|
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.
do you realise SC2 doesn't have a budget?
|
On June 23 2007 09:49 Aepplet wrote: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 June 23 2007 09:49 Aepplet wrote:+ Show Spoiler [qouted image] +just a random screenshot i found on google. how can sc2 possibly be more cartoony than sc1?
That was 1998 year. This is not cartoony graphics for 2D game of that year.
That's cartoony (2000ye):
and for the variety sake, serious graphics of 1997 year
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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. Do you have a video of that mate?
|
Yes, I still have it on my hard drive. I uploaded it on the tracker, you can find it here.
Edit: I will turn off my computer in a couple of hours but resume seeding tomorrow.
|
I'll seed for a few hours, I just downloaded that HQ version the other day.
|
On July 04 2007 19:55 Yogurt wrote:
its lovely day
just got paid
stack it up
be on my way
I second this
|
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.
^ well put
|
Whoa. This thread is still alive? o_O;;
Sorry for inciting so much conflict -_- I just believe in Blizzard too much and am too vocal about my ideas.
|
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.
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
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.
+ Show Spoiler +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.
Taken from http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=10144
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061103/starcraft01.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)
