Are you satisfied with the current unit animations and skins?

[GnaReffotsirk]

It translates the concept art and general idea practically with no compromises. The design elements that make it unique and special as a spaceship design also make it work as a unique and special "tiny 3D model seen from bird's eye view" design, without any great deviations from the original concept art. Unlike, for example, the Stalker.

I see. If this bottoms down to the likes of "Blizzard can do what they want and sell what they like", then I've found peace... at least.

Seriously, I agree with what you just said. And the substance of the statement does indeed make one's skin crawl.

[Eligor]

I see. If this bottoms down to the likes of "Blizzard can do what they want and sell what they like", then I've found peace... at least.

Seriously, I agree with what you just said. And the substance of the statement does indeed make one's skin crawl.

Errr... It has more to do with the fact that even very good in-game models don't portray a thing as well as the concept art. And the Phoenix is one of the cases where the margin of loss in transition from concept art to model is very small (and the model conveys the same sleekness and shininess that is an essential quality of the design).

P.S. I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about though.

[GnaReffotsirk]

You're spot on. We're on the same boat. It's just that, I want to shake things up a bit. You know, take some of the toy-like appearances of the units and give them a more sci-fi/realism thing. Not to the extremes though. I mean, look at the zerg models. Sure, their concepts are awesome, but just like you said, the transition from concept to 3d-model has some discrepancies needing attention.

But then again, since Blizzard's direction is towards a more toy-ish appeal, the discrepancies I'm seeing can easily be discarded as inconsistent to their process. And this concern of mine regarding transitions goes waaay back. It's more of a sc1/bw to SC2 thing -- so to speak.

[Nicol Bolas]

Where do we draw the line here?

This is kinda wacky here, but I think the line should be drawn at "looks ugly" or "lacks detail". Neither of which describes the Phoenix or the Mothership.

You know, take some of the toy-like appearances of the units and give them a more sci-fi/realism thing.

When you render things in 3D, they will look like little 3D models. Which your mind somehow confuses with "toy". They look like toys only because that's the simplest description some have for tiny models that have moving parts.

They should look like toys from an overhead, distant perspective.

[MattII]

The only problems I have with the Phoenix are those spikes pointing backwards from the wing-tips, and those things sticking up out of the wings just outside of those spikes pointing backwards where the wings attach to the body.

[Quirel]

On my wish list are:
-"Damaged" looks for the bigger units. The Mothership and the Battlecruiser should be trailing fire and smoke, the Carrier should have dented armor, the Thor... well, the Thor should... Have it's limbs ajar? Have armored sections missing?

And the Ultralisk should be bleeding.

-Multiple unit portraits on the smaller units. With Zerglings and Hydralisks, it would probably be possible to get away with different camera angles, but I would like to see different people as Marines, Firebats (in campaign) and medics (in campaign). Different portraits for Vikings and Siege Tanks are optional.
With Zealots, someone mentioned that Protoss of different tribes look different, so that would be a neat way to implement it. Your Zealots look different based on the color of your faction.

-Environment effects. Someone else mentioned it, so I'd just have to agree with him. Command Centers with snow on them, or with sand strewn across them, or rust running down the sides, would make my day.
But let's take it a bit further, shall we? What if Thors, Collosi, and Ultralisks kick up small clouds of dust as they move? What if Ghosts dress up in Stillsuits in the desert?

I want them to remove the tail rotator blade on the Banshee. Helicopters only have those because they only have 1 main rotor which causes it to spin in one direction, but since the Banshee has two of them at the front, this completely eliminates the need for the back rotor. You'll see that in the movie Avatar they don't have the back rotor blade.

Because the Scorpions in Avatar could angle their rotors a lot.
The Banshee's rotors look pretty stationary, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the back rotor is for assisting emergency turns.

That might be a reason to keep the tail rotor; so that it is somewhat different from the one in Avatar and thus less sue-able.

And Age of Spaceology.
And CnC.
And Terminator (The HK Aerial, as far as I can tell, is the granddaddy of double-engined gunship)

[Kimera757]

In the original StarCraft II video, the mothership did in fact have damaged animations. I hope they kept that.

[phazonjunkie]

Are the marines' bayonets still in? Or have they gotten the axe too?

[don]

On my wish list are:
-"Damaged" looks for the bigger units.

I say when they do it for 1 they should do it for all..

You know how some racing games don't have damage models for cars.. it the same for the builds shown on the battle reports for me. It just breaks the realism attained by the new models..

There comes a point where if you add enough details to a model and it does not animate with the same increased level it looks weird.

______

Also another particular thing the I dislike is how Zealots move like illidan/ninjas. They are too graceful. Look at my sig and watch a SC2 video with zealots, you'll get what I mean (and that's a pink Zealot btw!).

Grace should be for Dark Templars, Zealots should be have a more brutish feel to them. More Wolverine-ey? More "Stab" than "Twirly Slash".

[Eligor]

Also another particular thing the I dislike is how Zealots move like illidan/ninjas. They are too graceful. Look at my sig and watch a SC2 video with zealots, you'll get what I mean (and that's a pink Zealot btw!).

Grace should be for Dark Templars, Zealots should be have a more brutish feel to them. More Wolverine-ey? More "Stab" than "Twirly Slash".

Considering they're supposed to be highly trained warriors, grace seems to be appropriate. I never understood why a more brutish feel should be preferred, especially for warriors who meditate before battle and clearly have a strongly spiritual aspect to their discipline.