Idea for unit portraits

[Triceron]

well, take a look at the portraits. The backgrounds are very very muted, usually just a colored light or colored fog behind the head. There's no real reason to have any bg changes, or heck even lighting changes.

Half the units in the game are pilots too, so it doesn't really apply to any of them.

http://sc2pod.com/news/Unit_Portraits/

[Maul]

It would be a good idea for aesthetics. Not some worth working on right now, though. Perhaps a patch later on?

Unlike most companies, Blizzard tends to ship out a finished product.

[MattII]

Right, just like having animated portraits itself is a 100% pointless feature?

Animated portraits are (were in SC anyway) used in introductions (hero ones at least), so in that case more-or-less all units need them. This feature, however, serves no purpose whatsoever, and thus including it would be a waste of time.

[electricmole]

[QUOTE=Pandonetho;16790]Right, just like having animated portraits itself is a 100% pointless feature?

no, imo its one of the things that made blizzardd rts set apart from the others. i thought having animated portrait gave the units more character and personality.

don't worry i doubt this feature will delay the game. Adding a snow background will not take a week.

[Pandonetho]

Animated portraits are (were in SC anyway) used in introductions (hero ones at least), so in that case more-or-less all units need them. This feature, however, serves no purpose whatsoever, and thus including it would be a waste of time.

They could have easily just done it with picture portraits. Why'd they make animated portraits? Atmosphere of course, why do you think they had different sound effects for when Jim is in a battlecruiser, a marine suit, or on a vulture? Atmosphere.

Adding visible terrain/weather on the few units that show the background will ad atmosphere.

No big deal to me, but I think it'd be neat if incorporated.

[Hav0x]

Seems like a 100% pointless feature.

As are portraits to begin with.

[Triceron]

Portraits are not pointless. They're a part of the unit's identity, a closer look at the units you control on the battlefield.

I mean if you think portraits are pointless, then one can argue the units themselves as pointless since they could be colored dots shooting other colored dots.

[Pandonetho]

Portraits are not pointless. They're a part of the unit's identity, a closer look at the units you control on the battlefield.

I mean if you think portraits are pointless, then one can argue the units themselves as pointless since they could be colored dots shooting other colored dots.

Depends on how detailed you want to get down to.

How are portraits any less pointless than adding in background terrain in said portraits?

They don't serve ANY purpose besides adding atmosphere, so they're no less pointless at all. You could have pictures and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[Hav0x]

Portraits are not pointless. They're a part of the unit's identity, a closer look at the units you control on the battlefield.

I mean if you think portraits are pointless, then one can argue the units themselves as pointless since they could be colored dots shooting other colored dots.

I don't think portraits are pointless, what I meant (and should have taken the time to clarify) was that if he thinks having dynamic lighting for a portrait is pointless, then there is no need for the portrait in the first place.

I wouldn't call them pointless since they have a purpose, to add to the atmosphere of the game.

People need to stop acting like anything that isn't directly related to the actual gameplay isn't needed.

[UED]

great idea.