About hydra, look when kerrigan is escaping, i see a lot of projectiles from the two hydra on the cutscene, i think the fire ratio is about 1 shooting per second... I will comment also this last post of Robear
Printable View
About hydra, look when kerrigan is escaping, i see a lot of projectiles from the two hydra on the cutscene, i think the fire ratio is about 1 shooting per second... I will comment also this last post of Robear
Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of new posts... I've been busy in real life, spending the time I normally devoted to this. Did color the sprite hydra and ling, but I still haven't finished the Odin or anything. :/
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...ar-d77w4y7.gif
And, this isn't actually new information but: Just when I think I've seen about every Starcraft image in existence, another new source comes along. This time from a 1997 magazine ad, definitely supports the idea that Goliaths are no more than 5m tall, even slightly less. Those grey marines look weird!
http://i.imgur.com/23TRHwZ.jpg
The SCG goliath seems more like 6, though.
http://i.imgur.com/RO6o13Z.gif
I like the little animation you've got going on there, Robear. Thinking about illustrating the SC2's Hydralisk attack?
- - - Updated - - -
I like the little animation you've got going on there, Robear. Thinking about illustrating the SC2's Hydralisk attack?
The marines from the 1997 magazine don't look weird to me. Really just the result of 90s posing (you'll find that animation was different back then, since characters were always made to pose like they were on a catwalk runway), and also the articulation makes sense. The codpiece would bulge out, not to mention, the suits were never known for giving agility.
Your judging that based on a wonky camera angle?Quote:
Originally Posted by robear
Here's some food for thought - that cinematic's reference of the dragoon is silly, even though the cinematic as a whole is pretty awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by robear
Secondly - I don't think blizzard ever was focused on artistic cohesion or accuracy. Back in SC1, they only had to worry about a few things to be cohesive, like sprites and portraits; and that was within the bounds of gameplay. Cinematics were free reign, since units hardly appeared more than once in a cinematic,
In starcraft 2, yes, the art completely changed again, and I still don't think we're seeing all that much cohesion besides on-model reference for important characters (which is easy, given that it's 3D modeling, and not sprite drawing), and the distinctive look or theme that goes with each unit.
I also don't know how he can aim like that when the helmet doesn't swivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robear
The crotch makes sense though, because these pics look awesome.
Attachment 2342
Attachment 2343
EDIT: Remind me to never use quick reply.
Well, the nexus is basically just a mayan/aztec temple with a big staircase and some glowy stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
triple post -_-
What's always bugged me about the Sc1 attack animation is where those massive white "pouches" come from since there is no physical indication of them in it's "non-attacking"/passive stance. As to the Sc2 Hydralisk - I don't think they would warrant another picture because their spine orifices are more plainly visible and seem to fire without much massive contortion or modification of it's carapace like the Sc1 version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visions of Khas
Yeah, I'm not doing an SC2 animation. Largely because, as you all know, my SC2 hydralisk looks kind of shitty, and I don't want to draw a new one, because it would be really time consuming. I may make a 3D model of the BW hydra, and if I do, then I may try to animate the pouches unfolding/inflating.
Haha, nice. Yeah, posting on this website, amirite?Quote:
Originally Posted by solidsamurai
Yeah, you're right. I think I'm just gonna drop the idea of including every hero unit in the overall chart, because there are so many, so then that dragoon design won't even be in it and we can just stop worrying about how nonsensical it is.Quote:
Here's some food for thought - that cinematic's reference of the dragoon is silly, even though the cinematic as a whole is pretty awesome.
See, this is why Ghost was good. Ghost fixes dragoons and adds helmet swivel. I like Ghost's designs. Which is funny, because I hated them when they came out, and I fully expect to have this same thought process about SC2 when Starcraft 3 comes along. :PQuote:
I also don't know how he can aim like that when the helmet doesn't swivel.
I made a 3D model of my sprite zergling drawing, which turned out surprisingly well.
http://i.imgur.com/XWKuvaJ.gif
So, uh, nailed it? But, in doing so, I realized that man, that thing is way bigger than I thought it would be from just looking at the side, because the legs splay out so wide. It's way wider than the cinematic, SCG and SC2 designs, so, I might want to scale it down in the chart, or it's by far the scariest of the 4.
http://i.imgur.com/1QYQJJW.png
Aww, he's not so bad, he's less than half my height...
http://i.imgur.com/hCew6OS.png
JESUS CHRIST that shit is terrifying
So, scale it down a bit, or leave it as the most frightening thing ever? :P
For comparison, here's the smaller-legged SCG ling dying to a marine. In both, the head comes up to about the marine's knee, mine just has huge back legs.
http://i.imgur.com/KAEuIdj.gif
Hmm, that's one giant chicken... :D
I'm partial to the Zerg being as terrifying as much as possible. That said, making it about 20% smaller might do the trick.
That SCG ling is a bit misleading though since it looks nothing like the Sc1 ling (the switched position of the sickles and front "arms", being less bulky and the lack of the characteristic hydralisk shaped head/body). Then again, guess it doesn't hurt to have some variety in 'ling shapes.
I'd actually leave the Zergling the way it is.
- - - Updated - - -
I'd actually leave the Zergling the way it is.