SC: RM Feedback/Inconsistencies Mega-Thread

[Undeadprotoss]

So from the very beginning I've thought that the art style in StarCraft 1 played an essential role in the player's enjoyment of the story, because it helped create a dark sci-fi atmosphere. This thread is just my idea of cataloging all the potential differences between the original StarCraft and the Remastered version.

i'm personally worried when it comes to all things splash art related (https://giphy.com/gifs/blizzard-ent-...cuHQiGu7XF2N9K) but ESPECIALLY with the unit portraits. Unit portraits back in the day were done with specific backgrounds, angles, effects that made the units seem mysterious, which played on your imagination.

In SC2, you basically have all god damn units looking directly at the camera without anything interesting going on. Unlike in SC1 where you had the Archon's eyes obscured by purple flame, and the High Templar's face was perpetually covered by shadow.

The Protoss concern me especially, instead of having the leathery/spotted skin they are depicted in virtually all old concept art such as:

http://classic.battle.net/images/bro.../fenixprev.jpg
http://classic.battle.net/images/bro...l/zeraprev.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...f4c328cc92.jpg
http://classic.battle.net/images/bro...l/protprev.jpg
https://www.diablowiki.net/images/0/0a/Mart01_t.jpg
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/...20071115114821
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/...20110810130953

They instead have this saggy skin kind of look, which I don't like at all and am afraid will carry over to Tassadar, Fenix, Aldaris, Zeratul, etc. Even with the zerg in the gif I link to earlier in this post, the Hydralisk loses its trademark boney, skeletal look and instead goes for something much more muscular and meaty, which wasn't how the SC1 hydralisks looked at all.

But those are just some of my first impressions and concerns, what are yours?

[Robear]

I wouldn't worry about those 3 promo art faces at all. Yes, this hydralisk looks like crap, but it's because it's just a hastily edited version of the SC2 hydralisk model, and won't be in the actual game.

If you look at the SC2 hydra model, you can see all its features, from the bony structure around the eyes to the thick, meaty mandibles with very large teeth on the ends, to that one silly pointy tooth in the middle of the upper jaw, the ugly bumpy nose area... All those features are in the Remastered splash art hydra unchanged, they just made it brown and shiny and called it a day.



For the actual portraits in game, this is the new remastered hydralisk face design they are using, which is a departure from the original, yes, but at least it looks badass, and has a similar sense of lighting, angle, saliva streaming from its mouth, etc. And the background looks very similar to the old one.


Not really sure why they wanted to change the old design at all, but I actually think this is way better than the SC2 hydra. Definitely hope they don't put that ugly one in the launcher as the logo or anything though.

I am curious to see what they do with the Protoss faces... But they're at least trying to stay mostly faithful with the other portraits they have shown. Like, I'm satisfied with the wraith, SCV, and the guardian is also fine. Battlecruiser looks very like the original.

[Undeadprotoss]

Thanks a ton for the clarification on the hydralisk face Robear.

I wonder how different the still unit portraits like the other Hydralisk picture you posted will be from the mobile unit portraits (In SC1 I believe they were all mobile, behaving a lot like Gifs). If that's the case, there could be more room for the remastered hydralisk to look more similar to it's original counterpart. That's really where a lot of the camera angles come into play with these unit portraits.

On the topic of Protoss faces, I noticed that they seemed to use the same kind of skin for the Protoss Archon portrait, AND it seems like they are making the eyes visible,just as they did on the remastered model with little slits for eyes (which in all fairness, may make the model cooler/more ominous) but in general, I think the more obscurity the better with those kinds of things.

Protoss Archon Remastered.JPG

- - - Updated - - -

Come to think of it, I think the art style they are employing with the article may simply be the art style that they are using for the comic book series and still frames. The guardian and especially the wraith came out very well indeed.

[Visions of Khas]

They instead have this saggy skin kind of look, which I don't like at all and am afraid will carry over to Tassadar, Fenix, Aldaris, Zeratul, etc

There seems to be some variation. Some Protoss have what appear to be this thicker, leathery texture to the skin, potentially formed of scutes or osteoderms, often with ornate cranial ridges. This can be seen in High Templar and the SCRM promo pic. Others, like Artanis, have a more delicately textured skin, with intricate patterns emerging from the scales. Finally, females have very smooth skin and delicately structured cranial ridges (a sign of neoteny).

So the scales and cranial ridge, taken together, indicate age. So everything we've seen from Wings of Liberty forward (including existant content from the Remastered version) should all be canonical. So I expect to see both variation going forward.

[Undeadprotoss]

Now that I think about it even more, I think the lack of darkness and the lighting in a lot of these shots is what I don't like. Having the SCV be in a dark shot and having the Battlecruiser pilot be in a poorly lit portrait helps create a foreboding atmosphere. I think that's what a lot of these portraits are missing, they're very faithful, but if they JUST had the lighting right they would be godly.

I think that all goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding of StarCraft and it's atmosphere. I appreciate all of what the design team has done, but it's just this tiny detail.

[Visions of Khas]

Now that I think about it even more, I think the lack of darkness and the lighting in a lot of these shots is what I don't like... I think that all goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding of StarCraft and it's atmosphere. I appreciate all of what the design team has done, but it's just this tiny detail.

I think it's actually because of technical limitations that the original was so much better atmospherically. When developing StarCraft I, with their processing power and resources extremely limited, Blizzard artists were forced to think outside the box to push character and atmosphere. Today, many artists focus on minute details in texture and models -- because that's what people expect. But this leads them away from implementing the additional atmospheric details.

When you closely examine some of the assets, as I have recently in learning the Editor, you can see this huge gulf in detail between models. This indicates a major push for quantity over quality.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

I can easily understand the concern over this, as I have some reservations too. hopefully they don't SC2ize this game, I will explode into a supernova if they pull that shit.

[Undeadprotoss]

I think it's actually because of technical limitations that the original was so much better atmospherically. When developing StarCraft I, with their processing power and resources extremely limited, Blizzard artists were forced to think outside the box to push character and atmosphere. Today, many artists focus on minute details in texture and models -- because that's what people expect. But this leads them away from implementing the additional atmospheric details.

When you closely examine some of the assets, as I have recently in learning the Editor, you can see this huge gulf in detail between models. This indicates a major push for quantity over quality.

I completely agree, it's even more apparent when you consider the particular circumstances of SC1. It was during an incredibly pivotal moment for Blizzard as a company, there were several times when the team almost couldn't make payroll, and I think Mike Morhaim, Frank Pearce, and a couple other guys cashed in their debit cards at their local supermarkets to make sure they could have payroll every week. They were working with incredibly strained resources.

I would say though, having shadows and dim lighting is much easier to do with mobile portraits because the character will move around and occasionally you'll catch a larger glimpse of him/her/it. With a still portrait though, dim lighting means you can't see the damn character.

If there is one detail that would perfect SC:RM, it would be this, I pray they notice it in time.

[Undeadprotoss]

I can easily understand the concern over this, as I have some reservations too. hopefully they don't SC2ize this game, I will explode into a supernova if they pull that shit.

I feel like they definitely get that there are differences in the art style between SC1 and SC2, but I don't know if the art team knows how vast they potentially are. I doubt they would try to emulate SC2 though.

[Visions of Khas]

I think it might also be a matter of artistic pride. When an artist puts a lot of time and work into textures and models, they want it to be seen. Aside from Amon's portraits, atmosphere is almost totally non-existent in unit portraits.