EPTStarcraft 2's angle
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
himurakenshin
Canada1845 Posts
| ||
|
ShAsTa
Belgium2841 Posts
| ||
|
gLyo
United States2410 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
 | ||
|
Konni
Germany3044 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On July 19 2007 13:43 gLyo wrote: Since it's 3D, a lower angle would allow more units to be hidden behind terrain and other units. Though you could probably change it, a higher angle is better for game play. Yeah, I liked the old BW view... but this is 3d so we gotta learn to live with it for better or worse. or worse. | ||
|
oshibori_probe
United States2932 Posts
| ||
|
Scorpion
United States1974 Posts
On July 19 2007 14:12 oshibori_probe wrote: whats so wrong with 3d? Nothing. Everyone is just use to 9 years of sprites. We're moving on to Sprite remix! | ||
|
Tiku
18 Posts
I wonder if a 3D engine without the perspective bit would look good... Sort of how you can turn perspective on and off in Diablo 2, only in a real 3D engine. | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
This is definetly gonna kill the lift barracks trick and kinda every other trick that abuses the fact that starcraft is 2d | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
nofAcedAgent
United States952 Posts
On July 19 2007 19:00 imBLIND wrote: ummm o crap This is definetly gonna kill the lift barracks trick and kinda every other trick that abuses the fact that starcraft is 2d Haha good thinking.. You gota also imagine that areial units will move through space differently too..Im not saying this will have an affect on gameplay but it will look cool non the less ;p. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
-------------- Long answer for 2-d vs 3-d. For me 2-d just looks more detailed even when it's not. Some people have summed up some good reasons... some below: 3-d tries to look more real, but it fails b/c polygons cause things to be warped and 3-d things move in an unnatural way that bothers me. Once you get a super high polygon count, you are then so realistic that you can't make any mistakes or it looks plastic/fake. Even with no mistakes, the sheen and brightness makes it look plastic. 2-d, even with less details, overall it looks more appealing to the eye because it's more cartoonish(?) and cartoons can move in an unnatural way that still looks natural and smooth for some reason. Maybe b/c they have less realistic detail?? I think 2-d appeals to the imagination more b/c of this. 3-d makes me think of an artist who is good at painting skin color and muscles and stuff... but the muscles aren't in the right place and the eyes are too far apart. Or something like that. 2-d makes me think of a comic book artist... stylistic in a way that looks better than reality. Also, 2-d just seems better for precision/accuracy because it's more simple. At least in all the games I've played a lot, I can pintpoint and react very exactly with older 2d games. The newer the game, usually the less accurate it feels to me. I guess this is getting better over time though. | ||
|
Fedaykin
Netherlands2003 Posts
On July 19 2007 19:34 nofAcedAgent wrote: Haha good thinking.. You gota also imagine that areial units will move through space differently too..Im not saying this will have an affect on gameplay but it will look cool non the less ;p. You can probably still do this in some way... at least from what I've seen from SC2 is you're able to look from one angle, so unless you can rotate, units can still hide behind stuff, rather than underneath it (even if you can rotate it might give you some time to micro, or whatever, while the other if trying to target the unit in question) | ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
On July 20 2007 08:59 Fedaykin wrote: You can probably still do this in some way... at least from what I've seen from SC2 is you're able to look from one angle, so unless you can rotate, units can still hide behind stuff, rather than underneath it (even if you can rotate it might give you some time to micro, or whatever, while the other if trying to target the unit in question) hehe i imagine that sc2 progamers are practicing for an important match. one of the players somehow gets the other's default angle... and will exploit it with a cheese unit hiding strategy! omg :D | ||
|
NoNameLoser
United States1508 Posts
Take real life admirals, they command huge armies of battleships, etc. have the technology to have real life satelite observation, and yet they use simple 2d representations to plan/execute attack. Eventually after you play the game a lot, you could careless how big/shiny/ugly a unit looks or what it's attack looks like, all you care about is its life, location, range and damage. 2d makes a good compromise between these, however, i do not feel confident that 3d could do the same. Just look at war3... So maybe it could be practical to have "expandable minimap". There would not be any flashy graphics just the important info. To make things more interesting, say you could only control units there, not build anything. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On July 19 2007 13:48 Konni wrote: i hope its not as limited as it is in w3. at least i need to zoom out further It'll be so awesome if we can play command mode with super zoomed out angles! | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On July 20 2007 09:43 NoNameLoser wrote: its the argument of realism (through new tech) vs efficient strategical environment. Take real life admirals, they command huge armies of battleships, etc. have the technology to have real life satelite observation, and yet they use simple 2d representations to plan/execute attack. Eventually after you play the game a lot, you could careless how big/shiny/ugly a unit looks or what it's attack looks like, all you care about is its life, location, range and damage. 2d makes a good compromise between these, however, i do not feel confident that 3d could do the same. Just look at war3... So maybe it could be practical to have "expandable minimap". There would not be any flashy graphics just the important info. To make things more interesting, say you could only control units there, not build anything. the tactical map from supcom? or the really really zoomed out map from homeworld? i'm not a fan of that system for starcraft 2, don't really have any reasons yet. SC is too fast paced for something like this. If you look at SupCom and homeworld everything moves really really slowly | ||
|
NoNameLoser
United States1508 Posts
Yet i think it would still be usefull to have some kind of ability to take all the visual 3d-crap out to micro/set up an army, my hunch tells me that errors due to visual unclearness is gonna be a much much bigger factor than it is now. | ||
| ||
