Printable View
That is a little naive, they are in crunch mode, polishing every single little rock they've work on for the past 5 years. They're probably working overtime right now trying to polish the game. Adding this feature will be a luxury if they can get it down, but I believe Starcraft 2 is currently feature complete, and now undergoing heavy polishing. Each portrait is being tweaked and looked better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisso
There's a difference between having it planned from the beginning, and adding it as an afterthought this late into production. It can be added, but we're on the verge of beta and there's still so much art needed to be addressed (Look at Wraith thread)...Quote:
Originally Posted by electricmole
Colored lighting and post effects like snow or rain I'm fine with. This kind of stuff can apply to most of the unit portraits in the game.
You want them to delay the game for a feature that only 1/4 of people are going to even notice, and fewer than half of those are going to care about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizhall
Those features are already established, multiple portraits aren't. Oh, and taking that argument to its logical extreme you end up with Hamurabi.Quote:
Then I guess they should just get rid of portraits completely. While you're at it, take out multiple tilesets. What's the point of more than 1 tileset?
I doubt no more than 1/4 the people will care about the hydralisk melee animation, yet they added that in.Quote:
You want them to delay the game for a feature that only 1/4 of people are going to even notice, and fewer than half of those are going to care about?
Are you kidding me? I think everyone has been wondering why in all the movies hydralisks use their claws but in the game they shoot spines.
So they added it in. Worthy of lore.
I wasn't among those calling for it in the first place, so I don't really have any opinion on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
And you're not calling for those added background effects either, yet you have an opinion on those?Quote:
I wasn't among those calling for it in the first place, so I don't really have any opinion on the matter.
I'm calling for them not to bother adding background effects, so yes, I do have an opinion. Not saying 'yes' isn't the same as saying 'no'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
What does it matter anyway?
Fact of the matter is you said no one's going to care about background effects so why bother adding it?
Well why bother adding a melee animation then for the hydra? No one is going to care about that either, and whether you called for it or not doesn't make a difference.
Actually I said don't bother adding it because hardly anyone's going to notice it. 'Don't bother', not 'why bother', there's a difference there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
Saying about that now won't make a difference because it's already in. This isn't in yet, so I can still hold an opinion on it.Quote:
Well why bother adding a melee animation then for the hydra? No one is going to care about that either, and whether you called for it or not doesn't make a difference.
Dude, same thing. Why bother adding it? No one's going to notice. No one's going to notice, don't bother adding it. Same meaning.Quote:
Actually I said don't bother adding it because hardly anyone's going to notice it. 'Don't bother', not 'why bother', there's a difference there.
Right then, so I'll just accept that if a topic was brought up about the Hydralisk's melee animation before it was added in, you would've been against it, and it would have been added anyway.Quote:
Saying about that now won't make a difference because it's already in. This isn't in yet, so I can still hold an opinion on it.
Actually, no it's not, 'why bother' means you don't care whether it happens or not, 'don't bother' means you do care, but disagree with it, if you can't tell the difference you need to learn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
Something like that, yes.Quote:
Right then, so I'll just accept that if a topic was brought up about the Hydralisk's melee animation before it was added in, you would've been against it, and it would have been added anyway.
This argument is pointless, and is a waste of space.
Pando
If I asked you if Strawberry flavoured Ice Cream was your favourite, and you said no, that means you hate it?
You're using that same logic right now.
Hm? I could've sworn you were against these background animations because it would be apparently to you a waste of time and not worth the effort.Quote:
You're using that same logic right now.
I think small things like these are worth the effort, and make the game more enjoyable.
Like a Hydralisk's melee animation.
Yet you're using binary logic, thinking that if they can be added, they should be.
It's not as easy as a 'yes' or 'no'.
Effort put in to the game pays off, despite your minuscule opinion regarding it's 'inferior' position in the game.
"Pointless" things in-game, which have nevertheless improved the game-play experience:
Map doodads (many of them)
Multiple unit voice replies for the same action
Animated unit-portraits
Different GUIs for each race
Critters
This list could go on.
If Blizzard were to get their graphics guys to spend a day merely changing the lighting style and weather effects, nobody would complain that the inclusion was unnecessary, yet many nods of approval from those who agree with additional detail, would ensue.
Yet I can tell you from experience that such changes can not be done in a day.
I speak with the knowledge of what it takes to get what is being asked of and represented in game, from both professional and modding experience. I've set up cameras for portraits for units in Warcraft 3, Dawn of War and more.
To set up a dynamic background that is dependant on the map tileset for units that have a background, is already a chore. Factor in that some units are static while others are moving (mutalisk), and you will have to make a custom animated background for those, meaning twice the work. Rinse and repeat for each tileset. This isn't something you can half-ass either. If you add a custom background for one unit portrait, you will have to apply it to ALL applicable unit portraits. We know well enough Blizzard won't put in a feature if they don't get it right.
The time it takes to do all of this could well be spent in other areas of the game that could use attention.
To put it simply, you're changing the upholstery in a car when it needs a new paintjob.
I believe you've got the wrong impression on what this idea is. Adding a variable to the lighting of the scene is no heavy task. Having experience myself with 3D modelling and rendering, I can say that it is not too difficult to create a few different scenes (same camera) with different light settings. Orange-ish for desert, cyan/white for snow, etc. The background would not be animated, obviously that would be far too much effort for a small square of screen space. Again, changing a few parameters which vary in dependence to the map-style, would not be such a time-consuming task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
I, for one, fully appreciate the space backgrounds in many of SC1's flying units' protraits.
That's not the same as what Pando is referring to. He said 'Background animations', not colored lights and weather effects. If you want to know what he's talking about, refer to post #18 in this thread.
I explained in an earlier post that I'm fine with changes in light color and adding simple particle effects to suggest weather. But what he is asking is not a simple post effect or something you can tweak with sliders in the map editor.
Apologies, I thought you were replying to the main issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron