpet that pic i posted is actually a warcraft 3 mod and the fans go round and its a full 3d model. So if the warcraft 3 engine can handle that, then why cant the sc2 one which is basicly an upgarded version? I
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.
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0jQJpli0n0
Sure there is now more roundedness and shineyness. But what stands out to me is the considerable difference in perspective. Compare the angle of the legs to get a sense of the ground it stands on. I'm not sure quite what to make of this. Is it on the side of a hill or something? (no) They have moved the perspective upwards? (yes) Lack of realistic perspective gives a sense of the object being treated casually without seriousness? (maybe) But its probably mostly design.
On February 24 2010 02:33 frequency wrote: It looks fine. Stop complaining.
It's posts like these that make me super angry. The beta is about feedback, not just about playing and having fun. It's about exploring the sides to the game that are good, and the sides that are bad, and being able to comment on them. Simple feedback or comments should not be construed as "complaining". The beta wasn't released just so devs could hear the community massage Blizzard's ego, otherwise we'd all have keys.
There are some things about it that look great. For example, the warp-in of the Protoss buildings actually looks like I imagine a warp-in. The drone morphing into a building animation is sick as wel.
However, the game does look a little toy-like. Some of it may be the graphics settings. I noticed at low settings it is much more apparent. Like a lot of people have said already, things look a lot more rounded out compared to SC1. This may be because in SC1 everything was a little pixelated, and thus everything is harder to round out.
If anything, complaining about things like graphics is actually critically important now; if we find out things about game balance that are out of whack later on, that can be patched. But Blizzard plans to change the models, that has to be done fairly early on.
On February 24 2010 02:33 frequency wrote: It looks fine. Stop complaining.
It's posts like these that make me super angry. The beta is about feedback, not just about playing and having fun. It's about exploring the sides to the game that are good, and the sides that are bad, and being able to comment on them. Simple feedback or comments should not be construed as "complaining". The beta wasn't released just so devs could hear the community massage Blizzard's ego, otherwise we'd all have keys.
There are some things about it that look great. For example, the warp-in of the Protoss buildings actually looks like I imagine a warp-in. The drone morphing into a building animation is sick as wel.
However, the game does look a little toy-like. Some of it may be the graphics settings. I noticed at low settings it is much more apparent. Like a lot of people have said already, things look a lot more rounded out compared to SC1. This may be because in SC1 everything was a little pixelated, and thus everything is harder to round out.
I have to agree here. In fact, much of the reason why I made this thread is primarily to give detailed feedback, since "X looks too WC3-ish" is lousy feedback that doesn't say anything.
I started this thread not really understanding where the toy complaints were coming from (mostly due to all the retarded "looks too much like X" complaints), but recent posts have explained it well enough that I now understand, and even agree with many of their points. I think that's a very big step up towards the issue, and considering that beta has officially begun, now is the best time to be as critical as possible towards any aspect of the game we aren't satisfied with. Companies are much more reluctant to change sounds/graphics after release, so it's definitely important to provide as much feedback as possible before the game comes out.
Protoss and Zerg don't look too bad, but Terran looks horribly toy-like. 1: Everything is too round 2: Everything is too bulky 3: The lighting makes me think of plastic instead of metal--I don't know how to describe why. Maybe it's not crisp enough, and lacks the completely white (not bloomed, mind you) reflection appearances. 4: The proportions of certain things are pretty bad and are evidence of Blizzard's artists' inability to escape WoW-esque character models (hurr, let's make everyone have huge limbs). This goes for Zerg and Protoss as well).
All the problems can be brought to the fore-front by comparing a picture of the SC Terran Command Center+Comsat with the SC2 Terran Orbital Command Center. And no, it's not just a problem of moving to 3D.
I think even though the tank model has been changed it still looks bad. Tanks exist in real world, not like banshees or thors or whatever, so people have what it should look like in mind, so tanks in sc should resemble tanks in real life otherwise people are gonna have a problem with it.
The tanks in Starcraft 1 look nothing like real tanks...
Alright, apparently Blizzard can't get away from making everything look like WoW. So what's the problem with that? It's their new style and it's pretty obvious that they made some visible effort to move Starcraft 2's art direction away from being too "Warcraft-y" or colorful.
But hey. The artists that made Warcraft 3 and WoW are also doing the art for Starcraft 2. Keeping the art styles completely different is difficult and remember that they are trying to balance accessibility (computing power) and gameplay while keeping everything true to Starcraft 1's original artistic "vision" AND bringing the game up to modern standards.
If everything was proportioned and modeled very realistically, marines would be too small to quickly select individually, tanks would be hulking vehicles that turn and move slowly, dropships would land to drop and load units, and Command Centers would actually look like a center of operations. There are many games that prefer using realistically proportioned and graphically realistic units and buildings that end up with slow point-and-click gameplay, as demonstrated by that video up there.
You'll need squad-based combat and high hitpoint units to deal with control issues that are rooted in making the game realistic. Starcraft 2 wouldn't be able to play like Starcraft 1 because the art design would completely get in the way. This would be fine if you played Starcraft 2 for the explosions and flashy lights, but I'm sure most people on Teamliquid aren't here for that reason.
And no, something like "changed perspective" won't result in people taking things less seriously...
I agree that P and Z are acceptable, Terran looks like a joke.
90% of the problem, as other people have said, is the fact that bliz seems incapable of portraying anything near a 90degree angle in the building design. I think this is terrible decision as it does make the terran buildings and units look: A. Like they are toys with rounded safety edges B. Very small, objects have a tendancy to be more rounded when small, and have more angles visible when large. (due to wear and tear)
The problem with the specularity is not that the terran units HAVE it, but that the type of specularity chosen is incorrect if you want to look like metal. Go look up a specularity tutorial for any 3d modeling program and you will see that there are many types of specularity ranging from a very diffuse and large reflection (plastic) to a small distinct edged reflection (metallic). The objects in SC2 all have very soft, large highlights, and thus look like plastic. Also, every surface is colored/painted, which also gives the impression of a material other than metal.
Sidenote: Hellion's scale is so bizarre as to be completely unacceptable, grouped with marines or marauders you will see they are the size of an RC car.... this is retarded.
On February 24 2010 07:54 Talic_Zealot wrote: It's all in the sharp edges. It's more difficult to do it in 3d while still thinking of polygon count.
Huh? Rounded surfaces take more polys
Look at the two supply depots. With the level of detail in for example the fans it will require more polys. In sharp edges i do not mean blocky and texture ontop. It is easier to make a simpler but rounder building that looks descent with the use of good textures than to make a more sharp edged but more complicated one.
excpet that pic i posted is actually a warcraft 3 mod and the fans go round and its a full 3d model. So if the warcraft 3 engine can handle that, then why cant the sc2 one which is basicly an upgarded version? I
"Basically an upgraded version" of what? The StarCraft II engine is a completely new engine. Infact, ever since their experience with developing StarCraft (the WC2 engine they used for most of the alpha turned out to be insufficient and they had to make a new one from scratch), Blizzard has made a seperate engine for each of their games.
I don`t understand where people get this misconception that SC2 is using an upgraded WC3 engine. This was debunked a long time ago.
On February 24 2010 10:40 sob3k wrote:Sidenote: Hellion's scale is so bizarre as to be completely unacceptable, grouped with marines or marauders you will see they are the size of an RC car.... this is retarded.
I actually hate the hellion model...mostly the wheels. I could be wrong, but I don't think there was a single unit in StarCraft had wheels. But its not just that I think they aren't from StarCraft 1. I think they just look bad.
Does anyone realize that maybe units and buildings scale in a way to:
1. Match unit/building sizes in Starcraft 1. 2. Make units/buildings easy to click on and micro. 3. Keep art design from getting in the way of gameplay.
Honestly the whole "Terrran problem" is not a problem at all. Would an SC1 supply depot directly translated into 3D look good at all? Does anyone here actually PREFER the old command center's awkward blocky model to the new models? Wouldn't making everything look metallic only make things look like metallic toys rather than plastic toys?
On February 24 2010 07:54 Talic_Zealot wrote: It's all in the sharp edges. It's more difficult to do it in 3d while still thinking of polygon count.
Huh? Rounded surfaces take more polys
Look at the two supply depots. With the level of detail in for example the fans it will require more polys. In sharp edges i do not mean blocky and texture ontop. It is easier to make a simpler but rounder building that looks descent with the use of good textures than to make a more sharp edged but more complicated one.
excpet that pic i posted is actually a warcraft 3 mod and the fans go round and its a full 3d model. So if the warcraft 3 engine can handle that, then why cant the sc2 one which is basicly an upgarded version? I
"Basically an upgraded version" of what? The StarCraft II engine is a completely new engine. Infact, ever since their experience with developing StarCraft (the WC2 engine they used for most of the alpha turned out to be insufficient and they had to make a new one from scratch), Blizzard has made a seperate engine for each of their games.
I don`t understand where people get this misconception that SC2 is using an upgraded WC3 engine. This was debunked a long time ago.
Well that just re-enforces my point then doesn't it? If they built a whole new engine there is no excuse for it not being capable of what a warcarft 3 mod did if this new engine is more powerfull and built from the ground up for starcraft.
On February 24 2010 10:50 Norway wrote: lol hey gaiz.... you realize this is still in the beta process?
/thread
Way to slap yourself. You realize that was the ALPHA vs final versions ? The beta sc1 was very close to the final one. Same with WC3. Based on previous beta experiences, Blizzard usually releases the final product 5-8 months after the beta phase starts.
Also, the reason the game was changed so much was because Blizzard listened to the fan criticism/suggestions. If no one raises a concern, there won't be any change then. It's the beta for a reason: everyone is welcome to complain about what's wrong and what has to be improved.
On February 24 2010 10:50 Norway wrote: lol hey gaiz.... you realize this is still in the beta process?
/thread
Way to slap yourself. You realize that was the ALPHA vs final versions ? The beta sc1 was very close to the final one. Same with WC3. Based on previous beta experiences, Blizzard usually releases the final product 5-8 months after the beta phase starts.
So basically what you are saying is that this game has no hope? Nice...
On February 24 2010 10:50 Norway wrote: lol hey gaiz.... you realize this is still in the beta process?
/thread
Way to slap yourself. You realize that was the ALPHA vs final versions ? The beta sc1 was very close to the final one. Same with WC3. Based on previous beta experiences, Blizzard usually releases the final product 5-8 months after the beta phase starts.
What we're talking about here is minor changes to the graphics, could be such easy fix such as changing some lighting options - imo blizzard will get it right. Also I don't really give a fuck about the graphics, gameplay is so much more important, on top of that you hav e to take into account how much you'll be able to change and alter the graphics on your end, I know of quite a few players who actually find it easier to turn down the graphics all together. But I digress, this isn't Broodwar and there WILL be changes before this game hit shelves knowing how anal Blizzard is about getting a game as perfect as they can.
The factory, barracks, orbital command, planetary fortress, and engineering bay arent just "toyish" they are BORING, really really boring. I actualy like the starport though
this game seems really hard to micro and see everything clearly...stuff is just too close together what can i say? In sc1 you could see what the goon is aiming for the second its energy ball comes out..because its headed to a specific angle and things are in different places.
If you make this game too realistic, it would be hard to tell what's going on your screen. Much like real armies, they want to not be seen. I don't think anyone engaged in a real gun fight would wear neon colored clothing unless they would be asking to get shot.
This is a game though. I kind of like the brighter colors, but they I would be pleased if they used other colors as well. It's kind of hard to distinguish what kind of zerg is attacking you, lol. That or changing the overall look of it would be good too.
Personally I hate the look of SC2. While they toned down on the "cartoony" look somewhat, it still looks very clunky and "cartoony" to me. But then again, I've come to expect this since it is Blizzard's distinct artistic style and it doesn't really mesh with me because I'm the type of person that tends to prefer more realism.
When I look at SC2 right now, I just don't feel like Blizzard has taken the graphics a whole lot further than where they were at when they made WC3. Everything just lacks the detail I feel it could have and the unit and building models don't anything REMOTELY like something that would actually exist or be built. I suppose to me it's sort've like the difference between Enterprise from Star Trek and the Galactica from the remade BSG series. One just looks more sensible and more like something that might actually one day be built than the other from a design standpoint and one actually has rust and dirt whereas the other is full of bright lights and looks sterile. The current buildings and units just look so round, unrealistic in design, and TOO CLEAN (real buildings do not look like they've just been removed from a plastic wrap) and it's clearly not because Blizzard lacks the capability to make them look more rugged and realistic. And while I can appreciate that they have their own aesthetic sense, I simply disagree with it as it applies to this game.
Blizzard already has a "cartoony" and "blocky" looking franchise with Warcraft. I just wish that they took a more gritty and realistic approach to the look of Starcraft. I feel that buildings should look more rugged with sharper angles than they currently have as opposed to looking so clean as they do and the units themselves should look a bit more believable than they do (ie. SIEGE TANK). It's not all bad for me, though. I do love the look of the spells and some of the attacks. Psi Storm in particular looks absolutely amazing now and I'm loving it every time I see it cast.
With SC1, we were dealing with 2D graphics so it was inevitably going to look a bit contrived, but we've come a long way since then and I feel the graphical style should evolve with that. Honestly, even if they just made the buildings look a bit dirty the game would start to look a hell of a lot better than it currently does
Personally I think the bright vivid colors is what is driving the "Cartoony" Look or feel for some people just because SC 1 ones graphics were gritty and very much so on a darker hue than that of SC 2. Minerals geysers and many lasers emit a extreme radiating glow thats hard not to focus on which isn't a bad thing to some and is a horrible death to others.
I thought we got over the hue and cry of "modern gamers won't buy 2D games!" after Pop Cap made an embarrassing amount of money making games that look like they're from 1992. How much has Plants vs. Zombies made so far?
I really think the problem here is terran. Protoss buidling looks so good because it seems "realistic" that an advanced race have all these smooth, round perfect buildings. I mean, everything protoss have shields, how could they get dirty and worn down?
Meanwhile, terran is the human race which are imperfect, dirty and brute.
It seems to me like they are making a lot of terrans art too similar to protoss with regard to smoothness ect. This is also another issue because the races then seem less distinct. And this distinction was what made SC1 unique from other RTS's.
I think the reason why it looks cartoonish is that blizzard emphasised on the wrong things when making the models. For example, the new cc looks like some sort of lego toy assembled together with a whole bunch of gimmicks on them. Whereas the gimmicks on the old supply depot that had rotating fans were removed. Hell i guess the reason why everyone is raging is cause the units are so pristine and shiny and it doesnt fit into tge starcraft lore. You expect someone to have the luxury of polishing his tank/carrier in times of war?
On another hand i dont mind the new graphics. Its a new game for goodness sake, i dont wanna waste money buying another souped up version of scbw if i can play the old one
On February 24 2010 21:14 marshmallow wrote: I thought we got over the hue and cry of "modern gamers won't buy 2D games!" after Pop Cap made an embarrassing amount of money making games that look like they're from 1992. How much has Plants vs. Zombies made so far?
yes, because a small indie game is the same as a big-budget complex rts game
I'm a aspiring environment modeler and i gotta say. The sc2 stuff does look toy like. It has no grit nor grime to anything, it all looks "fresh outta the box". Nothing is ever perfectly clean, even ordinarily clean objects have wear and tear. Everything in starcraft is for one main purpose: War. You are gonna see war torn, beat up, grungy piles of junk in a military.
Quick 5min photoshop(basically used burn tool) i did to show what i mean:
You know using photoshop is a BS way to p[rove your point. You are editing a 2d image of a 3d model. You can't just simply do that to the in game 3d model, you have to take things like map lighting and shaders into account, not just turning down the brightness.
On February 24 2010 22:53 flabortaster wrote: You know using photoshop is a BS way to p[rove your point. You are editing a 2d image of a 3d model. You can't just simply do that to the in game 3d model, you have to take things like map lighting and shaders into account, not just turning down the brightness.
Textures are 2D and they're then added to a 3D model. What he did was just add some burn marks here and there. Doing the same on Blizzard's side would also take ~5 minutes.
A 2d texture(image) is exactly the way they apply a texture to a 3d model. All i did was use a tool called burn. That is all they would need to do apply to the colour map of the model. They wouldn't even need to change the light maps, spec maps or even the AO maps to get it to look the way i did. Edit: Ty Manit0u
I agree with a lot of the points here. Sharper edges, more contrast, darker images, and a more worn look would makes things a little better.
However, I have to say I do like the brilliant design of some things a lot. For instance, how the minerals glow and shine looks amazing to me! They also have sharp edges and the combination of sharp edges and lighting I find to be really awesome.
I'm also not a huge fan of a lot of the zerg units, especially the drone. If you turn down the graphics settings to medium, I find zerg units and buildings looks particularly bad.
I think some of the "edgework" is too thick and bulky, which becomes really prominent in a 3D environment. Such as the platforms on the supply depot: There's no reason for them to be that high. Not a huge problem, but trying to tap into why some of the buildings might look a bit toonish when you mention it. They're just very bulky.
On February 24 2010 21:55 Toyman69 wrote: I'm a aspiring environment modeler and i gotta say. The sc2 stuff does look toy like. It has no grit nor grime to anything, it all looks "fresh outta the box". Nothing is ever perfectly clean, even ordinarily clean objects have wear and tear. Everything in starcraft is for one main purpose: War. You are gonna see war torn, beat up, grungy piles of junk in a military.
Quick 5min photoshop(basically used burn tool) i did to show what i mean:
this
terran looks awful.
other races seem okish except the stupid wings on the zerglings. god i hate them
On February 24 2010 21:55 Toyman69 wrote: I'm a aspiring environment modeler and i gotta say. The sc2 stuff does look toy like. It has no grit nor grime to anything, it all looks "fresh outta the box". Nothing is ever perfectly clean, even ordinarily clean objects have wear and tear. Everything in starcraft is for one main purpose: War. You are gonna see war torn, beat up, grungy piles of junk in a military.
Quick 5min photoshop(basically used burn tool) i did to show what i mean:
this
terran looks awful.
other races seem okish except the stupid wings on the zerglings. god i hate them
Not to turn this into a talk about those, but I love the ling-wings. It makes them into insects, which is how I've always thought of them.
On February 25 2010 01:28 Talic_Zealot wrote: Oh my god, now th photoshopping has started... Do not turn this into the diablo 3 is too colorful debate allover again, please.
I agree. To be perfectly honest I think that the photoshopped Supply Depot looks no better than the original. Not only that, but I find the whole "everything looks pristine and new" a rather odd complaint. Blizzard even took steps to make the Terrans look gritty, and it definitely shows. If anything, they look more gritty than the SC1 versions, which were just bright sprites that didn't show any dirt/grime at all.
It's more of a problem with bulkyness and art style, rather than how much rust the units have.
Honestly, I also fail to see how terran graphics look darker and more gritty in BW or less toy like (just take the toy box factory of SC1) and even though I heard this argument a couple of times, I always have the impresison that they played a different game than me (or at least with much different monitor settings). To my eyes BW looks exactly as cartoony as SC2 and in the same style, too.
The "junk-yard, burned metal plate style is realistic" argument also fails on me since we see an SCV construct stuff live ... why the hell would it look "torn-and-worn" directly after construction!? Obviously, a compromise needs to be found and at least the art looks fine to me in general.
My only gripe would be with the extensive use of other colors (as can be seen well with the supply depot). In BW most building/units etc. had very few base colors with very low contrast and the only contrast color-wise came from the affiliation/team color. Now with the supply depot there is more yellow than red which gives me a harder time to see whose depot it actually is. Since it applies to several units/buildings it makes things somewhat less distinguishable.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft/images/features/lurker.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ingame.de/pics//76378.png)
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/gallery/data/504/medium/Lurker.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.starcraftii.cz/wp-content/gallery/terran-buildings-command-center/terran_buildings_Command-Center_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.lisenterprises.com/images/ramp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/ho/hornby-hobbies-hornby-railroad-car-loading-ramp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thisoldtoy.com/new-images/images-ok/7000s-plus/fp7110-castle-front.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.littlewhiz.com/prod_images_blowup/Fisher-Price_Little_Superstar_Jammin_Band_Piano_11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ybZtqARk8s/RZ_s76pqkpI/AAAAAAAAAF0/plmcN45zgMo/s320/healthy+care+FisherPrice.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3260955612_3dc3b8d66b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CLG8058lg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theswca.com/images-toys/figuretoys/radar-catalog.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/gallery/data/517/Thor.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.mechaworx.com/ImageGallery/prspd001a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/4/3704/47826.gif)
![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3487/3260127233_1ca498ab75_o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/4/3704/47830.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/zerg/buildings/spire.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/4/3704/65036.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/terran/units/viking.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2217/battlecruisersc1game1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://image.automotive.com/f/featuredvehicles/9535330+pheader/p69630_large+1979_Chrysler_300+Front_Passengers_Side_View.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.biglotcars.com/RotatorStockPhotos%5C08%20stock%20photos%20480%20x%20360%5Cchrysler-300.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.3-z.net/Eric%20Web/Gateway.gif)
![[image loading]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sKBANIp3xUi-qM:http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/buildings/gateway.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/r1zcjp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.testfreaks.com/images/products/600x400/249/warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-winter-assault-pc.4116985.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamoholic.net/images/stories/DawnofWar2/Dawn_of_War2_screen01.jpg)
goons O PLEASE DIE!![[image loading]](http://www.wc3c.net/revolution/gallery/thumbs/1110841684.gif)
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/w/images/thumb/b/bd/Command_center.jpg/250px-Command_center.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.myextralife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/starcraft_alpha_build.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.starcraft2france.com/uploads/pics/Hellion.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.simply-rc-cars.com/images/Remote%20Control%20Cars.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7219/supplydepo.jpg)
