Advertisement
 

Membership

 

Advertisement

 

Search

 
Forums \ StarCraft II Forum \ 3D the Good & the Bad
1, 2 
Information
1 year ago

Ryp
3D the Good & the Bad (2098 reads, 25 replies)
Hi, I was wondering what are the advantages and disadvantages of Starcraft having 3d graphics.

This is my list

Advantages:

- no more floating buildings over units on terran and not being able to target them
- better understanding of how the units/buildings look
- rotating buildings ? the new 3d rts games seem to be able to rotate buildings to position them better

Disavantages:

- better CPU needed
- "warcraftish" look
- different looking game (this can be both good and bad)

What do you guys think ? sorry if there is another similar thread, I cant find it.
Quote  
 

1 year ago
#1

wo0py

   2
I think what you call advantages.. are actually not important or disadvantages.. point 1+3 are imho no advantages..

Calling it 'warcraftish' is because of it has same engine.. so it has nothing to do with 3d or not 3d cos imho does generals not look like warcraft nor like the demo we saw.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#2

Jortikka

   2
i hope the camera angle will be locked
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#3

r.larvae

   2
I agree with #2.

I think its different engine than War3 because of the whole lot of improvements to it, like scenarios, units moving through cliffs, and the falling/rolling debris, etc.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#4

Ryp

   7
Why would you want the camera angle locked ?

We seen in the SC 2 videos it isnt locked...
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#5

r.larvae

   2
to make it more similar to the original sc gameplay

btw except for the the look of the tanks, and the jungle style map ... it didnt looked warcraftish to me
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#6

Jortikka

   2
oh i forgot, yes in the demo the camera angle wasnt locked, but i think itd be easier if it was locked i mean u shouldnt learn to zoom, rotate etc - how to use the camera correctly :) - i think itd be best if the players couldnt change the camera angle but the observers could (and in the replays itd be possible too)

i dont know about the minuses but the graphics looks nicer in 3d, i like the graphics shown in the demo, except the tanks model...it looks a "bit" wierd
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#7

tellur_m4dC

   3
I hope there will be with 3D graphics no more stacking(but I agree if there will be SCVs pobes and drones stacking when they are gathering minerals. You must know what I am thinking about.)
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#8

Cho_Gal

   2
about camera angle: if this cant be changed at all ingame, the issue ins c/bw with units hiding benieth large hovering units or buildigns would remain. i wouldnt like this. i think wc3 presented a good soloution here actually: the cam angel is locked for the most part, but you can temporarily adjust it a bit - just enought to ofset mentioned uncomfort....


This, and theamall convinience of nicer ingame cenematic scenes is all i can think of that speaks for 3d .... blizzard has alot to prove with this... rendering huge amies in 3d at good frametrates at lower end systems really hard do aitn it?
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#9

tellur_m4dC

   3
#8 u are right, blizzard imo will work for many hours just to render huge armies their moves and others what is #8 talking about.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#10

FluffyPuppies

   2
Why is a WarCraftish look bad? I thought that WC3 looked freat, although the colors were a little dark, and there were alot of messed up pixels EVERYWHERE.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#11

treba

   2
3d lookes much better for most poeple, allows different resolutions, is much more flexible, allows more technical stuff in general.

2d does not need such a good pc/mac.


I think its different engine than War3 because of the whole lot of improvements to it, like scenarios, units moving through cliffs, and the falling/rolling debris, etc.


they implented the havoc physic engine. the rest should not be such a problem.
i think it´s again the wc3 engine, since they used it in wow, too.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#12

T.Sqd)PLay

   4
Tanks look like lego :P i dont like them as i saw in demo :(
They look to simple :(
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#13

MaTTeX

   5
First, Warcraftish look has nuttin to do with 3D. And it obviously isnt the same engine since u can see its been improved a lot. Basicly the only downside of 3D graphic can be computer problems.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#14

ebanutik

   2
Well it won't be any thirstier than the latest CnC, maybe a lil bit, but by probable 2nd quarter 2008 release it will be ok.
Jungle map is awful, volcanic & space - very cool. They need to add better reflections to make units & buildings less cartoonish.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#15

Ferocious

   1
Not again the shitty topic. Again.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#16

Cho_Gal

   2
#9 what i was saying is basically the same as everoyne who says 3D = computer performance problems
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#17

LALUSH

   4
The jungle map looked beautiful. The rendering of the grass and waters was superb.

I for one don't understand why you claim the jungle map to be ugly and warcraftish. Just because it doesn't look like old sc it doesn't have to mean Blizzard shouldn't have the right to make beautiful and good looking maps.

Be silenced please all 3d-haters. Jungle map was way more beautiful than the one in space. Don't let your utter disgust for WC3 blind you into thinking less.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#18

Senix

   3
Warcraft is shiny and cartoonish. Starcraft is dark and dirty. 'nuff said
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#19

Quirion

   4
Am I the only one who doesn't like lightish unit attacks such as laser beams and whatever. I am hoping they will keep that kind of attacks at a minimum but i've seen more units than I would've like to using them.

I mean, energy beams lose all their sense of power and awesomeness(specially if there are several units using them), and they tend to confuse the player when there are many on the screen (big battles).

Other than that, 3d has a lot of advantages, specially for the creators (aka Blizzard). The most important aspect will be gameplay and game fluency (how units move/react/attack).

By the way, I'm almost sure that 2d games can be as much if not more Pc resource consuming than 3d games (it all depends on the graphics too). Well, if it was 2d it would have been a 'fake' 3d probably, i mean, rendered in 3d and then with some added 2d feel.
Top of the page   Quote  

1 year ago
#20

Vaphell

   3
i agree with #19 about energy beams - if there is too much of them on screen, player will get confused and distracted. Same thing in WC3 - lots of spectacular visual effects: chain lightnings, slows, purges, inner fires, faerie fires and all that cool looking stuff... But in 3secs I start to wonder wtf is going on there.
Blizz should minimize using of such visual tricks. Almost all attacks in SC/BW are projectiles which is good - they don't cover ground beneath and players see the situation clearly.
Top of the page   Quote  

1, 2 

Forum post
  • Do to others what you would have them do to you.
  • Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
    » Read posting rules in detail

    Reminder: IP-addresses for each comment is saved. Offensive posts will be censored. Repeated offense will result in a warning and/or a temporal lockdown of the account.
    • 3D the Good & the Bad \ Reply
    To submit a post, you have to be a registred member. Register an account below the title 'Membership' in the left menu.

    » Top of the page