Presenting Wraiths

[Wankey]

Like I said before, I think I'm getting used to the Wraith model.

[SaharaDrac]

Keep in mind that Starcraft 1's cinematics come from days long past, where cinematic graphics were quite limited. I'm arguing that the "good ol Wraith" that you know, love, and accept as design canon is probably not as close to the original vision of the vessel that the develeopers had in mind. let me show you an example, citing the cinematics of SC1 as you have:

Here we have two beloved characters from Starcraft 1's opening cinematic, Sarge and Lester. Charming? Sure. Perfectly good for the time? Absolutely. But I don't hear anyone complaining about how Tychus Findlay or Jim Raynor's new faces in Starcraft 2 have "lost their demented polygonal hillbilly appeal", or how "the new graphics ruin the characters" for them. As a matter of fact, I would be livid if I started up my SC2 campaign and was greeted by this:

New art improvements aren't bad, they are simply new.

When we started playing Starcraft, we were probably pretty young. The graphics were cool 2D sprites, but were constrained by graphical limitations. We had to use our imaginations to "fill in the gaps" of the way the units looked. So in essence, the way a particular unit "is" or "should be" varies from case to case. The key is to let go of your "how it should be" preconceptions from SC1. Let the 3D design and technology of the time inform to you how units look, not suggest how they look. In the end, it's Blizzard's unit, they made it, and how it looks IS canon.

[Aldrius]

Well, also keep in mind geometric shapes (like the Wraith) looked much, MUCH better in 90's CGI than human beings or wilderness terrain did. (ESPECIALLY cliffs and mountains).

Personally I think the new SC2 model looks fairly consistent with what was portrayed in the SC1 cinematics, just with a lot more needless detail. Which is where I think most of the sensible issues with the model lie.

[XSOLDIER]

It's not really saying that the SC1 graphics were better.
In my opinion, it's mostly that the design of the unit was more realistic / better in SC1.

I think that some people're trying to say that the SC1/PR Wraith looked like a starship / fightplane, and the current Wraith doesn't look entirely accurate. In that comparison, the SC2 Wraith looks a lot more like a computer model than a real ship as compared to the SC1 model imo.

(does anyone have a screenshot of the Wraiths from the SC1 Cinematics?)


X

[Aldrius]

Post 127, X. =)

[Eligor]

Keep in mind that Starcraft 1's cinematics come from days long past, where cinematic graphics were quite limited. I'm arguing that the "good ol Wraith" that you know, love, and accept as design canon is probably not as close to the original vision of the vessel that the develeopers had in mind. let me show you an example, citing the cinematics of SC1 as you have:


Here we have two beloved characters from Starcraft 1's opening cinematic, Sarge and Lester. Charming? Sure. Perfectly good for the time? Absolutely. But I don't hear anyone complaining about how Tychus Findlay or Jim Raynor's new faces in Starcraft 2 have "lost their demented polygonal hillbilly appeal", or how "the new graphics ruin the characters" for them. As a matter of fact, I would be livid if I started up my SC2 campaign and was greeted by this:


New art improvements aren't bad, they are simply new.

When we started playing Starcraft, we were probably pretty young. The graphics were cool 2D sprites, but were constrained by graphical limitations. We had to use our imaginations to "fill in the gaps" of the way the units looked. So in essence, the way a particular unit "is" or "should be" varies from case to case. The key is to let go of your "how it should be" preconceptions from SC1. Let the 3D design and technology of the time inform to you how units look, not suggest how they look. In the end, it's Blizzard's unit, they made it, and how it looks IS canon.

There is a huge gap between representations of technology and humans in 3D graphics. So comparing Sarge and Lester against Raynor and Tychus is a rather irrelevant example. With the graphics they had back then they could (and did) create cinematic images of spaceships that were much more naturalistic than any representation of humans.

Design, on its purest level, has relatively little to do with technology, and StarCraft 2's technology gives Blizzard a rather wide leeway in what they can create and put on screen. It definitely doesn't restrain unit geometries to being "just so and no different". According to your arguments they shouldn't have revamped the Stalker model to fit the concept art closer because "it fitted the technology more". My argument is that the Wraith in the original StarCraft looked better purely from a design standpoint, regardless of the technology used to represent it and that Blizzard can easily adjust the SC 2 model to look much better than it currently does (it's not an issue of lighting or rendering, but relatively small details). Of course it may be so that you like the design of the current SC 2 model more than that of the original, though you haven't put it like that, and you're fully entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree. And no, changes in design can be (and often are) for better or worse, even if the "better" or "worse" depend on an individual viewpoint. I guess my problem with your position is your insistence on people accepting the design as a better one simply because it's "new" and conveyed through "new and improved technology", which strikes me as a pretty inane and shallow notion.

[SaharaDrac]

It's not really saying that the SC1 graphics were better.
In my opinion, it's mostly that the design of the unit was more realistic / better in SC1.

I think that some people're trying to say that the SC1/PR Wraith looked like a starship / fightplane, and the current Wraith doesn't look entirely accurate. In that comparison, the SC2 Wraith looks a lot more like a computer model than a real ship as compared to the SC1 model imo.

(does anyone have a screenshot of the Wraiths from the SC1 Cinematics?)


X

A "real" theoretical space fighter in a fabricated science fiction universe? Who decides which make-believe laser spaceship is the "realistic" one? Is the X-Wing the Starfighter standard to which all other spaceship designs must be held? Have you ever played EVE Online? There's lots of pew-pew spaceships in that, and they look quite a bit like the new Wraith in some cases.



NOTE: This is one example of dozens of frigates, AKA "fighter" Wraith type vessels in EVE Online. They vary greatly in design from race to race.

My point is, design is relative, and what's "right" or wrong for a fictional spaceship design comes down to artistic interpretation, not "realism" as you put it..

I guess my problem with you position is your insistence on people accepting the design as a better one simply because it's "new" and conveyed through "new and improved technology", which strikes me as a pretty inane and shallow notion.

That's fine and good, but your stance that it is "worse" is also a matter of opinions, and the way a lot of the posters justify that dissatisfaction is simply that "it's untangibly and indescribably different from SC1", which I personally find to be far more inane and shallow than my open mindedness towards new designs.

[Eligor]

My point is, design is relative, and what's "right" or wrong for a fictional spaceship design comes down to artistic interpretation, not "realism" as you put it..



That's fine and good, but your stance that it is "worse" is also a matter of opinions, and the way a lot of the posters justify that dissatisfaction is simply that "it's untangibly and indescribably different from SC1", which I personally find to be far more inane and shallow than my open mindedness towards new designs.

Actually there is something that does arbitrate "right" or "wrong" in design, and that is the feel, atmosphere and artistic direction of a fictional universe, or in our, much narrower case, the nature of the unit/character/setting/artefact designed. And most of the complaints were actually quite succinct and similar, and boiled down to the fact that the new Wraith model (unlike the original) looks more like a drone than a space fighter. It's not a question of close-mindedness, it's a question of getting it right.
And by the way, the new model is not "untangibly and undescribably" different, in one of my previous posts I briefly summed some of its chief differences from the original. They are very slight, but their overall effect is quite noticeable.

[SaharaDrac]

Actually there is something that does arbitrate "right" or "wrong" in design, and that is the feel, atmosphere and artistic direction of a fictional universe, or in our, much narrower case, the nature of the unit/character/setting/artefact designed. And most of the complaints were actually quite succinct and similar, and boiled down to the fact that the new Wraith model (unlike the original) looks more like a drone than a space fighter. It's not a question of close-mindedness, it's a question of getting it right.
And by the way, the new model is not "untangibly and undescribably" different, in one of my previous posts I briefly summed some of its chief differences from the original. They are very slight, but their overall effect is quite noticeable.

Which raises the question for me : who decides what a drone looks like versus a space fighter, since both don't actually exist? Answer: The designers. For an example of this, see my Eve picture.

[Eligor]

The designers don't arbitrarily decide what a drone or a fighter would look like, all fictional designs striving for at least a very basic naturalism are based one way or another in real life. Taking your reasoning to the absolute, I could happily draw a circle and proclaim it an elaborately designed character because "I'm the designer and I decide". But it won't turn a circle into an elaborately designed character.