PDA

View Full Version : HoTS Portaits and Wireframes



TheProgramer
06-11-2012, 03:30 PM
Here are the portaits and wireframes for the new units. Sorry for some of the inconsitanties (red or yellow, or green wireframe, mouse command card instead of keyboard command card, etc.).



Protoss

http://i50.tinypic.com/1z1ba1j.png

http://i50.tinypic.com/4v6dj7.png

http://i49.tinypic.com/2mo4lex.png


Zerg

http://i46.tinypic.com/14kv0b4.png

http://i47.tinypic.com/28vwufb.png

http://i50.tinypic.com/12634ih.png


Terran

http://i48.tinypic.com/10fz2vo.png

http://i50.tinypic.com/2dbt9vm.png

http://i49.tinypic.com/302ysg7.png

http://i46.tinypic.com/16790h.png

Visions of Khas
06-11-2012, 04:38 PM
I get the sense that the Oracle pilot is female.

TheProgramer
06-11-2012, 04:41 PM
I get the sense that the Oracle pilot is female.
She's ABSOLUTLEY 100% a girl. And even cooler she's a Dark Templar. Reminds me of Razagal.

When I first saw the Carrier Portait I thought it was a girl hehe. Would of been cool if they made the Carrier Pilot a girl.

Cotcan
06-11-2012, 05:03 PM
Cool, but shouldn't this be under the HoTS section?

Aldrius
06-11-2012, 06:03 PM
Not really feeling the Zerg portraits, but the Oracle's portrait is REALLY cool.

...still really not sure what's up with the Mothership's portrait... why is she just a bunch of crystals? =|

Tempests looks okay.

mr. peasant
06-11-2012, 07:06 PM
Not really feeling the Zerg portraits

I second this opinion. They look pretty generic in that they look like every Zerg portrait out there. Meanwhile, the Tempest reminds me or Artanis for some reason.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2hgwqk6.png

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100906200944/starcraft/images/thumb/0/0c/Artanis_SC2_Head3.jpg/200px-Artanis_SC2_Head3.jpg


What I'm more interested in is the voice acting and unit quotes. Will Blizzard finally inject some personality into the Protoss units much like they have with Terrans or will the only stereotype portrayed by the Protoss continue to be Scary Dogmatic Aliens?


P.S.: I want the Oracle to have a Gypsy fortuneteller voice with lots of crystal ball related jokes. :D

Quirel
06-11-2012, 08:15 PM
P.S.: I want the Oracle to have a Gypsy fortuneteller voice with lots of crystal ball related jokes.
Better idea:

"Know Thyself."
"With silver spears, you shall conquer the world."
"I count the grains of sand on the beach and measure the sea."
"I understand the speech of the dumb and hear the voiceless."
*Unit Portrait animation of the pilot shaking a magic 8 ball.*
"*Sound of a fortune cookie cracking open* A thrilling time is in your future... well, that's ominous."
"Do not mistake temptation for opportunity... in bed."

Caliban113
06-11-2012, 08:35 PM
Widow mine still has the Shredder's WF, so that probably wont stick

TheProgramer
06-11-2012, 08:55 PM
Better idea:
"Do not mistake temptation for opportunity... in bed."

Omgosh! Thats hillarious!

mr. peasant
06-11-2012, 09:47 PM
Better idea:

"Know Thyself."
"With silver spears, you shall conquer the world."
"I count the grains of sand on the beach and measure the sea."
"I understand the speech of the dumb and hear the voiceless."
*Unit Portrait animation of the pilot shaking a magic 8 ball.*
"*Sound of a fortune cookie cracking open* A thrilling time is in your future... well, that's ominous."
"Do not mistake temptation for opportunity... in bed."

Nice references to the Oracle of Delphi. However, it doesn't bring much diversity to Protoss personalities - it still carrying the heavy religious overtones that just about every Protoss unit already has.

The_Blade
06-11-2012, 09:48 PM
I'm starting to believe the Widow Mine was a last moment fix on the current build. You know... Just to show Terran has something "new"...

Hawki
06-11-2012, 10:36 PM
Better idea:

"Know Thyself."
"With silver spears, you shall conquer the world."
"I count the grains of sand on the beach and measure the sea."
"I understand the speech of the dumb and hear the voiceless."
*Unit Portrait animation of the pilot shaking a magic 8 ball.*
"*Sound of a fortune cookie cracking open* A thrilling time is in your future... well, that's ominous."
"Do not mistake temptation for opportunity... in bed."

Pure gold...or silver, since Nerazim are more into that colour. For what it's worth, something you could add is the fortune cookie itself, how protoss can't eat. Certainly got me jotting down a pair of oneshot ideas for the Oracle...credit will be given if I follow through.


I'm starting to believe the Widow Mine was a last moment fix on the current build. You know... Just to show Terran has something "new"...

I dunno. The widow mine was foreshadowed awhile back as a mine that could attack air units. Either way, I like the unit itself. Like a spider mine, but with a twist that I think makes for micro-intensive gameplay.

Sheliek
06-11-2012, 10:42 PM
I second this opinion. They look pretty generic in that they look like every Zerg portrait out there. Meanwhile, the Tempest reminds me or Artanis for some reason.
The swarm host portrait would be perfect to me if it had an animation showing eggs bursting on the pat at some point in its idle cycle.


Better idea:

"Know Thyself."
"With silver spears, you shall conquer the world."
"I count the grains of sand on the beach and measure the sea."
"I understand the speech of the dumb and hear the voiceless."
*Unit Portrait animation of the pilot shaking a magic 8 ball.*
"*Sound of a fortune cookie cracking open* A thrilling time is in your future... well, that's ominous."
"Do not mistake temptation for opportunity... in bed."
I wish to start a petition on battle.net to get lines like this in.

TcheQuevara
06-12-2012, 09:36 AM
She's ABSOLUTLEY 100% a girl. And even cooler she's a Dark Templar. Reminds me of Razagal.

When I first saw the Carrier Portait I thought it was a girl hehe. Would of been cool if they made the Carrier Pilot a girl.

You talk like someone who's into girls. :eek:

She reminded me of Raszagal too. Maybe it's just a homage, or maybe they mean Nerazim females have this gender niche of being intuitive spiritual leaders.

Don't you think there are too many DT units? DT itself, stalker, Void Ray. I thought they were supposed to be a minority. Yeah I'm racist.

I don't like how Protoss Army is looking too much like a Templar+Nerazim circlejerk. I miss Judicators. I think they were a really interesting aspect of Protoss society. Both the religious leaders and the "librarian" ones have a conservative, contemplative feelings the war-prone Ts and DTs lack. I would like them to be more present both in units and lore.

I wonder though, the Tempest is very DT-ish. Reminds me of the Star Relic. I really like a Nerazim female in the Oracle, but maybe it could be a Judicator in the Oracle and a DT in the Tempest. Or no DTs riding big ships, just doing the dirty job, like it used to be in the good days. :D Seriously now, I think the Tempest pilot is doomed to look to much like the Carrier pilot and Artanis.

Cotcan
06-13-2012, 01:39 PM
Better idea:

"Know Thyself."
"With silver spears, you shall conquer the world."
"I count the grains of sand on the beach and measure the sea."
"I understand the speech of the dumb and hear the voiceless."
*Unit Portrait animation of the pilot shaking a magic 8 ball.*
"*Sound of a fortune cookie cracking open* A thrilling time is in your future... well, that's ominous."
"Do not mistake temptation for opportunity... in bed."

This sounds a lot like quotes Blizzard actually puts in. Well at least the last few.

Quirel
06-15-2012, 01:27 AM
I'm back.


Pure gold...or silver, since Nerazim are more into that colour. For what it's worth, something you could add is the fortune cookie itself, how protoss can't eat. Certainly got me jotting down a pair of oneshot ideas for the Oracle...credit will be given if I follow through.
Regardless of whether those get finished, I'm honored.

As for the fortune cookie, I guess the portrait could show the pilot holding it up for a second, turning the halves around as if she doesn't know what to do with them, and then tossing them aside. Though that would probably take too long for an 'angry' quote.


This sounds a lot like quotes Blizzard actually puts in. Well at least the last few.
I certainly hope so.

Hawki
06-16-2012, 12:10 AM
Regardless of whether those get finished, I'm honored.

Good...because I followed through with one of the ideas...then altered it...altered it so that there's a protoss, a tribal alien from Twilight Archon and the aftermath of a space vampire (yes, really...from pre-alpha days) invasion.

Sometimes I worry about myself...:confused:

DemolitionSquid
06-16-2012, 09:52 AM
Good...because I followed through with one of the ideas...then altered it...altered it so that there's a protoss, a tribal alien from Twilight Archon and the aftermath of a space vampire (yes, really...from pre-alpha days) invasion.

Sometimes I worry about myself...:confused:

T8FEhMxSSWw

Quirel
06-16-2012, 07:48 PM
Good...because I followed through with one of the ideas...then altered it...altered it so that there's a protoss, a tribal alien from Twilight Archon and the aftermath of a space vampire (yes, really...from pre-alpha days) invasion.

Sometimes I worry about myself...:confused:
IRsPheErBj8

I wanted a video of the circus freaks from Freaks chanting "One of us! One of us! One of us!", but even I find that disturbing.

Hawki
06-16-2012, 11:31 PM
Too late...I've been directed to the Freaks scene...now I know where the Simpsons one came from...:eek:

TheProgramer
08-13-2012, 09:05 PM
I updated the first post with the warhounds stuff.

The widow mine still doesn't have a portait.

The hellion's portait remains the same, but the wirefram is changed, though I was unable to capture it at full size.

Pr0nogo
08-14-2012, 10:22 PM
I really can't see how you guys think any of the Protoss portraits are any good. Most of their Zerg ones feel recycled. Nothing from HotS that's been showcased thus far feels like anything but Blizzard saying, "We're just justifying a $60 price tag, and we want you to know we're doing it."

TheProgramer
08-16-2012, 11:59 PM
I really can't see how you guys think any of the Protoss portraits are any good. Most of their Zerg ones feel recycled. Nothing from HotS that's been showcased thus far feels like anything but Blizzard saying, "We're just justifying a $60 price tag, and we want you to know we're doing it."

What do you think would justify the $60.00 price tag? What do you think would make the Protoss and Zerg Portaits better?

DemolitionSquid
08-17-2012, 11:13 AM
I thought that because HotS is an expo it was only supposed to be 40$, not 60$.

Pr0nogo
08-19-2012, 01:04 AM
What do you think would justify the $60.00 price tag? What do you think would make the Protoss and Zerg Portaits better?

I think the entire game would have to be redesigned, and that Blizzard's existing game design philosophy - if you can call it that - needs to be scrapped and redone. I think Blizzard should probably stop outsourcing their assets and just hire the right people - or cut down on their existing employees and teach them to do their damn jobs. The bigger the company gets, the more money they need to service their employees. The obvious solution is to either a.) have a small amount of employees and train them to do everything, which is probably the best solution, or b.) make cash grab games that succeed in grabbing cash (which is what Blizzard does, currently).

On a smaller scale, their portrait work would be greatly improved if they used modern graphics technology (their engine is over five years out of date, if I'm not mistaken) and/or used their CGI team to design them. Think about it; 'static' portraits (ones that don't move) can be wallpaper quality, and moving, animated portraits would be so much better if they used CGI frames instead of 2007 engine graphics. But StarCraft II's modeling systems are out of date, archaic, and downright useless to all modern modelers, so much so that they needed custom animations and models for every speech that occurred in their campaign. Nobody's going to touch Blizzard's models with a ten foot pole if they're any kind of professional who takes any kind of pride in their work.


I thought that because HotS is an expo it was only supposed to be 40$, not 60$.

I'm pretty sure it's sixty dollars. No official word from Blizzard was released (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/game/heart-of-the-swarm-preview/faq#q7), but they (or someone in Activision, perhaps) made a statement saying that SCII was going to cost a grand total of 180 US dollars.

Course, I don't have a source, so take that with twelve boatloads of salt.

Even if the price was reduced to forty, I'm still not convinced of its worth. This seems like an experience I should be payed to suffer through, at the moment.

TheEconomist
08-19-2012, 08:13 AM
Before WoL was released, they said the expansions would be priced based on content and that, unless they REALLY felt it deserved 60$ it was going to be 40$ or so. Kind of a non-answer, but still makes it more likely that 40$ is the case.

Pr0nogo
08-19-2012, 07:06 PM
I'll concede on the sixty dollar notion, then, but like I said; I don't view forty dollars to be an appropriate price. The amount of time and funding that StarCraft II has had and will continue to have is astounding when you compare it with the monumentally sub-par experience you have as an end product.

TheEconomist
08-26-2012, 09:59 AM
http://gumbomonster.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sigh_gonqxvsdrwbq.jpg

Pr0nogo
08-26-2012, 11:42 AM
I know you really, really like to post pictures instead of words, but man up a little. We're all grown adults here (except me). You can afford to actually respond to my post if you're seeking attention.

TheEconomist
08-26-2012, 12:26 PM
Not worth it. You have the delusions of spychi but not the entertainment value.

DemolitionSquid
08-26-2012, 12:47 PM
This is how I picture Pr0nogo.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9892498.jpg

Cotcan
08-26-2012, 04:13 PM
I'm pretty sure it's sixty dollars.

Gamestop would disagree (http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm/97856) with you, and Gamestop is usually right about these things.

Pr0nogo
08-26-2012, 07:27 PM
man I don't even know what that is

I already said I would concede on the price, but I guess nobody here reads anymore.

Hawki
08-28-2012, 12:22 AM
On a smaller scale, their portrait work would be greatly improved if they used modern graphics technology (their engine is over five years out of date, if I'm not mistaken) and/or used their CGI team to design them. Think about it; 'static' portraits (ones that don't move) can be wallpaper quality, and moving, animated portraits would be so much better if they used CGI frames instead of 2007 engine graphics. But StarCraft II's modeling systems are out of date, archaic, and downright useless to all modern modelers, so much so that they needed custom animations and models for every speech that occurred in their campaign. Nobody's going to touch Blizzard's models with a ten foot pole if they're any kind of professional who takes any kind of pride in their work.

Seriously? You're bringing graphics into this?


The amount of time and funding that StarCraft II has had and will continue to have is astounding when you compare it with the monumentally sub-par experience you have as an end product.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion I guess.


This is how I picture Pr0nogo.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9892498.jpg

Hmm...I feel I should be getting a joke somewhere. Then again, to my shame, I haven't seen Babylon 5.:(

Turalyon
08-28-2012, 02:02 AM
Hmm...I feel I should be getting a joke somewhere. Then again, to my shame, I haven't seen Babylon 5.:(

Yes, shame on you! Some great hardcore sci-fi in that show.

The "joke" is that one of the alien species in that show (the Centauri) are only recognised as being physically 'different' from humans is because of their outlandish hair-do's.

Pr0nogo
08-28-2012, 11:21 AM
Seriously? You're bringing graphics into this?

Every part of the product should be reflective of time and funding. Yes, I am bringing graphics into this; visual storytelling should never be ignored, and neither should worldbuilding. Both were ignored. Both would have benefited hugely from improved graphics.


The "joke" is that one of the alien species in that show (the Centauri) are only recognised as being physically 'different' from humans is because of their outlandish hair-do's.

I mean, I have long hair, but it's just straight up and down like an average metal hairstyle.

TheEconomist
08-28-2012, 12:54 PM
You'd think you'd get your aggro out with all that headbanging and spare us the unpleasantness. I guess the wellspring of Polish anger never runs dry.

-- Just got some time and a craving for some banging of head against wall so I'll bite but only briefly. You can't expect StarCraft II to have modern graphics and expect them to meet the standards of the originals. It takes years and years and years of iteration and, during that time, they need a constant graphics engine for testing. Annnnd, now I'm done before you start to wither away my intelligence.

Also, your professional comment is ironic considering you use StarEdit instead of any of the other number of newer, better editors. I guess you have no pride in your work.

Pr0nogo
08-28-2012, 05:17 PM
...Where did you see me use StarEdit? I don't think I ever used that when I had a better alternative, and I always had a better alternative unless I was working off of a Mac. I use SCMDraft.

Even if I did use an older tool, there is no connection between using outdated tools to modify an existing game and using outdated tools to make a game (other than the fact that both are outdated). Don't respond to something with insults if they're as meaningless as that; at least try to have some substance. No, race doesn't count.

I can expect them to have better graphics than what they had, for all the funding they had. Games with longer development times and less funding (and games with shorter development times and less funding, obviously) have had better graphics and delivered a better experience. I might not have a lot of comparisons for the real-time strategy genre but that's because there are about twelve whole RTS retail games a decade.

The_Blade
08-28-2012, 07:12 PM
I find the StarCraft 2 graphics ok. Blizzard's main focus market when creating SC2 was the general audience of gamers. They wanted a game which wouldn't need a super computer to run (hence the ok graphics) and the game engine was created in 2005-7 under this idea.

Liking or not liking the SC2 graphics is up to everybody's own opinion, but Blizz still took a whole amount of time to polish the art of the game. So, I'd say the engine is ok, but the art used is among the best possible outcomes for the engine.

I agree with Pr0nogo on the fact the the engine was not the best engine, but I have to disagree on the idea that game's experience falls heavily on the engine/graphics of a game. Gameplay is what makes an RTS deliver a good experience; and I believe Blizz did a great job on that part too, even if it took them a good amount of patches to deliver.

Worldbuilding on the other hand was lacking, and Gradius did a nice review on the flaws of it and the campaign. SC2 WoL is a game I would pay $60 and the "collector's edition", but I do believe they failed to create the game they wanted.

@everyone: Taking an argument into a personal level is not the best way to discuss your ideas. You know better than that.

Pr0nogo
08-28-2012, 09:03 PM
I think we all know better than that. Very few of us will rise above, though.

I don't think the graphics are acceptable. Games from 2005-7 are better-looking than StarCraft II.

Cotcan
08-29-2012, 11:10 AM
So if graphics make a good game, then why is Minecraft doing so well? Maybe its not the graphics. Hint. Hint. The main people who say graphics = good game are Halo, CoD, etc players. Why do you think they rereleased Halo 1 again, but with better graphics?

TheEconomist
08-29-2012, 11:40 AM
Games with longer development times and less funding have had better graphics

What? Alan Wake? That's about the only thing even remotely close. Very few games aer developed for close to a decade, and even fewer actually have advanced engines. Alan Wake is one of the very, very few exceptions. The crucial difference, however, is that Alan Wake's engine only became so advanced a few years before release (about 2005) and was done by the very people who laid down the foundations for all current-gen graphics engines.. A game like Alan Wake can change its engine many times with relatively few problems. A game like StarCraft, however, needs a constant engine for the sake of the almost infinite amount of iteration they go through.

Either way, its the exception to the rule.


here did you see me use StarEdit?

It's all the same. I was using StarEdit as an umbrella term for SCBW tools. My point is that, you say that no self respecting person would use such out-dated tools, yet you use one of the most outdated. Hypocritical.

Quirel
08-29-2012, 04:11 PM
So if graphics make a good game, then why is Minecraft doing so well? Maybe its not the graphics. Hint. Hint. The main people who say graphics = good game are Halo, CoD, etc players. Why do you think they rereleased Halo 1 again, but with better graphics?
Anniversary edition, optimized to run on the Xbox 360.

They didn't do a very good job. :(

Pr0nogo
08-29-2012, 04:43 PM
So if graphics make a good game, then why is Minecraft doing so well? Maybe its not the graphics. Hint. Hint. The main people who say graphics = good game are Halo, CoD, etc players. Why do you think they rereleased Halo 1 again, but with better graphics?

Graphics do not make a game, but they should not be ignored. SCII ignored and eschewed quality graphics when they had ample time and funding to make them, use a quality engine, and still make it compatible (or more compatible than their current engine, even) with older systems.


It's all the same. I was using StarEdit as an umbrella term for SCBW tools. My point is that, you say that no self respecting person would use such out-dated tools, yet you use one of the most outdated. Hypocritical.

So you cut out part of my post and responded to the one that didn't address your actual claim. Good job! Maybe I should start doing that, too.

TheEconomist
09-01-2012, 08:37 AM
Would still like an example of when a game in development as long as StarCraft II has had great graphics.

Pr0nogo
09-01-2012, 11:33 AM
Just off the top of my head: Duke Nukem Forever had way better graphics than SCII, and took more than twice the developmental time (15 years to SCII's 7). I can't speak for the gameplay of the game (other than, it sucks), but if you'd rather an all-around better-quality game that took longer, consider Team Fortress 2's 9-year developmental cycle*, or L.A. Noire's 7 (which matches SCII's time in the "studio" and still vastly surpasses it elsewhere). Fuck, even that 360 launch title Prey was better-looking than SCII, and that was released in 2006 (after 11 years). I almost feel like talking about Too Human but that game played worse than Dante's fucking Inferno.

*at this point I've started looking shit up

I would really have preferred to just skip to here instead of being smartasses to one another (which I'm as guilty of as you are), so maybe in the future you can just tell me what you want me to respond to rather than trying to get me to post even less intelligently than I do already, and we'll have a better time. You hinted at it with Alan Wake but I was evidently still at a loss, else I would have just responded with this post earlier.

TheEconomist
09-01-2012, 06:42 PM
1) None of those games had true development cycles of that length. They were rebooted NUMEROUS times with almost nothing from the previous incarnations used. You would know that if you had researched instead of Google listed. Since this is about graphics, the point is even more clear. These games received their graphics engine updates a year or two before release (i.e. Prey, I followed its development.) Besides, Duke Nukem Forever was universally panned for its out-dated graphics while StarCraft II was almost universally praised for its art design (by critics).

2) Notice that you named almost all FPS. FPS naturally have better graphics because they arent as demanding. Comparing the two is like comparing tiny-space shooters like F.E.A.R. or Gears Of War to Arma II. I remember when WarCraft III came out I was surprised that my old POS computer couldn't played it despite being able to play Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena past 60 FPS. Likewise, I had an old 7800GS computer that could play all of the games you mentioned max with no problems, yet stuttered like fucking crazy in StarCraft II. Not because StarCraft II is unoptimized, but because YOU CANNOT COMPARAE FPS TO RTS.

3) Prey, Duke Nukem Forever, Too Human, Team Fortress 2 all used premade engines, knocking years and years off their development cycle. Horrible examples. The first three existed only as basic outlines for most of the development process then, got rebooted and quickly pushed out in a couple of years with premade engines. Plus, Too Human played like shit.

4) Again, StarCraft 2 takes an iterative process. Don't feel like rehashing this.

5) If StarCraft II had gone the Dawn of War II route (OMFG! TEH GRAPHICS!) it would've failed. I don't know if you were here in the beginning but people used to bitch that there was too much visual information in StarCraft 2 for competitive play. If you had been the lead designer, StarCraft II would have been the bust of the century.

6) Blizzard tries to reach as large an audience as possible. This is good for eSports. Having it your way, the audience probably would've been cut down considerably.

Basically, you have no argument; just emotional outbursts. Regardless of how you feel about the graphics, as you'v shown yourself, examples of games with long development cycles that have graphics that stand up are the exception, not the rule. In fact, I can count the number of them on one hand with several fingers to spare.

Church
09-01-2012, 07:11 PM
good grief

Pr0nogo
09-02-2012, 02:01 PM
To say that all my examples are invalidated because they did not have "TRVE DEVELOPMENT CYCLES" is retarded. SCII didn't have a true developmental cycle of seven years, either. Most of your so-called argument can be applied to StarCraft II; I don't even have to respond to most of your post because I could just edit half of the nouns and it'd be applicable to the game you're supporting.

Dawn of War II didn't have stellar graphics. Don't know where you saw that. Warhammer 40k is niche in nature, which is why I didn't even bring it up. For all your talk of not being able to compare RTS titles to any other titles, you ignore that Dawn of War II wasn't even a real-time strategy, and that you can use the several fingers you still have to count the other RTS titles released in the past decade that weren't by Blizzard. Armies of Exigo? Okay. Command & Conquer? Sure. Anything else? Nope.

StarCraft II uses a number of premade graphics components (Havok physics, for example, which is also why the physics are horrid). Invalidating my arguments because some use premade engines is bullshit because StarCraft II uses tonnes of premade stuff - hell, half of its gameplay is just ported from the original StarCraft, a good amount of the rest is ported from WarCraft III, and whatever's left was probably ported from elsewhere. The only things StarCraft II didn't have premade were its graphics engine and its horrible plot, neither of which leave me thinking, 'oh yeah that took a while'.

StarCraft II isn't actually optimised, believe it or not. Its optimisation is pretty thin and that's why most computers can run way more demanding games with better framerates. This also means the audience that can play StarCraft II without performance issues is very limited - cutting into both eSports and sales. Many eSports players continue to play the predecessor; the only reason organisations like KeSPA still run with SCII is because of flash and logo - the same reason critics gave the game high scores and the same reason so many people bought it and maintain that they enjoy playing it.

I don't think you understand the nature of StarCraft II, or the gaming industry. It used to be simple; make a good game and advertise it well. Now it's just the "advertise it well" part. Eccentrics don't make a good game, and that's all that SCII has - it doesn't even have moderate graphics to boot. Most indie titles released last year look better than this. Maybe you just need a reality check; StarCraft II is a bad title, with a piss-poor storyline, horrible attention to lore, disgusting worldbuilding, a low multiplayer skill ceiling, and boring, bland, bad graphics. This discussion is much like reason and science versus religion and blind faith; one is obviously true (in this case, reason and science), and the other is only believable to complete idiots and wishful thinkers.

Anyone else who says otherwise is simply wrong.

Hawki
09-02-2012, 05:03 PM
I don't think you understand the nature of StarCraft II, or the gaming industry. It used to be simple; make a good game and advertise it well. Now it's just the "advertise it well" part. Eccentrics don't make a good game, and that's all that SCII has - it doesn't even have moderate graphics to boot. Most indie titles released last year look better than this. Maybe you just need a reality check; StarCraft II is a bad title, with a piss-poor storyline, horrible attention to lore, disgusting worldbuilding, a low multiplayer skill ceiling, and boring, bland, bad graphics. This discussion is much like reason and science versus religion and blind faith; one is obviously true (in this case, reason and science), and the other is only believable to complete idiots and wishful thinkers.

Anyone else who says otherwise is simply wrong.

Pot calling the kettle black anyone?

If you want to state x vs. y engine, then that's a fact. If you want to go into semantics such as multiplayer skill, storylines and whatever else, you're getting into the realm of opinion. Heck, just looking at Wikipedia/Metacritic scores, and you'll see how different many opinions are to yours.

And of course, another difference is that I don't call people "idiots" for happening to have different opinions.

TheEconomist
09-02-2012, 05:39 PM
To say that all my examples are invalidated because they did not have "TRVE DEVELOPMENT CYCLES" is retarded.

1) I clarified in my post, wtf. SC2 DID NOT switch developers and publishers multiple times like the others, so no its not a good example. The games you mentioned took so long because they went into development hell numerous times, not because the creators took their time with them. Regardless of how you feel about SC2, the developers DID, in fact, take their time.

2) Not talking about the quality of graphics, derp, but the focus on eye candy versus clean reading. You clearly aren't a competitive player, of course, I already knew that from your ranking.

3) Havoks engine is nothing like an entirely prebuilt engine. Derp.


The only things StarCraft II didn't have premade were its graphics engine

Oooooh, you mean that thing we're ACTUALLY talking about? Sigh.

4) Its gotten progressively better since release but that's not the point. RTS are INHERENTLY more demanding and, therefore, cannot have the visuals an FPS can. Call of Duty is poorly optimized (one of the most in the FPS genre because of its yearly installments and old engine without starting from scratch) yet you can max it on a computer that can barely play SC2 (because its an RTS, not optimization). Unless you want to argue that SCBW, WC3, and every other RTS in existence is several times more unoptimized than the worst optimized FPSes then you are just plain wrong.


Most indie titles released last year look better than this.

What a stupid ass exaggerated statement, lol. Most indie games have horrible graphics. If you're talking about art then that's all opinion. If you're talking about technicals, then you're just again talking out of your ass. Most indie games' graphics are 2D or shit like Minecraft. That's not even up for debate. SC2 had great RTS graphics back in 2007 when it was revealed, as evidenced by the eyegasm spam back then, that's a fact.

This is why I didn't want to respond. Trying to reason with you is like banging your head against the wall because you don't even know how to be witty or entertaining. No one on this forum agrees with you, the hundreds of critics don't agree with you, and the millions of players still playing don't agree with you. The only people that I know that agree with you are the long lost polish SCL trolls.

Consider this conversation done.

topsecret221
09-02-2012, 10:12 PM
I would like to point out that the graphics in Minecraft are not exactly "shit". They are stylized. The artists available to Mojang certainly could have ramped the graphics up to HD had they desired. They chose not to, even though they had the resources and plenty of time to do so. Same thing with the SC2 graphics: not crap, stylized.

This is ignoring the fact that graphics are complementary to a game, but not nessicarily crucial (in most scenarios, anyways). The game needs to be fun, graphics are secondary to that point. Obviously some games require graphics in some realistic fashion for gameplay purposes, like simulators.

StarCraft's graphics don't matter too much: it just helps the unfamiliar figure out what's what. BW had 2D graphics that makes it very easy to distinguish what's what on the battlefield, and were pretty good for it's time: but stylized.


Just wanted to emphasize that. Most of the rest of the points you made were about accurate, though.

TheEconomist
09-02-2012, 10:20 PM
That's took a whole lotta words to say nothing.

topsecret221
09-02-2012, 10:22 PM
Indeed. But I've not much to do right now, anyways.

ZealotPowerade
09-08-2012, 07:45 AM
To say that all my examples are invalidated because they did not have "TRVE DEVELOPMENT CYCLES" is retarded. SCII didn't have a true developmental cycle of seven years, either. Most of your so-called argument can be applied to StarCraft II; I don't even have to respond to most of your post because I could just edit half of the nouns and it'd be applicable to the game you're supporting.

Dawn of War II didn't have stellar graphics. Don't know where you saw that. Warhammer 40k is niche in nature, which is why I didn't even bring it up. For all your talk of not being able to compare RTS titles to any other titles, you ignore that Dawn of War II wasn't even a real-time strategy, and that you can use the several fingers you still have to count the other RTS titles released in the past decade that weren't by Blizzard. Armies of Exigo? Okay. Command & Conquer? Sure. Anything else? Nope.

StarCraft II uses a number of premade graphics components (Havok physics, for example, which is also why the physics are horrid). Invalidating my arguments because some use premade engines is bullshit because StarCraft II uses tonnes of premade stuff - hell, half of its gameplay is just ported from the original StarCraft, a good amount of the rest is ported from WarCraft III, and whatever's left was probably ported from elsewhere. The only things StarCraft II didn't have premade were its graphics engine and its horrible plot, neither of which leave me thinking, 'oh yeah that took a while'.

StarCraft II isn't actually optimised, believe it or not. Its optimisation is pretty thin and that's why most computers can run way more demanding games with better framerates. This also means the audience that can play StarCraft II without performance issues is very limited - cutting into both eSports and sales. Many eSports players continue to play the predecessor; the only reason organisations like KeSPA still run with SCII is because of flash and logo - the same reason critics gave the game high scores and the same reason so many people bought it and maintain that they enjoy playing it.

I don't think you understand the nature of StarCraft II, or the gaming industry. It used to be simple; make a good game and advertise it well. Now it's just the "advertise it well" part. Eccentrics don't make a good game, and that's all that SCII has - it doesn't even have moderate graphics to boot. Most indie titles released last year look better than this. Maybe you just need a reality check; StarCraft II is a bad title, with a piss-poor storyline, horrible attention to lore, disgusting worldbuilding, a low multiplayer skill ceiling, and boring, bland, bad graphics. This discussion is much like reason and science versus religion and blind faith; one is obviously true (in this case, reason and science), and the other is only believable to complete idiots and wishful thinkers.

Anyone else who says otherwise is simply wrong.



I believe we have an internet troll here, there are soo many things wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin. But just to touch on a few things...

I think you may be confusing graphics with aesthetics. SC2's graphics aren't the greatest, but it's aesthetics are absolutely amazing. Blizzard has never been a company to focus on their engine having the most amazing tech. What they have always done is focused on the art style. Everything works so well together in SC2, it's beautifully crafted to be instantly recognizable for game-play purposes. Everything about the unit model, textures, animations and effects help push the core concept of the unit.

As a 3D artist working in the gaming industry I have a lot of respect and admiration for their work. It's all very well designed. I can't speak for the code side of things as I only dabble in shader writing. But from talking with my co-workers it seems that a lot of games aren't very optimized no matter where you go. There's a reason why Gama sutra posts articles full of game industry slang about the crazy shit that goes on. It's because it happens everywhere. Unless you have a company full of wizards like valve does then I'll bet at least some of the game's code is a mess. Because sometimes there just isn't an elegant solution. That's the picture I get from my programmer buddies anyway... But I could be wrong.


Also...

The gaming industry has not changed as much as you think it has. It's not about advertising a game at all, a lot of people believe that is the case, which is why we see so many studios closing down. The age old "make a good game" is just as true today as it's ever been.

Cotcan
09-09-2012, 02:15 PM
Ya, it's true, most games and programs aren't optimized. It's really very difficult to get it perfectly optimized, but then you have to port it to something, which makes it not so optimized anymore. I know this because I do program, and I also have played with some many editors, I've lost count. There are more reasons for updates than just new features and bug fixes.

Also Valve uses the source engine for all of their games, but how they are able to make the game so smooth and use so little amount of network when playing online is beyond me. Seriously, I've been downloading something that uses up 'all' my bandwidth, and still able to play Dota 2 with no lag. I swear Valve has a group of people with magic fingers.

Yes, the make a good game and listen to your community is still around. It gets harder has the company gets bigger. This is one of the reasons why Mojang is a small company. Notch didn't want a big group of guys because then they would never be able to listen to what the community wants. This also feeds into making a good game. This is why EA is still around, they make good quality games, but do try to drain every last dollar from your account.

Gifted
09-12-2012, 08:25 AM
Reading...posts....

Warning you now peeps.. it might be a good time to get out of the pool...

EDIT: Wall of text aborted. There's just no nice way to go about saying the points so I'll put it simply as a note to those involved.

@Pr0nogo:

You have no solid argument whatsoever. You simply say "My opinion is that it sucks" and really, that's the only platform you have...and need. I truly and honestly disagree with you and your very short-sighted and self-defeating argument. There are so many times you try to reference industry backing, when everything you say is so devoid of industry knowledge. I would recommend you just take a step back of trying to support your opinion and simply say "It's my opinion". If you do that, you will have a solid backbone to go from. You don't need to make up other factions within your mind to support you. It quickly decimates any credibility that your opinion has.

Oh, and btw, here's an example of the top 10 indie titles of 2011 which have "better graphics" than sc2: http://indiegames.com/2011/12/top_10_indie_games_of_2011.html

@Tychus:

Man, you are being too aggressive to try and change opinions. I know it's easy to try and view it as a debate.. but it's like walking up and saying "I like apples more", his reply, "Well, I like oranges more!" How will it end? In short, you got caught in the same trap again...

You also said some incredibly stupid things that I suspect you regret in hindsight when responding to him. I forgive you for suggesting that development cycles/hell are directly related to the graphical quality of the game in the end. ^_^ I know what you were TRYING to say, and the point you were TRYING to make is a correct one... but man it was worded poorly and the message prompted a facepalm. ^_^

@Zealotpowerade:

Thanks for such a clear statement about the graphics and WHY they were so solid in SC2, I was going to attempt to argue that point, but you did it so beautifully that you saved these gents from a wall of text. For that, I thank you.

@Cotcan:

Good job trying to be civil :) Always enjoy your posts..er.. most of the time...kinda. *cackles* All jokes aside, the optimization post is pretty true. It's almost impossible to have something optimized out of the door unless it's something that's been optimized before you worked on the project. Many times that's a fool's hope as well. That's what patches are for! It's like saying you strive for perfection.... it won't happen but it's a beautiful goal to go for. With that said, Valve can still optimize it more. There is always room for improvement.. or fixing something broken as new content comes out.

@Me:

I'm happy this isn't a wall of text. I shall await responses of guile and hate. Really, I'm curious.

TheProgramer
09-12-2012, 04:22 PM
Reading...posts....

Warning you now peeps.. it might be a good time to get out of the pool...

EDIT: Wall of text aborted. There's just no nice way to go about saying the points so I'll put it simply as a note to those involved.

@Pr0nogo:

You have no solid argument whatsoever. You simply say "My opinion is that it sucks" and really, that's the only platform you have...and need. I truly and honestly disagree with you and your very short-sighted and self-defeating argument. There are so many times you try to reference industry backing, when everything you say is so devoid of industry knowledge. I would recommend you just take a step back of trying to support your opinion and simply say "It's my opinion". If you do that, you will have a solid backbone to go from. You don't need to make up other factions within your mind to support you. It quickly decimates any credibility that your opinion has.

Oh, and btw, here's an example of the top 10 indie titles of 2011 which have "better graphics" than sc2: http://indiegames.com/2011/12/top_10_indie_games_of_2011.html

@Tychus:

Man, you are being too aggressive to try and change opinions. I know it's easy to try and view it as a debate.. but it's like walking up and saying "I like apples more", his reply, "Well, I like oranges more!" How will it end? In short, you got caught in the same trap again...

You also said some incredibly stupid things that I suspect you regret in hindsight when responding to him. I forgive you for suggesting that development cycles/hell are directly related to the graphical quality of the game in the end. ^_^ I know what you were TRYING to say, and the point you were TRYING to make is a correct one... but man it was worded poorly and the message prompted a facepalm. ^_^

@Zealotpowerade:

Thanks for such a clear statement about the graphics and WHY they were so solid in SC2, I was going to attempt to argue that point, but you did it so beautifully that you saved these gents from a wall of text. For that, I thank you.

@Cotcan:

Good job trying to be civil :) Always enjoy your posts..er.. most of the time...kinda. *cackles* All jokes aside, the optimization post is pretty true. It's almost impossible to have something optimized out of the door unless it's something that's been optimized before you worked on the project. Many times that's a fool's hope as well. That's what patches are for! It's like saying you strive for perfection.... it won't happen but it's a beautiful goal to go for. With that said, Valve can still optimize it more. There is always room for improvement.. or fixing something broken as new content comes out.

@Me:

I'm happy this isn't a wall of text. I shall await responses of guile and hate. Really, I'm curious.

I.... I was just... I was just trying to show the pictures and wireframes.... what happened here?

DemolitionSquid
09-12-2012, 04:48 PM
I.... I was just... I was just trying to show the pictures and wireframes.... what happened here?

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Black+Hitler.+Creddit+to+the+internet+man_3711ef_3 387389.gif

Shadow Archon
09-12-2012, 04:58 PM
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)


I was thinking Murphy's Law, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law) but that works too.

TheEconomist
09-12-2012, 06:41 PM
Not a single mention of Nazism and you don't know about about Murphy's Law until you've been in charge of 200 different things at the same time. So, no, not relevant, but close.

This is all simply 'The Internet'.


Man, you are being too aggressive to try and change opinions.

Nah, I just finally got the urge to troll bash. I'm being aggressive against his 'tude, not his opinion which I couldn't care less about. I held off for months, very unlike me. You haven't been here in a while, so you don't know pr0nogo but he's been trolling for a while. And not the DSquid kind of satirical entertainment that I can appreciate. I'm talking the kind of assholery that only DSquid could pull, if what he said weren't sarcastic. The majority of posters I've seen have conversations with him agree but if you need someone you can trust, then ask Gradius. He's been needing someone to take the time to put him down since he came here.


but man it was worded poorly and the message prompted a facepalm.

And, yet, out of several foreign language speakers, you're the only one who had a problem.


You also said some incredibly stupid things that I suspect you regret in hindsight when responding to him.

Nope not a single thing. Then again, I could just be numb to what I say, kind of like your ramblings on the Legacy Observer. PLEASE GOD NO MORE WALLS OF REDUNDANT TEXT!!!

Shadow Archon
09-12-2012, 06:42 PM
you don't know about about Murphy's Law until you've been in charge of 200 different things at the same time. So, no, not relevant.

Fine. Entropy than. :p

TheEconomist
09-12-2012, 07:08 PM
*facepalm*

That, has nothing to do with... uggggh, why not just call it, the law of cummulative testosterone, human nature, or, fuck it, the laws of the entire universe.

Shadow Archon
09-12-2012, 07:23 PM
*facepalm*

That, has nothing to do with... uggggh, why not just call it, the law of cummulative testosterone, human nature, or, fuck it, the laws of the entire universe.


enĚtroĚpy/ˈentrəpē/
Noun:

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often...

Lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

It fits the second definition fine.

topsecret221
09-12-2012, 11:10 PM
To my understanding, in theoretical and astrophysics it also refers to the loss of knowledge of the existence of something due to it having been caught in a black hole and is no longer detectable in any way. Essentially, a loss of information.

A good joke to tell nerdy people:
I would explain the entropy of the universe to you, but the information seems to have been lost.

:D

Shadow Archon
09-12-2012, 11:14 PM
To my understanding, in theoretical and astrophysics it also refers to the loss of knowledge of the existence of something due to it having been caught in a black hole and is no longer detectable in any way. Essentially, a loss of information.

Where did you hear that? Because that sounds pretty cool.

topsecret221
09-12-2012, 11:18 PM
I've been reading a lot of physics books since... well, since before high school. Let's leave it at that, because otherwise it sounds to me like bragging.

But I don't remember which book exactly that I remember reading that in. It may have been in one of Dr. Michio Kaku's books, likely Hyperspace, or maybe The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

Shadow Archon
09-12-2012, 11:24 PM
Well, if you can figure out which one, PM me.

I usually like to go to Atomic Rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php) to get a physics fix.

Anyway, this is getting horribly off-topic.

topsecret221
09-12-2012, 11:28 PM
Damn, it is...

So, 'bout dem portraits... yeah.
Any chance of the OP being updated to Beta wireframes?

Gifted
09-13-2012, 07:24 AM
Ok, this digression is awesome ^_^

I missed you guys.

@Programer: Man, you did awesome sharing the pics. <3

@Tychus: I've been around, just not been posting. I don't need other's opinions to help me create my own. ^_^

TheProgramer
09-13-2012, 09:52 AM
I have updated the OP.

Here is the alpha pictures:



Protoss

http://i45.tinypic.com/1tnaf4.png

http://i46.tinypic.com/2qn41np.png

http://i46.tinypic.com/2hgwqk6.png



Zerg

http://i49.tinypic.com/xkrfut.png

http://i49.tinypic.com/28k39s4.png




Terran

http://i49.tinypic.com/67pod2.png

http://i46.tinypic.com/350oxds.png

TheProgramer
09-13-2012, 10:01 AM
The Hellion's visor lifts up, and orange screen goes down when he switches from mech to vehicle form. Pretty cool. The only other units who's portait changes is the banshee when cloaking, and the viking when transforming (all terran I see). Pretty neat.

Visions of Khas
09-13-2012, 12:20 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/Jinshin/gandalf.jpg

I'm a little put-off by the lack of diversity in the Zerg portraits. I know it's a minor point but all of them look like a derivative of the Hydralisk these days.



To my understanding, in theoretical and astrophysics it also refers to the loss of knowledge of the existence of something due to it having been caught in a black hole and is no longer detectable in any way. Essentially, a loss of information.

I've read The Elegant Universe and am going through Greene's newer book The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes. (A little more accessible to the layman like me.) I'm particularly fond of the section that delves into the Holographic Principle. Anyways, black holes are areas of spacetime where it pretty much crashes. It's the universe's blue screen of death; too much information confined in too small a space such that it reaches the Bekenstein bound. At that point space collapses, and information/entropy is embodied by the event horizon at the "surface".

I don't know if information is truly lost and what role Hawking radiation plays in that role though.

topsecret221
09-13-2012, 11:50 PM
As far as I know, the information isn't "lost" as in "gone forever", more like "lost" as in "we don't know that it existed, and we don't know what "it" is, but something should have existed at some point at some place that it isn't. We sort of attribute that to black holes.

Of course, if one were to actually enter the black hole, you would be able to see everything that the black hole ever sucked in as you fall into the singularity. It's lost because we just can't retrieve it.

btw, if someone can point some flaw out in my argument, please do. No one in my area cares if I'm wrong about this kind of stuff before I get into a good college.