EPT![[image loading]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/Doctorasul/960874538-00.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/Doctorasul/goggles_and_bowler.jpg)
Cartoony graphics? - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
DeadVessel
United States6269 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32163 Posts
On June 22 2007 19:33 treckin wrote: Best photoshop ever.... I like this one too ![[image loading]](http://borkweb.com/wp-content/upload/WTF_hax.jpg) 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. ROFL this image is fucking gold the only things i feel are cartoony are maybe some terran units... mostly the tank. it looks fucking lame. but something about the some of the buildings and the marines seem off as well. and i agree with the zealot's attack motion. seems like it needs to have more of a punch to it. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 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. I have to take issue with your science here. Sunlight intensity on an alien planet is going to depend mainly on the distance from the star(s) and their brightness. The atmosphere (the one we're familiar with) doesn't block a lot of visible light unless there are clouds or fog. It does do some refraction and some scattering (bright blue sky, for instance), however, so ambient light doesn't depend as much on the specifics of local terrain. Anyway, the designs are definitely more cartoony. Witness the more exaggerated Zealot attack swing, compare the new siege tank "standing on tippy treads" mode to the old way of setting down roots, contrast the simple, utilitarian, convincing original bunkers and missile turrets with the new fancified versions. Note especially the big, bright, shiny, rounded plastic red corners of the barracks. Three related general things stand out in particular, and they mostly hurt the Terrans: 1) team colors. They're kind of hard to see in SC1, they fixed it in SC2, but at the cost of putting big blocks of bright primary colors on the units, which makes them a bit harder to take seriously. 2) shiny plastic units. They don't look gritty, worn, and real like the coarsely dithered SC1 sprites, they have that costume/prop/toy fake newness. This is made worse by (1). 3) high resolution 3D graphics. The SC1 graphics were pixel-perfect (because there just weren't many pixels to make perfect). They always appeared exactly as the artist intended them to, and they left something to the imagination; in the low resolution it's easier for the eye to imagine it's seeing what you expect to see. 3d is just much harder to do well than 2d graphics, and a slightly cartoony look just works better with our present 3d technology. A big motivator for (2). (1) is hard to fix satisfactorily. Team colors are important. (2) easily fixed, if they want to. I don't think they want to. There are dull, dirty things in the environment, they're choosing to make the units and buildings shiny and new and perfect. (3) the nature of the beast. Choosing not to fight it is probably wise. I would like to see a grittier SC2, but I mostly like the new graphics (the protoss stuff especially is all gorgeous). If you don't think they're at least a little more cartoony, though, I don't know how you'd justify that. | ||
|
Yogurt
United States4258 Posts
| ||
|
NullHK
China340 Posts
On June 22 2007 17:53 Boblion wrote: ![[image loading]](http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/9052/lolz2ym4.jpg) nada is gonna look like a chump if he tries to tornado in sc2 | ||
|
rupert
182 Posts
I don't like the reaper too. This is what we talk about when we say cartoony: Their jump pack always throw flames even when they're not used. When they die they fly like fireworks. | ||
|
T-P-S
United States204 Posts
On July 01 2007 02:25 rupert wrote: And the protoss new fleet. The units look fragile and are hollow. They look like if you shoot them without the shield, they'll fall apart. In sc1, the units look though and well plated. I don't like the reaper too. This is what we talk about when we say cartoony: Their jump pack always throw flames even when they're not used. When they die they fly like fireworks. Only one of the new Protoss air units is "hollow", and the fragile look fits them just fine. The actual toss people are very thin and physically weak in appearance, which they make up for with shields and other advanced technology. What do you mean by saying that the units in StarCraft look "though"? Also, the reaper jump packs are always active. Even when the unit is stationary, they're hovering, | ||
|
HypersonicEspo
United States74 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. Obviously you have no idea what your talking about. sc1 didn't have that crap and it looked gritty. It's all in the way things are drawn and colors used. You can easily argue some of things you mentioned done in a certain way it can become more cartoony then things without them. What does it matter if according to you "planets are more bright" if it isn't blindingly bright and if it was that would just be gay..... and your logic is flawed anyway. Fighting in space and going to all sorts of planets a space suit might be useful and theres a hell of a lot of planets with atmosphere but would kill humans you dumbass. Not every planet is close to the star and many aren't as bright as ours. If everything in a game was just like real life we wouldn't have games. | ||
|
lastshadow
United States1372 Posts
 | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
thats all i dont like about the zealot but i really really don't like it its about the only thing i can say i dislike from what i've seen though | ||
|
Mutaahh
Netherlands859 Posts
SC1 is as ugly as HELL, but who gives a fuck.. .stop talking about the graphics and accept it... SC1 = ugly, SC2 = ugly, GAMEPLAY > all Don't you say to friends, who see you play starcraft:" wow Starcraft is ugly dude, those graphics are really OLD" .. then you say: CARE? gameplay is godlike ^^ and now u all (ok not all some) cry about graphics... damn... what does it matter, Far Cry had awesome graphics, but not an good multiplayer, so the game is dead now... same for allot other shooter with awesome graphics.. (fear?) but games with good gameplay still are owning the games with sick graphics.... 1.6 > source right? (since source is just 1.6 with a new engine....) K tnx Bye | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On July 04 2007 15:23 Mutaahh wrote: So, i though we starcraft players never whine about Graphics, gameplay > all right? SC1 is as ugly as HELL, but who gives a fuck.. .stop talking about the graphics and accept it... SC1 = ugly, SC2 = ugly, GAMEPLAY > all Don't you say to friends, who see you play starcraft:" wow Starcraft is ugly dude, those graphics are really OLD" .. then you say: CARE? gameplay is godlike ^^ and now u all (ok not all some) cry about graphics... damn... what does it matter, Far Cry had awesome graphics, but not an good multiplayer, so the game is dead now... same for allot other shooter with awesome graphics.. (fear?) but games with good gameplay still are owning the games with sick graphics.... 1.6 > source right? (since source is just 1.6 with a new engine....) K tnx Bye We're not complaining about the graphics, we're complaining about the artwork. Modern games have great graphics but bad artwork. SC had old graphics but great art. And great art is needed to live up to SC's feel and as well as for ease of gaming. | ||
|
grobo
Japan6199 Posts
On July 04 2007 15:23 Mutaahh wrote: So, i though we starcraft players never whine about Graphics, gameplay > all right? SC1 is as ugly as HELL, but who gives a fuck.. .stop talking about the graphics and accept it... SC1 = ugly, SC2 = ugly, GAMEPLAY > all Don't you say to friends, who see you play starcraft:" wow Starcraft is ugly dude, those graphics are really OLD" .. then you say: CARE? gameplay is godlike ^^ and now u all (ok not all some) cry about graphics... damn... what does it matter, Far Cry had awesome graphics, but not an good multiplayer, so the game is dead now... same for allot other shooter with awesome graphics.. (fear?) but games with good gameplay still are owning the games with sick graphics.... 1.6 > source right? (since source is just 1.6 with a new engine....) K tnx Bye I don't think you understand what the people are talking about when they say they don't like a certain thing about the graphics, i don't care about the graphics one bit but when it becomes a nuisance like in WC3 it bothers me because it actually makes the gameplay worse, a battle between 20vs20 units in WC3 is pure chaos, spells, buffs, massive units all over the place, it's almost impossible to follow what is actually happening on the screen. As long as SC2 doesn't end up like that (which i've been told it won't) i don't give a damn about the graphics. | ||
|
HypersonicEspo
United States74 Posts
On July 04 2007 15:45 grobo wrote: The artwork in sc2 is in fact interfering with the game and its looking a bit like warcraft. I dare you to count the zerglings without using pause or looking at the panel. Plus they are taking micro out of the game in other ways.I don't think you understand what the people are talking about when they say they don't like a certain thing about the graphics, i don't care about the graphics one bit but when it becomes a nuisance like in WC3 it bothers me because it actually makes the gameplay worse, a battle between 20vs20 units in WC3 is pure chaos, spells, buffs, massive units all over the place, it's almost impossible to follow what is actually happening on the screen. As long as SC2 doesn't end up like that (which i've been told it won't) i don't give a damn about the graphics. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
And yes they are removing some emphasis micro, COMPARED TO WARCRAFT 3 - a game consisting of 90% micro 10% macro ;p | ||
|
Yogurt
United States4258 Posts
just got paid stack it up be on my way | ||
|
NaDazpwnz3r
United States111 Posts
| ||
|
Nickisonfire
United States440 Posts
| ||
| ||
