Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
i don't know but the older model was much better
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/t...tlecruiser.xml
and also the brigther Thor model from the 4th battle report is much better then the current one...
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Darker and tougher the model looks, the better.
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dynamiK-
Darker and tougher the model looks, the better.
darker,not tougher,cartoonish,yeah i suppose is 'better'
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vIsitor
I once commented on the aesthetic changes to the battlecruiser, back when people were still more concerned about sapping the color out of everything than fixing the fundamental design flaws in the models.
As others have commented, the original BC design was sleek and predatory; it conveyed a sense of scale, despite its (relatively) small sprite size. All of the defining details were small, which therefore gave the craft an inherent sense of largeness. This is the law of conservation of detail at work.
The raised bridge; the enormous, bulky gun turrets; the unnecessary "fins" on the nacelles. All of these are added details to the new model that serve to make the Battlecruiser look smaller than it really is. I even once photoshopped together a few 'before and after' pictures once to display just how they affected the perception of the model. These details could be compensated for, if the unit was enlarged to scale to the new details better (specifically, if the neck was elongated it'd look less toy-like). However, the far more economic option would be to reduce (or even remove) the unnecessary details in their entirety.
A Short-List of Changes:
• Lose the Raised Bridge. It has never been cool, and never will be.
• Shrink the fins so they're less prominent.
• Go for a more utilitarian turret design. Ball turrets look clumsy; employ something more 'flat' and/or angular.
• Reduce turret size to between 2/3 or 1/2 their current size.
• Improve turret placement to something moderately sane.
• Flatten the "nose" of the Battlecruiser model to be flush with the hammerhead, or very nearly so.
• Don't exaggerate the animations: disproportionately subtle animations imply mass. Its a big object; let it act like it.
Anyway, since we know that Blizzard isn't going to fix this by this late in development, lets just hope that some bored modder comes up with a third-party graphical update that takes this sort of thing into consideration. ;)
All this is so true, I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arthas
Nah, current Thor model is way better without the wall box body. The new body rocks! however you seem to be talking about the model textures, which seem more toyish than metallic unlike the BR4 one. In that sense All the Terran army would look better if looked more metallic than toyish...
Back to Battlecruisers and the weapon refit, I think they could do it this way:
http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthrea...3503#post73503
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arthas
darker,not tougher,cartoonish,yeah i suppose is 'better'
Yeah, that is what I was going for, a non-cartoonish look. Like the old Siege Tank model was a joke, it looked like something straight out of a Disney movie.
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vIsitor
I once commented on the aesthetic changes to the battlecruiser, back when people were still more concerned about sapping the color out of everything than fixing the fundamental design flaws in the models.
As others have commented, the original BC design was sleek and predatory; it conveyed a sense of scale, despite its (relatively) small sprite size. All of the defining details were small, which therefore gave the craft an inherent sense of largeness. This is the law of conservation of detail at work.
The raised bridge; the enormous, bulky gun turrets; the unnecessary "fins" on the nacelles. All of these are added details to the new model that serve to make the Battlecruiser look smaller than it really is. I even once photoshopped together a few 'before and after' pictures once to display just how they affected the perception of the model. These details could be compensated for, if the unit was enlarged to scale to the new details better (specifically, if the neck was elongated it'd look less toy-like). However, the far more economic option would be to reduce (or even remove) the unnecessary details in their entirety.
A Short-List of Changes:
• Lose the Raised Bridge. It has never been cool, and never will be.
• Shrink the fins so they're less prominent.
• Go for a more utilitarian turret design. Ball turrets look clumsy; employ something more 'flat' and/or angular.
• Reduce turret size to between 2/3 or 1/2 their current size.
• Improve turret placement to something moderately sane.
• Flatten the "nose" of the Battlecruiser model to be flush with the hammerhead, or very nearly so.
• Don't exaggerate the animations: disproportionately subtle animations imply mass. Its a big object; let it act like it.
Anyway, since we know that Blizzard isn't going to fix this by this late in development, lets just hope that some bored modder comes up with a third-party graphical update that takes this sort of thing into consideration. ;)
Good post Mr. vIs! Although I don't mind the new BC, I do see how it could be improved. A lot. The one thing I can't stand is the Yamato animation. It's more cartoony than the original Infestor, for God's sake.
That said, I definitely preferred the original Thor appearance to this one. The bulky, unwieldy look was a huge part of the appeal. Now that it's "sleeker" I feel it's lost something very fundamentally Terran.
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
That said, I definitely preferred the original Thor appearance to this one. The bulky, unwieldy look was a huge part of the appeal. Now that it's "sleeker" I feel it's lost something very fundamentally Terran.
Thing is, quite a few (extremely vocal) fans complained because it was bulky and unwieldy-looking. Not that I agree with them, but this is very much a subjective issue. Of course, the complainers are also the ones who turned it into a paper tiger with false dentures (and then had the gall to complain that it was a paper tiger with false dentures), but I digress.
On another note, I'd just like to reiterate to the "make it darker!" crowd that playing with the hue slider isn't an effective solution. At least, not when the problems are fundamentally part of the design. A well-designed model looks nice even when its badly colored, but a poorly-designed one looks poorly-designed no matter how you color it. Try experimenting with the cloning tool in photoshop instead of playing with the goddamn sponge.
Re: Do you love how Battlecruiser looks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vIsitor
Thing is, quite a few (extremely vocal) fans complained because it was bulky and unwieldy-looking. Not that I agree with them, but this is very much a subjective issue. Of course, the complainers are also the ones who turned it into a paper tiger with false dentures (and then had the gall to complain that it was a paper tiger with false dentures), but I digress.
[/i].
Were talking about not the origininal 'bulky' Thor but the one from Battle report 4 - that one was great...And personally the brigther model was better for the BC's,At least for me...
