I am a product designer by day, so I am always analyzing how things look. I have had a few things nagging me with SC2's aesthetics for a long time, but I never could quite put my finger on what they were. I'd like to make a series of concise posts highlighting how we might improve or add variety to maps and units. Recently, I realized the first main thing that bothered me about the game's visuals:
Everyone always fights at 9am. On every planet. Every battle. WTF. What do they have a treaty at Siesta time and take the rest of the day off?
NOTE: I am NOT suggesting day/night cycle. Battles and environments feel fake when that is introduced. We want a game to feel like it's happening in real time, which wouldn't really change given the average SC2 game length.
What happened to a showdown at high noon? The searing heat of late afternoon? Why is every planet's sun in the SC2 universe positioned the same? Why must shadows always be cast the same direction? Hold that thought....
Issue 2: Most ladder and competitive maps are blue and green and blue and blue and gray and green and blue and blue. What happened to desert, badlands, squaring off in the barren wasteland? Browns, yellows, oranges. Terran mech requiring cleaning so it doesn't get too sandy and tarry? Blistering Sands looked cool, but it's did horrible layout alienate everyone from fighting in the harsh desert plains? Maybe if the 'pros' took their settings off low so it wasn't a sea of nuclear red, we could convince them?
I challenge map makers to explore maps that truly reflect the heritage of starcraft's races doing battle in 150 degree searing heat, with gleaming metal and parched creatures.
This post would be longer, but I'm working on my first map that will implement the following ideas:
1 - High-Noon lighting. Note: Cast Shadows reflect true position of air units. Harsher lighting and shadows. 2 - Explore the best WoL tilesets to capture warm desert/badlands feel of BW desert maps. No cool blue sand or lunar gray sand, but warm, hot sand that will nerf marines by slowing their march.
Who's with me? Here's a crappy screenshot illustrating the general feel:
EDIT: Here's a more fleshed out version with more subtle shadows:
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.
Yeah one of my main problems with maps right now is that they all aesthetically look the same. Using different tilesets, lighting effects, shadow positions, light color (different stars, different wavelengths of light etc), etc would do a lot to make watching games even more interesting.
On October 28 2011 14:45 lichter wrote: Yeah one of my main problems with maps right now is that they all aesthetically look the same. Using different tilesets, lighting effects, shadow positions, light color (different stars, different wavelengths of light etc), etc would do a lot to make watching games even more interesting.
Yes, it seems that some amazing map makers that create GSL maps, etc. have an affinity for blue and green maps. Just because snow maps hurt players' eyes in BW, doesn't mean we have to make EVERYTHING dark and dreary. Darkened yellows, reds, and browns are okay. Don't be afraid!
On October 28 2011 14:47 windsupernova wrote: Well, you can change lighting on the Editor.
I guess once we have maps more figured out we will be seeing more beauty maps.
Yes, I did change the editor lighting to roughly illustrate how it could feel.
Also, your point is invalid. GSL mapmakers did not run out of time laying maps out before skinning them. The skins are very intricate, beautiful, and elaborate. They just got stranded on Belshir and Shakuras.
I do applaud BelShir Beach for trying something new. A little saturated and resort-ey, but it's a step in the right direction.
Don't know if I would like a map to have a day and night cycle, maybe try it out on a few maps and see how it is, I like the idea. There is still so much room for experimentation out there. I think right now we are just trying to make maps that are balanced above all else. Looks will come second.
On October 28 2011 14:50 Sea_Food wrote: Mby its like this because if you change the lighting all of the units start to look stupid IMO.
I disagree - doesn't that siege tank look great with the sun shining brightly on the top, while a harsh shadow is cast directly underneath.
Isn't it much clearer where the Medivac is flying over?
Some of the units do look stupid, but overall I think this feels great, like a contemporary evolution of BW desert maps. Stupid unit design will be addressed in a future installment.
On October 28 2011 14:51 Meteora.GB wrote: The searing desert certainly could use more lighting. Though for competitive reasons I doubt they'd implement or create maps that are too bright/dark.
BW Red Desert tileset would be a good threshold. That felt bright, but didn't get too crazy. Heck, make players compete with sunglasses.
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.
On October 28 2011 14:50 Sea_Food wrote: Mby its like this because if you change the lighting all of the units start to look stupid IMO.
I disagree - doesn't that siege tank look great with the sun shining brightly on the top, while a harsh shadow is cast directly underneath.
Isn't it much clearer where the Medivac is flying over?
Some of the units do look stupid, but overall I think this feels great, like a contemporary evolution of BW desert maps. Stupid unit design will be addressed in a future installment.
You have to consider the clarity of the game for players and spectators, especially at times when there is a lot happening on screen.
and most players set their shadows to low so the shadow is directly below flying units.
Well I for one would like to see a few more tilesets on pro-maps. The issue with Desert Oasis and Blistering Sands was map design and not tileset- at least as far as I know. That tileset is actually good looking.
On October 28 2011 14:58 0neder wrote: Well, eSports could certainly use more physical trials. Poker players do it. Whatever it takes if you want to be a 'legit' sport.
Those were both jokes by the way, meant to get people excited about how maps could feel more exciting.
I don't think sunglasses are gonna make Starcraft a more legit sport. Also, poker players do it for strategic reasons... not because the cards are too shiny. lol.
If you watch the Blizzcon panel where they show off new map textures/tilesets for HotS, you'll see that there's plenty of reason for people to get excited about maps
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.
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.
I'm not sure how related will this be but.. Tingling with lighting could be potentially problematic, I personally feel like the colors have been chosen so everything is best distinguishable at the current lightning. Also for instance I found that the lowest graphic setting really hurt my eyes so I play on high lighting and lowest possible for everything else, your proposition would take away that control a bit. All that aside it looks good for a picture, maybe make a video or a map.
On October 28 2011 14:41 0neder wrote: Who's with me? Here's a crappy screenshot illustrating the general feel:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The angle is driven by air unit position. I'm sure other settings can be tweaked if we want. This is a dialogue, I don't even know most of the variables yet.
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.
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. =)
On October 28 2011 14:41 0neder wrote: 1 - High-Noon lighting. Note: Cast Shadows reflect true position of air units. Harsher lighting and shadows.
You do know that's true only in tropical latitudes twice per year, right?
If you are at X° latitude, then even at "high noon", the shadow will still be cast at X+Y° angle from vertical, where Y varies ±23° due to the seasons.
If you are outside the tropics, the sun will never be directly overhead.
I actually like the ideas of the game going 'beyond' the game in a sense that I'll outline below.
While I don't really find a problem with the currently standing graphics engine of SC2, ( and more specifically, I think the lighting engine is fine, low Gold Terran on low graphics here) I think that more 'graphically hard to read' maps could add depth to the game that BW never had, especially with the potential of the 3D engine SC2 boasts.
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.
as you can see, team colors can become an issue with too bright of lighting
very interesting thought, but you need to take in considerations that the maps should be darker, so that the eyes professionals who play on that map for several hours won't be stressed too much. just ask el nino. ;-)
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.
as you can see, team colors can become an issue with too bright of lighting
Not really. As long as it's not dark blue and light blue you're fine.
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.
I 100% agree with this post and i'm a product designer as well. Simplicity and consistency are important requirements for an eSport and should be prevailing over aesthetics in this case. The options to change the lighting are available in the editor, so people can have fun with this in custom games. But it doesn't add any value to competative maps IMO.
On October 28 2011 14:41 0neder wrote: 1 - High-Noon lighting. Note: Cast Shadows reflect true position of air units. Harsher lighting and shadows.
You do know that's true only in tropical latitudes twice per year, right?
If you are at X° latitude, then even at "high noon", the shadow will still be cast at X+Y° angle from vertical, where Y varies ±23° due to the seasons.
If you are outside the tropics, the sun will never be directly overhead.
You do realize that these maps are all on fictitious worlds, right? =]
Kind of an inane post, it totally doesnt matter what our sun does, nor do you know where these maps are actually located on their respective planets. They could all be in the tropics.
In regards to the OP, i do like having varied texture/tilesets, but im ok with the lighting as currently implemented.
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.
I 100% agree with this post and i'm a product designer as well. Simplicity and consistency are important requirements for an eSport and should be prevailing over aesthetics in this case. The options to change the lighting are available in the editor, so people can have fun with this in custom games. But it doesn't add any value to competative maps IMO.
As much as I agree with this, we also have to remember that there is room for variance within the "consistency" that eSports needs. For example, college football. The prevailing color scheme of fields is green grass with white lines denoting yardage, but then we see Boise State University's field which has blue turf. It's a variance from the norm, but it doesn't stop the game from being playable. In a similar way, during winter months there can often be covered in snow and yet the game will still be played.
So I think we can see variation in maps, within reason of course.
There are 2 team game maps that I can remember where I felt like the lighting was brighter, or at least something was different. Can't say I remember if there was anything different about the shadows. The maps I am referring to are Colony 426 and Twighlight Fortress. Like was stated in the OP, all other maps seem to be taking place at the exact same time with the same amount of lighting.
I agree that it's possible to wring more mood out of the SC2 engine.
Your screen shots look pretty nice, though if you really want to feel more like harsh outdoor daylight, try tinting the fill color in your shadows blue, since in daylight the sky fills the shadows and the blue provides a nice hue contrast to the warm colors of the sand.
That said, most outdoor cinematic photography is done in the morning or afternoon, because lighting more from the side better brings out the shape of the subject, because lighting angled from the side provides some neat effects when light bounces off vertical surfaces like walls into the shadows, and because the ratio of sunlight to fill light tends to be somewhat less than at noon, so the shadows don't read as darkly.
I'm guessing that the illumination angle for the Blizzard maps was chosen mainly for the first reason, because lighting that's more from the side than from the top will make the characters feel more dimensional and in many cases will be more attractive. There also will be a range of light angles where the shadows read nicely without being awkwardly long (or, worse, causing artifacts related to depth map resolution or low precision in the depth calculations to cast the shadows. These kinds of artifacts can be very difficult to detect and correct -- you've probably seen them in buzzing shadows and shadow edges in the cinematics.)
Also, I'm pretty sure that the Starcraft level design team doesn't have any dedicated lighting artists -- it's being done by people with broader expertise, so while they certainly know what they're doing, they're unlikely to really be pushing the lighting hard for creative purposes, particularly because they are aware that doing so can interfere with gameplay.
I jumped on maps like Bel'shir beach just because aesthetically, it was so different. I never considered other little aspects like this, but there's no reason it can't be explored.
Lighting plays a huge role in the atmosphere of the maps, and the light tools the Galaxy editor provides are (in my experience at least) really expansive.
So I agree, there's really no reason map makers should not study the lighting aspects of their maps more. I think they have kept off of it because it is so easy to screw up, and in previous iterations of the editor it has been a bit buggy.
But it should be used, though with some care, just like any other visual element you want to include.
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.
as you can see, team colors can become an issue with too bright of lighting
There is this issue, but another thing is that having a map with lighting that bright is painful to look at for so long, especially if you are practicing for 8 or more hours per day. I remember in BW, there was a lack of snowy maps due to the same problem; they are harder to look at for so long, and darker tilesets solve this issue. An example would be Brood War's El Nino and its remake, Great Barrier Reef. I believe that the changes to Bel'Shir Beach in the upcoming GSL are for the same reason. Something like this is likely a large factor as to why Starcraft 2 map makers tend not to make desert themed maps.
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.
I 100% agree with this post and i'm a product designer as well. Simplicity and consistency are important requirements for an eSport and should be prevailing over aesthetics in this case. The options to change the lighting are available in the editor, so people can have fun with this in custom games. But it doesn't add any value to competative maps IMO.
As much as I agree with this, we also have to remember that there is room for variance within the "consistency" that eSports needs. For example, college football. The prevailing color scheme of fields is green grass with white lines denoting yardage, but then we see Boise State University's field which has blue turf. It's a variance from the norm, but it doesn't stop the game from being playable. In a similar way, during winter months there can often be covered in snow and yet the game will still be played.
So I think we can see variation in maps, within reason of course.
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.
imo those shots look waaaaaay way way too bright, to the point that some of the model detail is "obscured" by light (lol). but i like the light angle change, but there must be a reason why the developers made it how it is.
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
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
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.
I 100% agree with this post and i'm a product designer as well. Simplicity and consistency are important requirements for an eSport and should be prevailing over aesthetics in this case. The options to change the lighting are available in the editor, so people can have fun with this in custom games. But it doesn't add any value to competative maps IMO.
As much as I agree with this, we also have to remember that there is room for variance within the "consistency" that eSports needs. For example, college football. The prevailing color scheme of fields is green grass with white lines denoting yardage, but then we see Boise State University's field which has blue turf. It's a variance from the norm, but it doesn't stop the game from being playable. In a similar way, during winter months there can often be covered in snow and yet the game will still be played.
So I think we can see variation in maps, within reason of course.
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.
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!
Alternatively, we could see reskins of classic maps with this new lighting and different tilesets. Could make for some really cool stuff.
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.
wc3 had day n night cycles with nightelf units being able to "cloak" while standing still at night. would be a cool thing to have if they ever introduce the xel naga or hybrid race
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.
I definitely welcome map makers to make lighting changes and such to make me truly feel like I'm on a different planet, not just a different country. As long as it doesn't too harshly affect clarity of what's going on, I'm totally for this.
Your screenshot are absolutely beautiful and i agree wholeheartedly with you. It's nothing taxing on the cpu, they just need to work a bit to implement those things.
Noon shadowing also make the game much better from a spectator point of view.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
from a design perspective, this addition would be great, i love how it actually looks realistic! but from a gamers pov, it's going to be harder on the eyes and differentiate units during battle. there really is two side to this, but blueish green maps are easiest on my eyes and after hours of playing its best i don't strain it anymore lol
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.
I 100% agree with this post and i'm a product designer as well. Simplicity and consistency are important requirements for an eSport and should be prevailing over aesthetics in this case. The options to change the lighting are available in the editor, so people can have fun with this in custom games. But it doesn't add any value to competative maps IMO.
As much as I agree with this, we also have to remember that there is room for variance within the "consistency" that eSports needs. For example, college football. The prevailing color scheme of fields is green grass with white lines denoting yardage, but then we see Boise State University's field which has blue turf. It's a variance from the norm, but it doesn't stop the game from being playable. In a similar way, during winter months there can often be covered in snow and yet the game will still be played.
So I think we can see variation in maps, within reason of course.
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.[/QUOTE]
The casters were probably talking about it because the show features new maps, and also because the idea of better lighting and aesthetics got them excited. That probably means fans and players would get excited too.
On October 29 2011 05:33 fauxreal wrote: from a design perspective, this addition would be great, i love how it actually looks realistic! but from a gamers pov, it's going to be harder on the eyes and differentiate units during battle. there really is two side to this, but blueish green maps are easiest on my eyes and after hours of playing its best i don't strain it anymore lol
Just teach gamers eye-strain prevention. Every 15 minutes, you look at something further away or close your eyes for 15 seconds.
The color is a different variable than the brightness.
It is hard to extrapolate these things before testing. We'll have to try it and see what players say.
those map pics seemed so warm that my eyes started to burn... but yes, it does capture a different feel to maps that i feel were lacking (that's one of the reasons i loved the regular bel'shir beach, the white sands were something you didn't see in other maps)
On October 29 2011 05:40 theMiNUS wrote: those map pics seemed so warm that my eyes started to burn... but yes, it does capture a different feel to maps that i feel were lacking (that's one of the reasons i loved the regular bel'shir beach, the white sands were something you didn't see in other maps)
Thanks. I think we can capture this feel without making maps too bright for player eyes.
going a little off topic, but i noticed in the blizzcon video that they were making creep actually invade and creep up on enemy buildings now. It looks fabulous :D, since one of the new directions in HotS is to make it prettier than Wings, im not too worried about the future of SC2 art. I just wish they would work to beef up the sounds.
On October 29 2011 06:41 Railxp wrote: going a little off topic, but i noticed in the blizzcon video that they were making creep actually invade and creep up on enemy buildings now. It looks fabulous :D, since one of the new directions in HotS is to make it prettier than Wings, im not too worried about the future of SC2 art. I just wish they would work to beef up the sounds.
Yes, especially Protoss. I like the creep getting on enemy buildings. I DON'T like how creep kills foliage though. It is much too WC3/undead. Zerg are symbiotic, they change what they assimilate, they don't kill it.
On October 29 2011 06:59 Hairy wrote: My only question now is: you say this is the first topic of several about suggested visual improvements - what's next? :D
Maybe map layout and terrain and doodad aethetics. Unit art design is probably next. I might get into sound and interface if I think I can avoid being redundant. Loading screen aesthetics. Racial identity as it relates to colorways. I'd also like to address game and map mechanics from a design / spectator's perspective....maybe.
You should watch Dustins talk on last Game Developers Conference. Should shed some light on the issue. It is really interesting to watch for any sc2 interested ppl.
On October 29 2011 07:24 saynomore wrote: You should watch Dustins talk on last Game Developers Conference. Should shed some light on the issue. It is really interesting to watch for any sc2 interested ppl.
I remember watching most of it. Maybe I'll review so I can address specific shortcomings based on their own goals, as well as disagreements with some of their goals.
On October 29 2011 08:11 MShaw006 wrote: I'm with you so hard. The tilesets now are all so ugly and dark, it's depressing.
The tilesets are as they always have been. The maps however, are having a trend towards the dark, but I you use the map section of TL, you'll find some pretty bright works of art there.
It is very unfortunate that all of the maps that blizzard has introduced with the desert tile set have just been... shitty maps? The graphic of them, I thought, was always pretty cool. The maps themselves are what made people dislike them, not so much the tile set.
The aesthetic changes won't do anything to hinder the top gamers' performance, as the top cream of the crop will 90% of the time play everything on the lowest of low settings anyways. Shadows are usually disabled, since it just adds clutter. What visuals DO aim for, is pleasing the more casual players and spectators. I don't think the competitive echelon of players will complain about the subtle nuances that make spectators' eyes gleam with excitement being enhanced and polished. From a viewer's perspective, I would definitely like to see a bit more variety. From a player's perspective, I have everything turned way down and disabled, so it won't effect what I am comfortable with.
These types of things, to me, can only be good. It adds dynamic for the casual player and viewers, and wont disrupt gameplay for the performers.
What could be neat is if the spectators graphical art style isn't necessarily what the player has to see. They can play on the lowest blandest settings they want for competitive reasons, while the spectator can see it in Ultrahigh customized whachamacallit.
Love these, a whole lot! I think the reason for some lacking was the way WoL was a bit rushed for release, and then they didn't go again over the map styles that much, as they were already busy with HotS. But their showdown at Blizzcon means they think about it. Can't wait for desert and snow maps, and variety of lighting approaches to the maps. Thanks for these images, OP!
edit: meanwhile, one horrible trick to bring some visual variety is to turn the gamma up.
On October 29 2011 09:27 Torpedo.Vegas wrote: What could be neat is if the spectators graphical art style isn't necessarily what the player has to see. They can play on the lowest blandest settings they want for competitive reasons, while the spectator can see it in Ultrahigh customized whachamacallit.
This is already the case. That's the beauty of it, literally. =)
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.
I'm looking right now at hero stream. He play in low, as most pro players. Don't get me wrong, i love your idea ^^
second picture looks like its graphics are lower than the first one(first one looks more realistic). I like seing stuff look like theyre burning. I would also like to see the exact desert-like looking tileset.
IveReturned, the top image has linear 'falloff' (forget their word choice for that), the bottom has exponential (the default). I think another part of it is that the second image has softer textures and creep, while the top one has crisp rock cracks.
NOTE: I am NOT suggesting day/night cycle. Battles and environments feel fake when that is introduced. We want a game to feel like it's happening in real time, which wouldn't really change given the average SC2 game length.
So how about real time day/night settings? Have the sun set in game as it sets irl, corresponding to the timezone of the server you are on
I wouldnt mind some day/night mechanics either, but obviously then it would have to be separate from the actual time.
second picture looks like its graphics are lower than the first one(first one looks more realistic). I like seing stuff look like theyre burning. I would also like to see the exact desert-like looking tileset.
On November 04 2011 04:59 darunia wrote: This may be a dumb question...
Is there a way for users to create custom tile sets?
I feel like this would be the best way to utilize the artistic abilities of the community.
yep. you can mix the tiles from all of blizzards tilesets, and if you're super pro, you can create your own tiles with GIMP or w/e and put those into your map.
I think it would be really cool to have a random day/night time when the map spawns. Even if it's client localized, I think it would at the very least add some "superstition" to the game. "Aw man, I always lose games when it's noon!"
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PgeV3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IpeLz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-4/sandstorm-sahara-desert.jpg)
