HoTS Portaits and Wireframes

[TheProgramer]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Pr0nogo]

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their portrait work would be greatly improved if they used modern graphics technology (their engine is over five years out of date, if I'm not mistaken) and/or used their CGI team to design them.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 But StarCraft II's modeling systems are out of date, archaic, and downright useless to all modern modelers, so much so that they needed custom animations and models for every speech that occurred in their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, 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]

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]

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]

[Pr0nogo]

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]

Not worth it. You have the delusions of spychi but not the entertainment value.