EPTI'd rather see clearly what my units are doing than being blinded and deceived by glowing concrete and other random visual effects, thank you
The State of SC2 Aesthetics Part 1: Lighting - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SKYFISH_
Bulgaria990 Posts
I'd rather see clearly what my units are doing than being blinded and deceived by glowing concrete and other random visual effects, thank you | ||
|
RoyGBiv_13
United States1275 Posts
| ||
_Depression
United States251 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:39 Sighstorm wrote: I do agree there should be variance, but in IMO this should be done with the tile sets, not lighting. I've seen a competative game played on a map that had different lighting (darker), i think on ESV KOTH, and the caster(s) were talking about how everything looked different instead of the match that was going on. If I would have to draw the line of what can and cannot be changed, i would say the units should look the same on every map, so they are easy to recognize on first glance. Changing the lighting affects the visual apperance of the units... this would be a 'no go' for me. But lighting can change, as long as (again) it's within reason. I agree that the units should look [mostly] the same, but it doesn't have to be exactly the same on every map. | ||
|
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
Alternatively, we could see reskins of classic maps with this new lighting and different tilesets. Could make for some really cool stuff. | ||
|
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
I feel like if you're going to try and show differences between lighting and stuff that you say makes it look oh so much better then you should use the exact same picture instead of adding and moving units around because as it stands now I don't notice any shadow difference or any real difference at all that would make my spectating experience better for the effort in changing it. | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
| ||
|
jj33
802 Posts
| ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
| ||
|
svefnleysi
Iceland623 Posts
| ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
| ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
|
Gheizen64
Italy2077 Posts
Noon shadowing also make the game much better from a spectator point of view. | ||
|
McKTenor13
United States1383 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:50 latan wrote: there must be a reason why the developers made it how it is. Yes, just as there is a reason for lackluster ladder map pool. =) | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:58 SKYFISH_ wrote: Horrible idea, the OMG SO REALISTIX GRAFIX with bloom,blur,glow and various other bullshit HDR effects literally killed the FPS genre, no fucking way I want this shit in my sci-fi RTS computer game. I'd rather see clearly what my units are doing than being blinded and deceived by glowing concrete and other random visual effects, thank you If you don't want the effects, turn graphics to low? Pretty simple, no? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 29 2011 04:35 Belha wrote: The discusion of utility is pointless cose pro players play with almost everything on low setings, so the aestetics are really good for the spectators view. How many Koreans really play with low settings? Hero doesn't. I would bet that more than a few play with settings that look decent. The light angle is functional both for players and spectators. If if you have crappy circle black shadows, the position would still be accurate with this configuration. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:58 SKYFISH_ wrote: Horrible idea, the OMG SO REALISTIX GRAFIX with bloom,blur,glow and various other bullshit HDR effects literally killed the FPS genre, no fucking way I want this shit in my sci-fi RTS computer game. I'd rather see clearly what my units are doing than being blinded and deceived by glowing concrete and other random visual effects, thank you The brightness is variable. I'm not talking about fog and sand and HDR. I'm only talking about variety in tilesets and overhead shadows. You could argue that the existing 9am shadow setup is because Blizzard chose aesthetics over usability. I didn't say anything about bloom, glow, etc. In fact, in my first image I gave it linear falloff so it looks quite 2D. If anything, this is about adding a little ambience without adding more visual noise, and adapting what we loved about spectating Brood War to SC2 where it makes sense. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 29 2011 04:20 nakedsurfer wrote: To be honest the only difference between the 2 picture that you show that I see is that the first one looks zoomed in and less full whereas the second picutre you added many more things into the picture. I feel like if you're going to try and show differences between lighting and stuff that you say makes it look oh so much better then you should use the exact same picture instead of adding and moving units around because as it stands now I don't notice any shadow difference or any real difference at all that would make my spectating experience better for the effort in changing it. Sorry for the confusion. It's not a before/after. It's a 2nd version of the same idea. The only difference is that the shadows in the 2nd version are less harsh. On October 29 2011 04:14 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is really beautiful, I gotta say. I would love to have a more epic feel from some of the maps. I enjoy the jungle feel of maps like Tal'Darim and the artificial feel of Metalopolis, but a searingly hot desert at high noon is too epic to pass up. Let's see some great map design on this idea, please! Well, I've been wanting to make a map but I just recently got into the map editor, and my wife's birthday is today. I have a 2 month old son, so it's unlikely I'll make one in time for the contest. Of course, if someone gave me a map to skin like this, I'd love to do that and could probably do it in a day or two with some help. I've been wanting to make an SC2 map inspired (not ported) by army and expo movement from Heartbreak Ridge/Outsider, but I just didn't have time this month. | ||
|
Geovu
Estonia1344 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:58 SKYFISH_ wrote: Horrible idea, the OMG SO REALISTIX GRAFIX with bloom,blur,glow and various other bullshit HDR effects literally killed the FPS genre, no fucking way I want this shit in my sci-fi RTS computer game. I'd rather see clearly what my units are doing than being blinded and deceived by glowing concrete and other random visual effects, thank you Turn them off, everyone wins? I don't see what is the problem with people talking about making the game looking nicer anyways. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 29 2011 04:02 RoyGBiv_13 wrote: While we're at it, why does every air unit always fly at the same altitude no matter what. wouldn't mutas and vikings look cooler if you could watching them pull crazy manuevers to turn, doing altitude changes I like the idea of different altitudes, because that contributes to legibility. Maneuvers would get complicated. You can already do cool banks with micro. | ||
| ||
