PDA

View Full Version : Starcraft 2 Website Update: Death Animations



Nottoway
05-26-2009, 07:26 PM
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/misc/deathanimations.xml

Overall they look really good. Have a look.

PS, in the last part you get to see the new Lurker model.

mr. peasant
05-26-2009, 07:32 PM
I have to say, I've been calling for multiple death animations based on the fatal hit from the start. I think the 'burned to death' animation looks pretty good up close. However, one criticism of Blizzard's demo is that they neglected to show when these special animations are used, which I think is a major oversight.

Had they shown a back-to-back sample scenarios or even mixed them up in the one scenario they showed (Terran vs Zerg bit), it would have better showcased the overall feel/impact of having multiple deaths in-game.

Kimera757
05-26-2009, 07:35 PM
This is pretty cool, except the carrier death animation looks kind of lame.

Crazy_Jonny
05-26-2009, 07:42 PM
I really think Blizzard needs to focus on redesigning the whole site before the beta. Still, this was a nice little video.

GeeGee
05-26-2009, 08:02 PM
I like it. Did the Lurker get a redesign?




Btw, Karune Q&A Batch 51 is going to be posted tomorrow.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=17367809543&sid=3000

Dauntless
05-26-2009, 08:04 PM
It's a promotional site, not some resource for stats and strategies etc. It's made to look cool.

And the new Lurker model is awesome!

Crazy_Jonny
05-26-2009, 08:04 PM
The lurker looks a little better, still couldnt get a good look at its face.

I wonder if this will be the last Q&A batch?


It's a promotional site, not some resource for stats and strategies etc. It's made to look cool.

And the new Lurker model is awesome!

I'm quite aware of that, but even so, if alot of the screenshots and unit profiles are old, it does not make a good impression on the game. Dont leave old pre-alpha footage and screenshots up there for some people to get the wrong impression.

sandwich_bird
05-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Lurker doesn't look that much retouched...

Aldrius
05-26-2009, 08:33 PM
I like it. Did the Lurker get a redesign?

Nah, just a touch-up.

Looks way better, though.

Pandonetho
05-26-2009, 08:36 PM
Lurker is still ugly as hell IMO.

Dauntless
05-26-2009, 08:36 PM
News up on the front page (http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/392-new-lurker-model-death-animations-and-qaa-51-incoming).


I'm quite aware of that, but even so, if alot of the screenshots and unit profiles are old, it does not make a good impression on the game. Dont leave old pre-alpha footage and screenshots up there for some people to get the wrong impression.

Ah, that's what you meant. I thought you meant that the site in itself was bad. :p Sorry about that^^

I agree that the units and their models + animations should be updated to more recent versions.

Aldrius
05-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Eh, that's really only going to be important when the website starts getting mainstream attention.

Nobody but the hardcore really cares that much about individual units until the game is imminent.

DemolitionSquid
05-26-2009, 08:57 PM
Lurker still looks like shit. The problem is its head, which as far as I can tell hasn't changed.

PsiWarp
05-26-2009, 09:02 PM
The Lurker's grown a new horn on its forehead, that's for sure.


-Psi

GRUNT
05-26-2009, 09:06 PM
The Lurker model looks like more of a 'touch-up' (like what they did with the Corruptor) as opposed to a full-blown model makeover like what the Siege Tank underwent.

I did notice however, that the Lurker seems to have become a good deal larger than it was in earlier media. Is it just me, or did they make it fatter? :p They also seem to have gained some kind of horn-looking thing which sticks out in front of their heads.

I thought the Carrier death looked awesome! They need to balance readability and coolness...I guess that having bits of debris drop to the ground like that Warp Ray in the first gameplay demonstration vid added too much clutter. In BW, Carriers just exploded, and this isn't really that far off. I absolutely love how we see it capsizing just for a second before it goes boom. You can instantly recognise when it's dead, and it lasts just long enough to look awesome (as in, actually inspiring of awe) yet short enough to not really clutter up the screen.

That capsizing animation really does so much to sell the Carrier as a capital ship - there's such a sense of grandeur about it (even as its being blown up :p).

Feels kinda sad to see all those Zerg dying, though :(.

Dauntless
05-26-2009, 09:09 PM
I've always liked how the lurker is very spidery. It looks very able to dig itself into the ground fast. Like certain sand spiders.
ozn31QBOHtk
Maybe they should be able to spin like wheels too? :p Nah, that's a bad idea.

It's huge and easy to spot above ground. Though I think the Roach resembles it to much, and that the Roach needs to be slightly changed, not the other way around.

Wankey
05-26-2009, 09:24 PM
Not satisifed. Carrier still looks like utter shit. Looks like we won't be seeing any update to that anymore.

Zerg units now look lame and ugly and they don't have the bloody mess associated to them now.

They don't explode into a bloody mess either and just kinda "animate" into them wihtout much fanfare. The animation sequences are WAY too fast to have any real visceral effect on gameplay.

Wankey
05-26-2009, 09:32 PM
The more and more I look at these effects, the more I'm feeling they are really really lame. WW07 effects were more solid that this. They're badly animated and way too hastily put in.

Hopefully the art team will be focusing on polishing this stuff as we reach release.

Dauntless
05-26-2009, 09:33 PM
Wow, someones cranky.. :s

The animations shouldn't be long and tedious. It'll just clutter the screen. Short death animations are good.

Blazur
05-26-2009, 09:36 PM
Beautiful...simply beautiful.

@Dauntless
LOL, that spider video is hilarious. That thing must be so dizzy after cartwheeling away like that.

Wankey
05-26-2009, 09:44 PM
Wow, someones cranky.. :s

The animations shouldn't be long and tedious. It'll just clutter the screen. Short death animations are good.

It's because they look lame and CNC3 like. I mean CNC3 now feels like it has better death effects than Starcraft 2.

It's missing A LOT of polish and just feels like hacked together. I hope they fix this later.

Wayward Meteor
05-26-2009, 09:50 PM
Btw, Karune Q&A Batch 51 is going to be posted tomorrow.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=17367809543&sid=3000

I want a beta release date tomorrow or I want one eventually!

Edfishy
05-26-2009, 09:56 PM
I don't know, I like the little details, like the tails still moving, or the Roach on the far right still trying to "bite" the enemy. Killer awesome animations if you ask me. They do get lost in combat a bit though.

Regarding the blood, it just doesn't feel thick enough, and seems entirely useless. The blood "explosion" is almost 3 times larger than the blood splat on the ground, and all of the limbs and body parts have no blood on their texture.

Still, I'm glad they can finally focus on the special effects.

SoFool
05-27-2009, 01:11 AM
Hmm can't really see the new lurker model properly, I thought it was still the same until you guys mentioned it.

sandwich_bird
05-27-2009, 01:15 AM
the corpses should dissolve gradually, not in one blow that's retarded

Rizhall
05-27-2009, 01:54 AM
the corpses should dissolve gradually, not in one blow that's retarded

Maybe they should dissolve and be blown away gradually, sort of like sand? =P

I love these animations. I don't like the Carrier model, but I like the death animation a lot. It blows up exactly as a ship of it's size should, a bunch of small explosions before the whole thing falls.

Same with the Lurkers, I don't like the model, but I love it's death animation, the way it squirms, and writhes in pain before it accepts it's fate and goes on it's back. It's absolutely lovely! I can just imagine the blood curdling shriek it lets out while it's agonizing~<3

I'm wondering... do you guys think physics is still in action? Like, when the Hydras explode, do their parts fall in the same locations, just at different angles? Or do they actually fall with that physics engine they made, so they actually fall dynamically. I'd look more into it... but I'm sleepy. Maybe tomorrow.

PsiWarp
05-27-2009, 02:03 AM
I think Havok Physics still apply, it would have to for Colossus' legs, and even the pieces (see Battle Report 2, SCV's pieces slide along the terrain, as well as some Marine legs).


-Psi

Dread_Reaper
05-27-2009, 02:08 AM
Hmm....

This update gives me great pleasure and brings me great pain. On one hand, a lot of those animations are really really cool. They aren't obtrusive, and yet they add to the chaos without being distracting. The little things, like the thrashing tentacles, add such a fun touch that you come to expect from Blizzard. Its very well done.

But this does come with a grain of salt. On one hand, if the Carrier is this animated, its likely that it will not be remodeled, meaning the goat head remains forever. That's a bummer. Second is that the Lurker, also being this animated, will also be unlikely to change. This is also a bummer, because it looks ridiculous, starting with the fact that it was an odd number of legs, which NO lifeform possessed. Everything is more efficient in pairs. The real problem with the Lurker, however, is the simply fact that it doesn't bear any resemblance to a Hydralisk, which it is evolved from.

Oh well, I suppose we take the bitter with the sweet...

-Dread_Reaper

MattII
05-27-2009, 02:10 AM
Not liking the Carrier death, it's too sudden neat (there should be at least a bit of debris), and as for the Zerg, not too bad, but they could do with some work (the little wormy thing on the Hydralisk should stop after a few moments, bodies should stay around a little longer, especially the burn ones).

Zabimaru
05-27-2009, 02:24 AM
Hell yeah, cart wheeling spider!! The death animations are pretty cool, nice little details here and there. Though yeah, blood a bit thicker maybe? And that grounds going to be very fertile with that much blood and carcasses in its soil... :p

ManjiSanji
05-27-2009, 03:41 AM
I definitely dig all of these. Good stuff!
One thing I'd like to see for the Carrier or Battlecruiser would be the unit basically careening in to the ground. I think that would be awesome.

RamiZ
05-27-2009, 03:59 AM
This is great, i dont see reason for you people complaining, the Death animation looks incredible and realistic, though the burning animation is too long, it should be shorter but it is really good.

Also Dread Lurker had always had five legs.

imdrunkontea
05-27-2009, 04:38 AM
Hmm....

This update gives me great pleasure and brings me great pain. On one hand, a lot of those animations are really really cool. They aren't obtrusive, and yet they add to the chaos without being distracting. The little things, like the thrashing tentacles, add such a fun touch that you come to expect from Blizzard. Its very well done.

But this does come with a grain of salt. On one hand, if the Carrier is this animated, its likely that it will not be remodeled, meaning the goat head remains forever. That's a bummer. Second is that the Lurker, also being this animated, will also be unlikely to change. This is also a bummer, because it looks ridiculous, starting with the fact that it was an odd number of legs, which NO lifeform possessed. Everything is more efficient in pairs. The real problem with the Lurker, however, is the simply fact that it doesn't bear any resemblance to a Hydralisk, which it is evolved from.

Oh well, I suppose we take the bitter with the sweet...

-Dread_Reaper

iirc, the lurker in SC1 also had 5 legs (it was just harder to tell with the in-game model, the hi-res render is more visible).

I really like the death animations here, particularly the carrier's (I also happen to be a fan of the carrier model, so :P )

Can't wait to see the BC death now :)

DemolitionSquid
05-27-2009, 05:36 AM
I like the Carrier's death animation, because I like watching Carriers die.

Stupid, ugly unit :D

Norfindel
05-27-2009, 07:36 AM
I like the Carrier's death animation, because I like watching Carriers die.

Stupid, ugly unit :D
Then you should really take the opportunity to see it in the cinematic. Who knows when are you going to see it again? :p.

scorpio19
05-27-2009, 08:08 AM
Carrier still the same...sucks..

edit:I think they did not see mr jack lurker...still disgusting.

RainbowToeSocks
05-27-2009, 09:38 AM
lurker is still disgusting
at first i didnt even notice it was a -slightly- new model

RamiZ
05-27-2009, 11:01 AM
Dunno, i dig the Lurker. I like it that is so big, it is supposed to be that Huge ;) Just like in SC BW, Lurkers are the Biggest Zergs Ground units after Ultralisk :)

DemolitionSquid
05-27-2009, 12:54 PM
Then you should really take the opportunity to see it in the cinematic. Who knows when are you going to see it again? :p.

So true. No one with any self-respect will build the fucking things.

Pandonetho
05-27-2009, 01:40 PM
I do hope Blizzard decides to add ships crashing into the ground. It'll make for more realistic UMS play instead of having 10 science vessels explode besides a "crashing" battlecruiser, and then a downed Norad suddenly takes its place.

FoxSpirit
05-27-2009, 04:27 PM
Bah, some people are ingrateful, stuff looks awesome. :-P

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 06:31 PM
Lurker legs need to be bulkier.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/project-revolution/images/lurker#imagebox

Btw its sad when fan made work looks better then Blizzards models....

PsiWarp
05-27-2009, 06:42 PM
Ew... the Lurker in that link looks like it has hoofs...


-Psi

DemolitionSquid
05-27-2009, 06:49 PM
Ew... the Lurker in that link looks like it has hoofs...


-Psi

And yet it still looks better than the piece in SC2.

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 06:52 PM
The main thing is proportions. Giant heads with small bodies are the trademarks of cartoons and cuteness. Theve done studies that show how humans respond to head/body proportion.


Exibit A:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/charlie%20brown/huangm777/Outside%20Web%20Files/charlieanim1.jpg

Dauntless
05-27-2009, 07:08 PM
And since when didn't blizzards art style include blown out proportions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmpCXnUsOpw

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 07:43 PM
Im not saying dont do exagerated proportions. Im saying dont do exagerated head to body proportions. Exagerate those digging claws like they did in Brood Wars.

mr. peasant
05-27-2009, 07:54 PM
The main thing is proportions. Giant heads with small bodies are the trademarks of cartoons and cuteness. Theve done studies that show how humans respond to head/body proportion.


Exibit A:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/charlie%20brown/huangm777/Outside%20Web%20Files/charlieanim1.jpg

Problem with your example is that there's more than just head:body ratio differences. Heck, the art style is completely different and it more than likely has a bigger influence on people's impressions.

Nicol Bolas
05-27-2009, 07:55 PM
Giant heads with small bodies are the trademarks of cartoons and cuteness.

The head of the Lurker is big so that you can see it while it's burrowed. It's also, presumably, where the spines come from.

Also, there's a reason I put that quote in my signature.

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 08:05 PM
Problem with your example is that there's more than just head:body ratio differences. Heck, the art style is completely different and it more than likely has a bigger influence on people's impressions.
There are other things but the main point is to show how head size correlates with perceptions of youth.




The head of the Lurker is big so that you can see it while it's burrowed. It's also, presumably, where the spines come from.

Shouldnt the legs be big so it can dig a whole big enough for the head to fit in?




Also, there's a reason I put that quote in my signature.

Wanting Starcraft 2 to look like Starcraft 1 does not equal fear of childishness. I liked this game when I was a child.

Nicol Bolas
05-27-2009, 08:37 PM
Shouldnt the legs be big so it can dig a whole big enough for the head to fit in?

Well, being able to recognize a burrowed Lurker affects gameplay, so no.


Wanting Starcraft 2 to look like Starcraft 1 does not equal fear of childishness.

*ahem*: "Giant heads with small bodies are the trademarks of cartoons and cuteness." If that isn't fear of childishness, I don't know what is.

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 08:42 PM
Well, being able to recognize a burrowed Lurker affects gameplay, so no.

And wont big legs make the lurker more recognizable above ground?




*ahem*: "Giant heads with small bodies are the trademarks of cartoons and cuteness." If that isn't fear of childishness, I don't know what is.

You don't.

ManjiSanji
05-27-2009, 08:57 PM
And since when didn't blizzards art style include blown out proportions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmpCXnUsOpw

So THAT'S where he said the bit about them making the Thor and telling design to make it work!

Samwise is actually a pretty fun guy. Can't say I agree with everything he does, but at least he's got a sense of fun.

Nicol Bolas
05-27-2009, 09:02 PM
And wont big legs make the lurker more recognizable above ground?

There's a reason why in SC1, Lurkers had a different kind of hole than any other Zerg unit. Lurkers are at their best when they are underground.

PsiWarp
05-27-2009, 09:31 PM
Despite the horrorible thorax, the new Lurker does look good up close. The big headpiece now splits into a center, sleek back. The spikes settle on the shoulder pads, which combine to form a headpiece, giving people an impression of a big head. In actuality, the head is at the forepiece.

It reflects on the previously seen Lurker portrait!


-Psi

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 09:50 PM
There's a reason why in SC1, Lurkers had a different kind of hole than any other Zerg unit. Lurkers are at their best when they are underground.

well heck why even give them any legs at all....

No sence making part of the model look good when its only going to be seen every single time the player moves his lurkers

Aldrius
05-27-2009, 10:18 PM
well heck why even give them any legs at all....

No sence making part of the model look good when its only going to be seen every single time the player moves his lurkers

...their legs were comically gigantic in the original StarCraft. These ones are a bit more reasonable in the ratio. Most insects have very large body portions (either their head or their abdomen) in the case of Lurkers, I guess that portion is just their head.

Nicol Bolas
05-27-2009, 10:31 PM
No sence making part of the model look good when its only going to be seen every single time the player moves his lurkers

What about the part of the model that's going to be seen all the time: the head?

And I still don't see what's wrong with the legs.

ArcherofAiur
05-27-2009, 10:37 PM
...their legs were comically gigantic in the original StarCraft. These ones are a bit more reasonable in the ratio. Most insects have very large body portions (either their head or their abdomen) in the case of Lurkers, I guess that portion is just their head.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/0/07/SC1_Lurker.gif


http://www.geometer.org/earthwatch98/tarantula.jpg



Im not saying they shouldnt have big heads. They should. What Im saying is that they need big legs to convey that Tarantula feel that they had in Brood Wars.

Dauntless
05-27-2009, 11:08 PM
Oaegh! Hairy :s Those creatures give me chills.. I've no doubt that they are pure evil.

Anyway, I might agree that the head of the new lurker needs some tweaking, though not because of the size. Just because of the looks..

And yeah, Samwise is cool. Too bad his fav. band is Manowar Oo (Needs better metal taste)

MattII
05-28-2009, 02:36 AM
The other fact of the matter is that the Lurker is very much bigger than any insect or other exoskeletal creature, and thus, the legs need to be strong enough to compensate. The whole thing isn't helped by their sprawling posture, which also increases the need for good strong legs.

Zukas
05-28-2009, 07:05 AM
I haven't been able to get on the SC2 site since this was posted >.<

Dauntless
05-28-2009, 08:23 AM
Try http://us.starcraft2.com