|
No.
Lighting effects = realistic Physics engine = realistic Brighter lights/darker darks = realistic 3D models = realistic Unit shadows = realistic Occlusion = realistic Perspective = realistic Death animations = realistic
The graphics are NOT cartoony, that's just your damn nostalgia talking. If you take an objective look at a lot of the things in Starcraft 1, they made NO sense thanks to the poor graphics they were alotted. In a solar system where the planets have no atmosphere (judging by how Terrans have to wear space-capable suits), sunlight should be far more intense, therefore resulting in brighter lights. Darkness in space is NOT realistic unless they're fighting on the dark side of a planet, THEN I would understand.
|
blizzard graphics have been cartoony since warcraft 1, and i'm not complaining ??
|
On June 22 2007 17:26 rS]taCat wrote: 3D models = realistic debatable
|
This is a cartoon
SC2 isn't a Cartoon, nor Cartoony...
|
|
|
After seeing the Stargate, I've started feeling a lot better about SC2's graphics, but hey, I still seriously think they need to change the seige tank mode.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
it will be more about feeling that appearance. Appearance changes after first impressions.
|
I think things being remotely out of proportion (ie big arms and whatnot) that gave WoW and WC3 the sort of cartoony feel can be seen just a bit in SC2, at least so far I can see it. The only thing I'm bothered by is the slow motion explosions.
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
On June 22 2007 17:53 Boblion wrote:
Octorock is that you?
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
On June 22 2007 19:01 Stegosaur wrote:Octorock is that you? op pwnt
|
The zealot attack animation is very cartoony, looks like he throws himself off balance with every swing of his sword...
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
On June 22 2007 17:26 rS]taCat wrote: No.
Lighting effects = realistic Physics engine = realistic Brighter lights/darker darks = realistic 3D models = realistic Unit shadows = realistic Occlusion = realistic Perspective = realistic Death animations = realistic
The graphics are NOT cartoony, that's just your damn nostalgia talking. If you take an objective look at a lot of the things in Starcraft 1, they made NO sense thanks to the poor graphics they were alotted. In a solar system where the planets have no atmosphere (judging by how Terrans have to wear space-capable suits), sunlight should be far more intense, therefore resulting in brighter lights. Darkness in space is NOT realistic unless they're fighting on the dark side of a planet, THEN I would understand. The non realistic things regarding graphics are what made SC. You gotta love when zerglings and hydralisks die, they explode instead of falling down and leave a blood pool 3 times bigger than them. Same for goons. Those types of things made the gameplay funner.
|
|
Best photoshop ever.... I like this one too
Edit: because im an idiot.. I HATED the siege tank the first time I saw it. While the motion has grown on me (the quad track planting at all 4 corners), I think the large, un-cannon like nose thing looks very un-gunish. Perhaps they could split it down the middle, to make it a two barrel... I dunno. As it stands, it looks like it shoots a frisby.
|
fix the tanks!!!!!!!!1 and i dont really like the zergling but they are ok.
|
What exactly are your people's definitions of cartoony? Not meant to be a pointed question, just out of curiosity. I'm wondering how exactly people judge something to be cartoony...
|
when u change in 3d, and the object corners r not sharp. it would look cartoonish. so far the worse graphics is terran, zerg mutalisks looks exactly like undead gargoryles....
|
Which one is more cartoony?
|
On June 22 2007 20:48 Terranium wrote:Which one is more cartoony?
the being cartoonish is generally refer to terran graphics, protoss looks alright, zerg isnt shown to public yet.
|
|
|
|