|
It's something that's been bothering me a long time, but seeing as how the point of beta is to give feedback, I think it needs to be asked: Why do people keep saying that Starcraft 2 looks cartoony or toy-like?
I'm not saying it's a wrong opinion, but it's an issue I'm genuinely curious about because I really don't know what makes people think this. At a glance, SC2 looks almost completely similar to SC1. The unit sizes are similar, the building sizes are similar, and even the environments look similar. Yet for some reason Starcraft 1 is seen as perfectly fine while Starcraft 2 is bashed for being toy-like or Warcraft-like. The Terrans in particular get the most complaints in this regard, and people really seem to have a problem with how they look.
A part of me wants to say it's just nostalgia, but after seeing how practically every game forum has people, even those who have never played SC1, saying that the game looks toy-like leads me to believe that there might be a problem. It's just that I don't know where exactly that problem exists. So for those of you who believe that SC2 looks too cartoony or toy-like, can you provide SPECIFIC reasons why the game looks cartoony that SC1 didn't have? And when I say specific, I mean specific. Please avoid overly broad comments like "It has WoW gayness" or "Too colorful".
EDIT: Picture comparisons would also be appreciated.
|
Because of the sprites sc1 looks very gritty. Because sc2 is in 3D with all the crazy lighting effects everything looks like shiny plastic.
|
That was like a year ago, no? i can't even remember the last time i saw someone call SC2 toy like.
|
On February 24 2010 01:33 grobo wrote:
That was like a year ago, no? i can't even remember the last time i saw someone call SC2 toy like.
|
Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
|
terran looked very toy like (esp the seige tank) but blizzard listened to our pleas and added a lot of grit to the terran buildings and redesigned the seige tank, so it's better now (for the most part)
|
I used to think Terran looked toy-like but they've changed it since.
In the current build if anything looks toy-like it's the Zerg. A few of their units looks like cuddly toys, especially the Ultralisk.
That's not the only concern with Zerg though, there's also the problem of distinguishing units on creep and Lings clumping up so much you can't really see where they are. (from a stream perspective)
|
On February 24 2010 01:36 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
And that's toy-like because... ?
|
I agree, the battles seem ridiculously impossible to micro. Too much going on, and sutff dies too fast to be able to tell which unit too micro. Maybe the units attacks too fast, or the battle sequence actions the units take aren't significant enough.
For example, when a dragoon fires, u know exactly where the shot is coming from ,and who it targets. In sc2 its just like PEWPEWPEW and then dead, kinda like a huge muta vs muta battle, where there is a cloud of glave and then all of a sudden you see one player with an army remaining, and it was almost left up to chance.
As for the graphics, i feel that some of the buildings are too rounded. They look like they are made of play-doe or something. I think a sleeker edgier look might make the buildings and graphics more appealing.
|
I think things look fantastic and definitely not toy-like, but I do agree with this guy...
On February 24 2010 01:36 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well in sc1 it's easy to tell what's going on. Even in huge battles you can pick out each individual units and tell who its attacking.
In sc2 everything looks far more messy and it also seems that it isn't as clear when units are attacking who they are hitting. Also seems like units are able to get far more clumped in sc2 to the point that it is difficult to see exactly when is going on.
I mean, I don't see how anyone can argue that sc2 (at this point) is much worse in terms of being able to clearly tell what is going on during battles.
|
Buildings look like plastic. Terran buildings in sc1 looked very metallic
|
Yeah I'm not sure people are still complaining too much about teh cartooniness.. The old zerg buildings really did look like they were coated in delicious pink peptobismol.
The new terran buildings kinda still look a bit too smooth. The old barracks were alot more square, and the old cc had alot more pipes/gimmicks on them. That's probably all part of the step to 3d but meh. I think the "too cartoony" crowd were the wc3 haters that still call the mothership and the thor "hero units"
|
Mhmmm... I like how SC2 looks, but nevertheless I too kinda think it looks a bit cartoonish:
1) The Buildings are unproportional to the Units. Okay, thats true in many RTS-Games, but in SC2 it's kinda more obvious.
2) It's very colourful (No bad thing IMHO, but some ppl may perceive this as "cartoonish")
3) I've noticed 1 thing that was a bit too "cartoonish" for my taste: The Terran Factory shakes too much when sth is being built inside.
4) it's just not a realistic ArtStyle, not just because it's a Sci-Fi-Setting, but because of Unit-Size compared to the Buildings or compared to one-another, or just because of the proportions of some of the Units. (Again, I don't say that I don't like that ArtStyle - it's just not a very realistic one)
5) Ppl may compare SC2 to non-sci-fi/fantasy RTS-Games, that aim at a very high amount of realism etc., like for example Company of Heroes. With those extreme comparisons, SC2 may look more "cartoonish", than when you look at it as a Sci-Fi-Game.
6) There may also be some ppl that are just afraid that SC2 could look or is looking like WoW or sth and are therefore overly sensitive to this thematic and tend to whine a bit more because of that.
|
On February 24 2010 01:39 MyHeroNoob wrote:
Buildings look like plastic. Terran buildings in sc1 looked very metallic
How so? Both plastic and metal can look shiny. What exactly is the difference that makes you say that the buildings in SC1 are metallic and that SC2 are plastic?
Not attacking your opinion or anything. Just curious.
|
On February 24 2010 01:41 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 01:39 MyHeroNoob wrote:
Buildings look like plastic. Terran buildings in sc1 looked very metallic How so? Both plastic and metal can look shiny. What exactly is the difference that makes you say the SC1 are metallic and SC2 are plastic? Not attacking your opinion or anything. Just curious.
I would agree with MyHeroNoob on this one; the Terran Buildings look very matt, kinda like they're made of candy or sth. ^^'
It doesn't look like they're made of a material from which real Buildings in the Future or presents could/are be made of.
|
I realize some peeps will probably think i am fanning fires here by saying this, however:
Starcraft always had some of the ugliest graphics in gaming. Even by late 90s standards... have to be totally honest here ...
Tilesets are dag nasty ugly, many of the units are kind of cheezy looking when looked at objectively. The overall look and vibe is very dim, dirty, blocky, and dreary.
Yes the concepts behind much of the art is cool. And yes the visibility is exceptional.
But I dont think anyone that has not been mainlining SC on a constant basis for the past 10 years like a heroin addict would go as far as to say the graphics were exceptional in any way, or some kind of high standard of gaming environment and art.
Really man. The graphics were just not what made it a great game.
On the other hand, the graphics and art in this new game are some of the best I have seen anywhere. They up the sheer cool factor about 10 levels over Starcraft. Its simply gorgeous in ever aspect imo, and other than a few visibility issues (zerg on creep, some unit distiction in large battles) it its light years ahead of what you have ... and *does* set a new standard for RTS gaming. Theres nothing else out there that touches it.
I think a lot of the complaints coming out online are coming from people that are seriously emotionally attached to the old look of the game, and would not recognize how awesome the new on is unless you completely cut them off from the old one for months, and kept banging them over the head with a large hammer.
.
|
I think it's because of the 3D that a lot of the units, Terran especially, are very round and "bubbly". For example, if you compare the sharpness and the toughness of the past siegetank to the now rounded siege tank, or the starport's sharp angles to the bubbly starport now, you could think that everything is more toylike and cartoony.
|
One thing to consider is that Blizzard tried to make SC2 directionally balanced for e-sports. This means no more horizontal rectangle buildings.
I really like terran design overall. Maybe they could change the finish of the buildings, but the design itself is great, IMO.
|
The buildings are very clunky, but this is expected from a full fledged 3d atmosphere.
|
I actually like the new starport's design. Looks like a spaceship when it flies! One of the biggest changes I found though was the old vs new supply depots. In SC1 they had pipes and fans and looked all clunky and old-school. Now they look like zits that you can retract or protrude from the ground
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
