HoTS Portaits and Wireframes

[DemolitionSquid]

This is how I picture Pr0nogo.

[Cotcan]

I'm pretty sure it's sixty dollars.

Gamestop would disagree with you, and Gamestop is usually right about these things.

[Pr0nogo]

man I don't even know what that is

I already said I would concede on the price, but I guess nobody here reads anymore.

[Hawki]

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their portrait work would be greatly improved if they used modern graphics technology (their engine is over five years out of date, if I'm not mistaken) and/or used their CGI team to design them.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 But StarCraft II's modeling systems are out of date, archaic, and downright useless to all modern modelers, so much so that they needed custom animations and models for every speech that occurred in their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

Seriously? You're bringing graphics into this?

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.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion I guess.

This is how I picture Pr0nogo.

Hmm...I feel I should be getting a joke somewhere. Then again, to my shame, I haven't seen Babylon 5.

[Turalyon]

Hmm...I feel I should be getting a joke somewhere. Then again, to my shame, I haven't seen Babylon 5.

Yes, shame on you! Some great hardcore sci-fi in that show.

The "joke" is that one of the alien species in that show (the Centauri) are only recognised as being physically 'different' from humans is because of their outlandish hair-do's.

[Pr0nogo]

Seriously? You're bringing graphics into this?

Every part of the product should be reflective of time and funding. Yes, I am bringing graphics into this; visual storytelling should never be ignored, and neither should worldbuilding. Both were ignored. Both would have benefited hugely from improved graphics.

The "joke" is that one of the alien species in that show (the Centauri) are only recognised as being physically 'different' from humans is because of their outlandish hair-do's.

I mean, I have long hair, but it's just straight up and down like an average metal hairstyle.

[TheEconomist]

You'd think you'd get your aggro out with all that headbanging and spare us the unpleasantness. I guess the wellspring of Polish anger never runs dry.

-- Just got some time and a craving for some banging of head against wall so I'll bite but only briefly. You can't expect StarCraft II to have modern graphics and expect them to meet the standards of the originals. It takes years and years and years of iteration and, during that time, they need a constant graphics engine for testing. Annnnd, now I'm done before you start to wither away my intelligence.

Also, your professional comment is ironic considering you use StarEdit instead of any of the other number of newer, better editors. I guess you have no pride in your work.

[Pr0nogo]

...Where did you see me use StarEdit? I don't think I ever used that when I had a better alternative, and I always had a better alternative unless I was working off of a Mac. I use SCMDraft.

Even if I did use an older tool, there is no connection between using outdated tools to modify an existing game and using outdated tools to make a game (other than the fact that both are outdated). Don't respond to something with insults if they're as meaningless as that; at least try to have some substance. No, race doesn't count.

I can expect them to have better graphics than what they had, for all the funding they had. Games with longer development times and less funding (and games with shorter development times and less funding, obviously) have had better graphics and delivered a better experience. I might not have a lot of comparisons for the real-time strategy genre but that's because there are about twelve whole RTS retail games a decade.

[The_Blade]

I find the StarCraft 2 graphics ok. Blizzard's main focus market when creating SC2 was the general audience of gamers. They wanted a game which wouldn't need a super computer to run (hence the ok graphics) and the game engine was created in 2005-7 under this idea.

Liking or not liking the SC2 graphics is up to everybody's own opinion, but Blizz still took a whole amount of time to polish the art of the game. So, I'd say the engine is ok, but the art used is among the best possible outcomes for the engine.

I agree with Pr0nogo on the fact the the engine was not the best engine, but I have to disagree on the idea that game's experience falls heavily on the engine/graphics of a game. Gameplay is what makes an RTS deliver a good experience; and I believe Blizz did a great job on that part too, even if it took them a good amount of patches to deliver.

Worldbuilding on the other hand was lacking, and Gradius did a nice review on the flaws of it and the campaign. SC2 WoL is a game I would pay $60 and the "collector's edition", but I do believe they failed to create the game they wanted.

@everyone: Taking an argument into a personal level is not the best way to discuss your ideas. You know better than that.

[Pr0nogo]

I think we all know better than that. Very few of us will rise above, though.

I don't think the graphics are acceptable. Games from 2005-7 are better-looking than StarCraft II.