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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
whole of SC2 looks absolutely brilliant imo... except for the siege tank .. but that goes without saying right? .. but hey even the tank is growing on me
The seige tank just looks odd, especially when I try to compare it to the one I know and love. It also looks like I won't be able to cram them together as closely :p
On June 22 2007 20:12 OrderlyChaos wrote: 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...
well in the example of starcraft 2, i would refer to the vibrancy of the colours, and also the choice of colours for backdrops and weapon attacks, in particular. if you've seen the latest video demonstration from sc2 with the jungle tileset and the soul hunters you'll get my point. i have a feeling though that they'll fix up the jungle tileset so it's not so wc3ish and out of place. i think you'll also notice that some of the terran units look glazed eg http://eu.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?9 a glazed look makes them look toyish, which is pretty much on par with that same cartoony look people are talking about.
i'm not bashing though. a number of things need work so they look how they should. i'm confident blizzard will get to it in due time though
the movements are too fluid for zealot attacks. it doesn't feel like it packs a punch. it's more like they are dancing. if you watch real mixed martial arts, the attacks are all very abrupt.
i'm not saying the zealot should start punching things, but when attacking with twin light sabers, the movement should be more abrupt and evil looking rather than acrobatic and fluid.
On June 22 2007 19:29 NotSorry wrote: The zealot attack animation is very cartoony, looks like he throws himself off balance with every swing of his sword...
I'm fine with that... they're supposed to be fearless zealots after all.
the being cartoonish is generally refer to terran graphics, protoss looks alright, zerg isnt shown to public yet.
agreed
I disagree. I think some of both terran and protoss units and buildings look cartoonish. For example tanks, bunkers ( a bit ), most of the protoss new air units, bcs, the mothership, photon cannons ... And some of the lasers effects are just ugly/disturbing. Nevertheless i really like the new stargate.
Hopefully zerglings look better in starcraft 2 ( they are so cute ), and marines are ok ( but get rid of this fucking shield ffs). And the maps ( platforms ) are just UBER awesome with a lot of details but i really dislike jungle maps ( look like war3 and are flashy/cartoonish ).
So i think Blizzard did a great job but i want them to change some units, special effects, and pleaz i want zealots with better moves ( abrupt like in Broodwar).
On June 22 2007 20:12 OrderlyChaos wrote: 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...
well in the example of starcraft 2, i would refer to the vibrancy of the colours, and also the choice of colours for backdrops and weapon attacks, in particular. if you've seen the latest video demonstration from sc2 with the jungle tileset and the soul hunters you'll get my point. i have a feeling though that they'll fix up the jungle tileset so it's not so wc3ish and out of place. i think you'll also notice that some of the terran units look glazed eg http://eu.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?9 a glazed look makes them look toyish, which is pretty much on par with that same cartoony look people are talking about.
i'm not bashing though. a number of things need work so they look how they should. i'm confident blizzard will get to it in due time though
Thanks for the explanation. It's the first really specific one I've seen. I agree that the Jungle tileset looks a bit bright for sc, but they might not have worked on it too much other than seemingly importing it from WC3. The stargate kicks ass though. Now I see what the first one was supposed to portray.
just a random screenshot i found on google. how can sc2 possibly be more cartoony than sc1?
they are finding ways. look what they did to our zealots!! they're all squeezable and plushlike. i liked their ruggedness and voice before. listen at their voices now! http://www.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/index.xml?tab=zealot they sound like they're already dying
by "cartoony" i think people mean that the units have
big heads big hands big feet rounded edges etc
all this alludes to a "cute" and "harmless" feeling and not the kind of badass chainsaw-your-ass action we are looking for.
the zealot right now seriously has a head too big with short dagger like blades. i do realize they are not meant to be lightsaber length but just overall the shapes and lines are too rounded and it just does not look menacing. it does not give off this aura of a warrior that has trained decades to meditate and channel his minds psionic energies into pure physical blades and can take down three marines alone (if that is the case)
the tank looks like some backyard science project made by an overenthusiastic kid. the siege tank cannon should be longer, the body of the tank not round and just more weapon like.
on the otherhand the soul hunter, twilight archon and tempest look much better and definately communicate the message that they are gonna crack open a can of whoopass very quickly.
other units like the immortal and stalker are on the edge of acceptable. the stalker's walking limbs can be made sharper as if it can use them as stabbing weapons. the center of gravity of the unit should be lowered a little too. the colossus really looks like its going to topple from a rat's fart.
sc's zealots grunting and attacking, the darktemplar's cloaked cape floating in the breeze, and the siege tank clamp its claw like shits into the ground and rain arclite hell on its enemies. i think if blizz wants ppl to take sc2 seriously the graphics need a little makeover. im not saying its shitty i just think the units have a lot of room for improvement
How can someone even say that they like the graphics in vanilla or BW? it laughable. You are just so used to using your imagination that your mind has filled in what the game lacked... Look at a picture of a zealot at size and resolution and try to imagine that you had never seen one before. You wouldnt even be able to tell that the thing had legs, much less 'psi blades'. Get over yourself... its just nostalgia. The sprites are 10 or 11 years old, there is really nothing good about them. If you had never seen them before, you you say it was the ugliest thing you had ever seen, and would be more suited for a BW Gameboy from back in the day...
iThe science vessel is laughable... it doesn't even turn as it moves... the stupid 'eyes' are always facing the player. Cummon, at least try to be objective...
The graphics coloring still make them look like candies. They are rather cartoony to me. A well drawn cartoon like the Incredibles, Finding Nemo, or Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (Spirited Away)... but still cartoony. :p
On June 23 2007 10:43 treckin wrote: The science vessel is laughable... it doesn't even turn as it moves... the stupid 'eyes' are always facing the player. Cummon, at least try to be objective...
Edited for stupidity
Those "eyes" aren't eyes at all, and you can tell which way a Vessel is facing by the observational camera at the top.
Let me just start by saying that i actually love everything about SC2 so far except for a few minor things that will probably be fixed for the final release, anyways..
..To all the people who post pictures and whatever saying stuff like "omfg look, SC1 is more cartoony than SC2!" you need to understand that the people who complain about SC2 being cartoony are NOT referring to the way the game was created (3d models vs Drawn sprites), for the love of god we know that SC1 one looks more cartoony in the sense that the stuff is actually drawn, but that doesn't change the fact that the SC2 Tank looks like a toy compared to the more grittier looking SC1 Tank.
What they are referring to is most likely the stuff pyrogenetix explained so well above, units with big heads, big feet, round kid-friendly edges on the units etc.
Kind of off topic but I must say that after reading the 1st post in this thread - SCREW REALISM. I hate how important realism is in every game out there, why? How do you defy realism in *Starcraft*? How can it even be realistic?!
I remember someone here saying how bad it was that the tank from original SC had a square barrel. So fucking what? It looks beautiful the way it is, much better than the SC2 one. Stop the crappy 'realism talk', what I want is art!
Graphics in SC2 are a bit cartoony, like *EVERY* 3D RTS I've seen so far. But honestly, it's not that bad the way it is. Few things could be corrected, of course, and who knows, maybe they will get fixed. So far it's ok the way it is - not perfect, but good enough for me.
Great point... Of course some of the models look odd, but really there is no way to tell out of context... Until we are able to see the game as a whole, some of the units will just seem odd. Ex: The queen, by itself, is one of the oddest looking little 10 pixel things ever, untill its broodling-ing your tanks... The colosus looks weird, but until we can see the entire motif behind the new toss, there is no way to tell the reasoning behind that.
On June 23 2007 12:12 True_Spike wrote: Kind of off topic but I must say that after reading the 1st post in this thread - SCREW REALISM. I hate how important realism is in every game out there, why? How do you defy realism in *Starcraft*? How can it even be realistic?!
I remember someone here saying how bad it was that the tank from original SC had a square barrel. So fucking what? It looks beautiful the way it is, much better than the SC2 one. Stop the crappy 'realism talk', what I want is art!
Graphics in SC2 are a bit cartoony, like *EVERY* 3D RTS I've seen so far. But honestly, it's not that bad the way it is. Few things could be corrected, of course, and who knows, maybe they will get fixed. So far it's ok the way it is - not perfect, but good enough for me.
Of course sprite graphics are going to look more gritty than 3-d graphics - 3-d is more refined. You can't expect to get the same degree of graphics feel that you did with 2-d sprites with 3-d polygons. It's impossible.
On June 23 2007 11:28 treckin wrote: Ohhhhh I suppose that makes it look GREAT.... The thing looks like shit... venture a glance at the one in the screenshot above...
I was merely correcting you. No need to be hostile.
On June 23 2007 13:12 rS]taCat wrote: Of course sprite graphics are going to look more gritty than 3-d graphics - 3-d is more refined. You can't expect to get the same degree of graphics feel that you did with 2-d sprites with 3-d polygons. It's impossible.
You can still make angles sharp in 3D...thats what they are trying to say..It isn't sharp enough...The units don't look like they'd kick your ass....
I think the zealot models are pretty cool, but the way they fight looks more like drunken boxing than anything else :> Zealots should fight like this (skip the first minute or so):
On June 23 2007 17:17 Stegosaur wrote: I think the zealot models are pretty cool, but the way they fight looks more like drunken boxing than anything else :> Zealots should fight like this (skip the first minute or so):
On June 23 2007 17:17 Stegosaur wrote: I think the zealot models are pretty cool, but the way they fight looks more like drunken boxing than anything else :> Zealots should fight like this (skip the first minute or so):
As far as the roundness factor of unit models contributing to any "cartoony" look, keep in mind that the vast majority of units revealed so far have been Protoss.
Protoss have always been a race of smooth, rounded machinery. They do no deal in rivets, bolts, and metal plates. Smooth and seamless is the perfect look, so of course units shown thus far are going to be rounded.
On June 22 2007 20:12 OrderlyChaos wrote: 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...
well in the example of starcraft 2, i would refer to the vibrancy of the colours, and also the choice of colours for backdrops and weapon attacks, in particular. if you've seen the latest video demonstration from sc2 with the jungle tileset and the soul hunters you'll get my point. i have a feeling though that they'll fix up the jungle tileset so it's not so wc3ish and out of place. i think you'll also notice that some of the terran units look glazed eg http://eu.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?9 a glazed look makes them look toyish, which is pretty much on par with that same cartoony look people are talking about.
i'm not bashing though. a number of things need work so they look how they should. i'm confident blizzard will get to it in due time though
All they really need to do with SC2, is just make it look more rough. I really expected Terran units/buildings to have a really rough look to them. I can let Protoss shit slide in that department though, since they just have the look of "Superiority".
On June 23 2007 17:17 Stegosaur wrote: I think the zealot models are pretty cool, but the way they fight looks more like drunken boxing than anything else :> Zealots should fight like this (skip the first minute or so):
On June 23 2007 12:12 True_Spike wrote: Kind of off topic but I must say that after reading the 1st post in this thread - SCREW REALISM. I hate how important realism is in every game out there, why? How do you defy realism in *Starcraft*? How can it even be realistic?!
I remember someone here saying how bad it was that the tank from original SC had a square barrel. So fucking what? It looks beautiful the way it is, much better than the SC2 one. Stop the crappy 'realism talk', what I want is art!
Graphics in SC2 are a bit cartoony, like *EVERY* 3D RTS I've seen so far. But honestly, it's not that bad the way it is. Few things could be corrected, of course, and who knows, maybe they will get fixed. So far it's ok the way it is - not perfect, but good enough for me.
I disagree somewhat...the graphics of starcraft were as realistic as possible at the time, while not completely obscuring game play. With this nice 3D engine that they have now, they can make the units distinct while still giving them a more realistic feel. I'm not saying they should take a model of a real tank and shrink it down or anything, I'm just saying that realism is a plus as long as everything is distinct and fits together well to create an atmosphere.
I think the toss are good, besides a little awkwardness with the colossus and non-manly zealots (did the manly ones die off in starcraft?). And I think the zerg will be very cool (judging from what I've seen so far). But I just think the terran are a little 'off' imho (buildings, men, and tanks). Except for the missile turrets. The little red men remind me of mario, the tanks look like platypuses, and the buildings look like plastic.
On June 22 2007 21:39 IIICodeIIIIIII wrote: the movements are too fluid for zealot attacks. it doesn't feel like it packs a punch. it's more like they are dancing. if you watch real mixed martial arts, the attacks are all very abrupt.
i'm not saying the zealot should start punching things, but when attacking with twin light sabers, the movement should be more abrupt and evil looking rather than acrobatic and fluid.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one. Blizzard, please think about this one!
On June 22 2007 21:39 IIICodeIIIIIII wrote: the movements are too fluid for zealot attacks. it doesn't feel like it packs a punch. it's more like they are dancing. if you watch real mixed martial arts, the attacks are all very abrupt.
i'm not saying the zealot should start punching things, but when attacking with twin light sabers, the movement should be more abrupt and evil looking rather than acrobatic and fluid.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one. Blizzard, please think about this one!
Yeah, it's too fricking flashy. Looks like the same animation as the Assassin from Guild Wars. Zealots are not ninjas. Dark Templars are. But then again, Dark Templars are more direct with instant kills.
On June 23 2007 17:17 Stegosaur wrote: I think the zealot models are pretty cool, but the way they fight looks more like drunken boxing than anything else :> Zealots should fight like this (skip the first minute or so):
When we look at Zealot's, it's important to remember they are effectively berserkers. So the idea of them as abrupt, brutal fighters rather than the careless finesse of the Dark Templar makes sense to me.
On June 22 2007 21:39 IIICodeIIIIIII wrote: the movements are too fluid for zealot attacks. it doesn't feel like it packs a punch. it's more like they are dancing. if you watch real mixed martial arts, the attacks are all very abrupt.
i'm not saying the zealot should start punching things, but when attacking with twin light sabers, the movement should be more abrupt and evil looking rather than acrobatic and fluid.
It isn't supposed to pack a punch. They don't punch at all, they are using weightless weapons designed to slice through the enemy without relying on momentum to do damage.
Their attacks are fluid and smooth because that would be the most effective means of combat when it comes to a weapon designed to cut right through.
Also, for whomever it was that argued that lots are supposed to be berserkers, I disagree. They train for many years to hone their skills to the point when the raging frenzy can be channeled into a controllable combat style. They may be berserker-esque, but they are not wild and random about fighting.
Its not Cartoony. Its just bulkier than the original Stracraft we're so used too. The lighting created through the 3d game engine they are using emphasizes the curves, as all game engines do. The colors, the models and the terrain all add up to the same thing. Its bulkier, different to the slimer, 2d art we're used too.
There are a few people who have placed their faith in Blizzard, that they will listen and adjust the earlier ingame graphics to fit our needs accordingly. THIS I highly doubt - Starcraft 2 is within a year of its release date, they've already shown so much of the Terran units through theatrical previews and ingame demonstrations, that to backtrack now and revamp all those prior units, is just too costly. The most they'd do is fix the seige tank, which seems to be the main focus of this controversy.
The fucking logo itself is already cartoon-ish. Look at the lighting, especially of the "II". It looks like a lollipop or some plastic jewelry from a kellogs box.
SC2.. is cartoony look at all the terran models, zealots, blabla it doesn't look right. The main aspect about starcraft was, all units were cool and badass. Right now, SC2 can't recapture the cool-factor starcraft has. "You wanna piece of me, boy." That is badass. "My life for Aiur" > "I am the blades of Aiur." Dude, you on crack?
I am going to repeat it again. There is no coolness! When I first saw an archon, I was like fuck, that must be an bad ass weapon. And there are so many more examples. Right now I see pussy weapons and pussy galore all over the place, the only weapon I was like, that is cool, was the stalker.
They even managed to fuck up siege tanks! Well, most people agree with me on this
To say it blunt, why people talk about cartoony, is to put it simply, there is no coolness in this game. And perhaps most of the units are way too fucking round. There are no sharp curves.
aah well shoot me, starcraft 2 will never surpass Sc with Browder
On June 22 2007 19:33 treckin wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
On June 24 2007 22:49 Mikfly wrote: There are a few people who have placed their faith in Blizzard, that they will listen and adjust the earlier ingame graphics to fit our needs accordingly. THIS I highly doubt - Starcraft 2 is within a year of its release date, they've already shown so much of the Terran units through theatrical previews and ingame demonstrations, that to backtrack now and revamp all those prior units, is just too costly. controversy.
just a random screenshot i found on google. how can sc2 possibly be more cartoony than sc1?
QFT
Starcraft has cartoony graphics. SC2's is debatable, but because it's part of Blizzard's artistic precedent, I'm sure that the final product will also be somewhat cartoony. However, just because the models and textures and whatnot look cartoony doesn't mean it will be a bad game, or even distract you. What happened to gameplay > graphics? Why all the damn whining about how the game looks?
Focus on the gameplay mechanics, if it's fast and furious, if it's easy to get into but takes a lifetime to master, if it will be fun. Let's not think about if the damn zealots look less manly or if the siege tank looks like a frisby throwing device.
Why are we judging a book on the fricken cover? Come on people. Also, the game is in it's earliest stages. All this premature crying is unnecessary at best. Remember the images of Starcraft in it's earliest stages? Yeah, and look how it turned out. Blizzard knows what it's doing.
No matter what, the game will kick ass and you guys will have no choice to agree. Have faith.
On July 04 2007 17:38 FrozenArbiter wrote: I dare you to count the mutas in a ZvZ or the zerglings in a ZvP.
And yes they are removing some emphasis micro, COMPARED TO WARCRAFT 3 - a game consisting of 90% micro 10% macro ;p
Yeah but thats cause they use like 70 apm anything after that is all spam. Theres more micro in sc then wc. warcraft 3 micro is basic and is complete noob crap compared to sc.
No, no it's not ;p It's different in a lot of ways but there's some pretty amazing micro in the game too, although none that I can be as impressed by as the SC micro since I don't play War3.
War3 is more micro based not only in the sense that it counts more than macro when compared to SC, but there really are more micro actions to be performed than in SC. It's a matter of taste which of the two you prefer or you find more fun, but saying War3 is spam above 70APM or is "noob crap" is ignorant.
Since this is a SC site most of us will agree that micro in SC is more spectacular or manly or even more emotionally rewarding. But that doesn't make an objective argument for calling other games noobfests. Go to wcreplays.com and watch a couple of replays of top players then go back and re-read your post.
As for the cluttering of the screen, I'm sure it's something we all want to avoid, but tell me, would you call 8 carriers with their interceptors flying around everywhere like a swarm of flies "not cluttered"? Can you clearly see what's going on under a distruption web or a dark swarm? Watch that hour-long game of Nal_ra vs Gorush, you'll find all 3 present at the same time on the screen. If you can look at that and tell me with a straight face that SC doesn't have cluttering then you should pick up poker.
Excessive clutter is bad and the fewer the better, but don't exaggerate the impact of the look of a few certain unit combinations on the success of the game and don't judge the game on the whole based on that criterion alone.
On July 05 2007 11:06 Doctorasul wrote:Watch that hour-long game of Nal_ra vs Gorush, you'll find all 3 present at the same time on the screen. If you can look at that and tell me with a straight face that SC doesn't have cluttering then you should pick up poker.
On July 05 2007 11:06 Doctorasul wrote: War3 is more micro based not only in the sense that it counts more than macro when compared to SC, but there really are more micro actions to be performed than in SC. It's a matter of taste which of the two you prefer or you find more fun, but saying War3 is spam above 70APM or is "noob crap" is ignorant.
Since this is a SC site most of us will agree that micro in SC is more spectacular or manly or even more emotionally rewarding. But that doesn't make an objective argument for calling other games noobfests. Go to wcreplays.com and watch a couple of replays of top players then go back and re-read your post.
As for the cluttering of the screen, I'm sure it's something we all want to avoid, but tell me, would you call 8 carriers with their interceptors flying around everywhere like a swarm of flies "not cluttered"? Can you clearly see what's going on under a distruption web or a dark swarm? Watch that hour-long game of Nal_ra vs Gorush, you'll find all 3 present at the same time on the screen. If you can look at that and tell me with a straight face that SC doesn't have cluttering then you should pick up poker.
Excessive clutter is bad and the fewer the better, but don't exaggerate the impact of the look of a few certain unit combinations on the success of the game and don't judge the game on the whole based on that criterion alone.
What scares me most about the bright, plastic, cartoony graphics of SC2 is how it reflects Blizzard's attitude about its games. Graphics are only a measure of technology, but it's undeniable that the original game was much darker, grittier, and bloodier than SC2.
I'm afraid that Blizzard's integrity as a company has changed profoundly since it produced the disgustingly profitable World of Warcraft. It bothers me to see traces of WC3 and WoW's cartoony art style in SC2 because it tells me that profit is going to be a higher priority than quality gameplay.
Especially after playing WoW for over a year...which was fun for a while, but ultimately dried up into a $15/month carrot on a stick...I've lost a lot of respect for Blizzard, especially after their poor customer service on WoW, the extreme time commitment the game requires to progress, and even the nagging little peon on the Cancel Account page who tries to convince you to keep playing.
Nothing against the cartoony art style, but it's troubling to see it implemented in a sequel to dark, gritty Starcraft. On the other hand, 1) like others have said, it's harder to be more artistically accurate with 3D graphics than with pixel-perfect 2D, and 2) previews and demos are usually brighter and more candy-colored than the actual game (look at the back of the original Starcraft and BW boxes). However, there's no denying the change in art style, either. (Check out this guy's avatar, which was confirmed to be a SC2 High Templar.)
Of course, if the gameplay in SC2 is as solid as it was in the original, I'm happy. But a company's attitude affects everything it does, and I'm worried that the cartoony graphics in the SC2 demo are foreshadowing poorer gameplay. Having played Starcraft, WC3, and WoW, I've watched Blizzard's integrity sag, and these graphics are making me really pessimistic about SC2.
I don't really care how it looks--It could be all boxy for all I care. What matters is reaction time and how well the units move and interact. SC is great in those aspects but I hope that Blizzard focuses on making it even better. And they better not sacrifice those things in the name of graphics/realism/special effects.
Didn't think this needed a new thread so bumping this old thread with some good insight in the way SC1's graphics were created, and why they look so gritty, click spoiler tags for a long-ass post on blizzforums.com, a good read.
I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but it didn't seem to catch much attention. StarCraft 1 runs in 256 colours. The strongly cartoony design of StarCraft 1 is toned down because of the colour restrictions. While there's a lot of colourful stuff in StarCraft 1 (as the rainbow marine image posted earlier in the thread highlights quite well), the colour palette as a whole is relatively muted. Blizzard chose colours that were relatively harmonious because it enabled them to have subtler shading and colour gradients.
If you use 256 colours, but lots of colour variety, you get a nasty clashing look which you can see in the StarCraft early alpha screenshots. I'm sure you're all glad that at least StarCraft 2 doesn't look anything like that.
With the exception of the interface, you will notice that StarCraft 1 has no light greens at all. This is the main reason for the "dirty", "gritty" feeling that people keep mentioning. It's also why the look of the Jungle terrain in StarCraft 2 surprised many StarCraft 1 fans when they first saw it. Those colours didn't exist in StarCraft.
The reason they didn't exist was because of technical limitations at the time. They had decided (for performance reasons) to limit the game to 8-bit colour, so they could either have detail, or they could have a broader range of colour. They chose detail. All the missing spots for greens (and reds and pinks) were taken up by lots of extra shades of blue and brown that let them have much more detailed looking terrain, and water, and mineral crystals (and Protoss pylons).
The result is pretty impressive. StarCraft 1 was one of the last top quality games released that only used 256 colours. It's one of the best looking 256-colour games around, in my opinion.
So where does all this leave StarCraft 2? Now they have millions of colours to play around with. This is absolutely necessary of course. You just can't have the texture detail you're seeing in StarCraft 2 without at least 16-bit colour. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the game just ran in 32-bit.
Now Blizzard has the freedom to fully and properly implement the cartoony design ethic they've always had, without any colour palette limitations. And the result is more or less what you see - except that by release time StarCraft 2 is going to be looking even better than it does now. Don't worry about minor stuff like individual unit models that look bad at the moment. Lots of those will change before release, and no matter what there will always be something you don't like the look of. I think the Archon attack in StarCraft 1 looks really stupid, but I really couldn't give a stuff about that when I'm playing.
Sure, they could cut out many of the colours they had no choice but to leave out of StarCraft 1. They could emphasize the blues and the browns again. But the "gritty" look is what everyone else has. Take a look at the other RTS games going around. C&C 3 is a great example. They all look like that! Blizzard has a completely different aesthetic. Blizzard is cartoony and always has been. That's what makes their graphics look so good, despite the fact that due to long development times their games are usually a bit technologically outdated when they get released.
Blizzard doesn't go for realism. Blizzard goes for style. Blizzard goes for personality. That's what makes Blizzard games stand out.
EPT
??![[image loading]](http://www.novadentalpartners.com/images/Services/Bugs%20Bunny.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/9052/lolz2ym4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://borkweb.com/wp-content/upload/WTF_hax.jpg)
), and marines are ok ( but get rid of this fucking shield ffs). And the maps ( platforms ) are just UBER awesome with a lot of details but i really dislike jungle maps ( look like war3 and are flashy/cartoonish ). ![[image loading]](http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061103/starcraft01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ps2media.gamespy.com/ps2/image/article/725/725582/dragon-ball-z-budokai-tenkaichi-2-20060814055719395-000.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=octoroktankqj5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://gunbound.softnyx-korea.net/image/02_about/b_grub.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.videogamesprites.net/Zelda1/Enemies/Octorok%20-%20Red%20(Left).gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.chip.de/ii/121940626_25570385bb.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Nukelaunch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.jeuxvideopc.com/images/screenshots/10085/gdf_wm/1.jpg)
