EPT
The State of SC2 Aesthetics Part 1: Lighting - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
quen
201 Posts
| ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
| ||
|
OneBk
Sweden157 Posts
| ||
|
VaultDweller
Romania132 Posts
| ||
|
Cuiu
Germany410 Posts
On October 28 2011 14:46 0neder wrote: This doesn't tax the GPU any more. All I did was change the light angle and start using desert tilesets. yeah i dont like this part but the destert stuff is fine | ||
|
kingcoyote
United States546 Posts
On October 28 2011 14:56 Zarjax wrote: To be fair, there have been maps with different colors that everybody ended up hating. Desert Oasis, Blistering Sands, and Searing Crater come to mind. There might also be more interesting looking maps coming with HotS. Since they are doing the new destructible rocks feature that they will at least add a few more maps to display this feature, we can only hope they will look interesting. All three of those maps would have been terrible no matter what tileset they were on. Searing Crater could have been made of My Little Pony, and nat-to-nat sieging would still have been a terrible decision. | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
| ||
|
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
| ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
| ||
|
Superdogmot
Australia20 Posts
| ||
|
Hairy
United Kingdom1169 Posts
On October 28 2011 14:41 0neder wrote: Who's with me? Here's a crappy screenshot illustrating the general feel: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PgeV3.jpg) I'm definitely with you! And "crappy" screenshot? I think that looks stunning - like they're really out there baking in the scorching desert heat. I'm shocked no-one has suggested this sooner, given the apparent ease of making the changes. I appreciate that blizzard don't want the lighting etc to be too distracting, and they don't want to detract from the clarity of the units for gameplay/spectator purposes, but I really don't think your changes cause any problems. We're soon to get a ice maps - why not a desert map that's actually scorching? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 28 2011 15:17 VaultDweller wrote: As a product designer I'm sure you don't only pay attention to how things look but also how they function, right? You can't design this amazing looking thing if the shape or colors or wtv affect it's functionality. Everything about starcraft was made with e-sports in mind, and it may look bland at times or there might be only one type of lightning but that makes perfect sense, I wouldn't want my game to look significantly different on various maps... Imho it has to be consistent no matter what, for both players and spectators. If changing the light angle is more intuitive, then it should be done. The change is simultaneously functional and aesthetic. In some ways, overhead shadows are more bland. But they are also more clear for both player and spectator. We shouldn't be afraid of change if the change is an improvement. I think we can make a serious case for overhead lighting being less distracting than the 3quarters 9am cast shadows. | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On October 28 2011 16:05 0neder wrote: If changing the light angle is more intuitive, then it should be done. The change is simultaneously functional and aesthetic. In some ways, overhead shadows are more bland. But they are also more clear for both player and spectator. We shouldn't be afraid of change if the change is an improvement. I think we can make a serious case for overhead lighting being less distracting than the 3quarters 9am cast shadows. This. Like them or not (because it's purely personal preference either way), midday shadows make everything much clearer, ESPECIALLY for spectators, because players will have learned by now about the little line and circle that tell you the actual location of air units. On a purely aesthetic note, I actually like the harsher shadows, but I feel like they might obscure any units underneath them too much? I don't know if shadows currently go over or under units, but such dark shadows will I think obscure units too much. For this reason I'd support changing the angle (frankly this should have always been this way, IMO) but not the darkness of the shadows. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Quick rundown of lighting changes from memory: Tone Editor: Diffuse multiplier increased from 1 to 2 Terrain: Creep Specular Multiplier decreased from 3 to 1. Key: changed to H:0, V:272 (overhead lighting) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IpeLz.jpg) Notice how you could see when mutas are over a Thor, when an air unit is hovering above a cliff, etc? This is the idea for spectators and players alike. More clarity, looks cool. Progamers could adapt quickly and would probably welcome the clarity. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 28 2011 15:14 MonkSEA wrote: I feel like the units look a little 2d in that screen cap.. I prefer the current lighting effects over the example screenshot. Could have been the falloff being linear. I changed that back to exponential, which is the default. I don't disagree that this feels a little 2D. I'm a complete newbie with the editor, but I assume a few more tweaks could help it feel more 3D while maintaining a 2D-esque clarity. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
kingcoyote
United States546 Posts
On October 28 2011 16:48 0neder wrote: Good point althaz. One reason my OP original image has harsh shadows is that I changed it to linear falloff instead of exponential. I have made a new image that better shows the different contexts of overhead shadows, with them being slightly less stark. I believe that we can soften the darkness of them even more, I've only spent a few hours in the editor though. i just got excited so I probably made this post prematurely. I will include this new image here as well as in the OP. Quick rundown of lighting changes from memory: Tone Editor: Diffuse multiplier increased from 1 to 2 Terrain: Creep Specular Multiplier decreased from 3 to 1. Key: changed to H:0, V:272 (overhead lighting) Notice how you could see when mutas are over a Thor, when an air unit is hovering above a cliff, etc? This is the idea for spectators and players alike. More clarity, looks cool. Progamers could adapt quickly and would probably welcome the clarity. I think the units look good, but the buildings look really flat from that angle. Since most buildings don't move, it's possible Blizzard designed the model to have the best shadows from the default angle. Maybe you could toy around with various angles to see if any give a little more depth to them? | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
I had some romance with custom lightings some months ago, what i've learnt from it, only use blizzard made lightings (especially the sun angle) if you don't want a map with 5fps. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
I'm not proposing this as the exclusive lighting setup for SC2, although I wouldn't mind if it was. I'm proposing it as one option that should be considered, especially for desert tilesets. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 29 2011 01:34 Superouman wrote: 0neder, did you tried if it runs smoothly ingame? I had some romance with custom lightings some months ago, what i've learnt from it, only use blizzard made lightings (especially the sun angle) if you don't want a map with 5fps. It makes no sense to me why blizzard would give us this flexibility and then make it unusable in melee maps. These are just 3 variables that I changed that added nothing extra to be processed. Of course, I'm not a programmer or techie, so I could be mistaken, but logically it should be fine. I have a 4 y/o macbook, so my machine is not capable of giving this a real test. It's hard enough running it in the editor. =) | ||
| ||
