How does StarCraft 2's graphics compare to other RTS games? (image heavy)

For the sake of comparison, here are some other RTS games from about the same generation. Please note this topic is not about anything but graphics. It is not about gameplay, features, etc. Just graphics.

Company of Heroes - Release date Fall 2006
[img width=670 height=536]http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/617/rakettiiskuvk2.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=536]http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/2243/flaimingyb7.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=536]http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/1994/downbytheriverkl3.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e73/Leviathan9/relic00523.jpg[/img]

World in Conflict - Release date Fall 2007
[img width=670 height=502]http://img.hexus.net/v2/internationalevents/e3/viv_wic_large_2.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://www.gamersreports.com/images/news/worldinconflict.gif[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://www.juegomania.org/World+in+Conflict/fotos/pc/11/11011_t/Foto+World+in+Conflict.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=536]http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/779/779113/world-in-conflict-20070409015525103.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://www.juegomania.org/World+in+Conflict/fotos/pc/11/11011/Foto+World+in+Conflict.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=536]http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/779/779113/world-in-conflict-20070409015522447.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://www.ixbt.com/news/games/_console/world_incon/l/1.jpg[/img]

StarCraft 2 - Release date Fall or Winter 2008
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/810/810449/starcraft-ii-20070803003047100.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/810/810449/starcraft-ii-20070803003049069.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/810/810449/starcraft-ii-20070803003051053.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/810/810449/starcraft-ii-20070803003053100.jpg[/img]

WorldShift - Announced around the same time as SC2
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/795/795322/worldshift-20070608023551463.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/807/807327/worldshift-20070723000308857.jpg[/img]

 

they're good, but i wouldnt say 'unparalleled'. theres some pretty insane graphics nowadays. like, for example as you said, company of heroes.

 

Yea, although there is one thing left to consider which is that SC2 is still pre-beta or even pre-alpha in some cases, so I'm still thinking, or at least hoping, that they're gonna get a lil better.

And to be honest, IMO, I think a lot of the quality of graphics is really not just about smooth lighting/sharper images 'n what not. There's character design, movement design (the thor's construction animation and movement is just amazing), and creative looking effects 'n all of that. I think back when SC1 was released, there were already some 3D RTS games and for some reason they just didn't grab you visually. I think many would agree with the fact that there were just some very "memorable" units that kept on making you want to come back to see it again and again. I think that has a lot of "graphic power quality."

But in terms of downright lighting, sharpness, detail, and what not, no, I certainly don't think SC2 is unparalleled by any means.

 

Now that I put them next to each other, StarCraft 2 looks embarrassingly simple and WAY to saturated with color. I mean I know it's not going for the realistic look but it looks so much more like WarCraft 3's craptoony style and nowhere close to StarCraft's darker style.

Homeworld 1, 1999. Looked amazing. Still looks good 8 years later. Course Homeworld 2 looks a lot better.

Note that these are not the highest graphics settings, it didn't look blurry on highest:
[img width=640 height=480]http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/homeworlda005.jpg[/img]
[img width=640 height=480]http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/homeworlda008.jpg[/img]
[img width=640 height=480]http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/homeworld006.jpg[/img]

 

Who cares. I, for one, rank graphics as the least interesting aspect of any game. As long as the gameplay is what it's supposed to be, it's all fine.

 

i was just playing homeworld 5 minutes ago. the graphics look even better than those pics in game.

 

We all know paragon is a graphics buff! But I dont think blizzard is going for straight best graphics, the even mentioned that. Their priority is all about quality of the game. Also, this is not the final product so alot could change, i expect the graphics to look alot better when the final product is released! But yea, They dont compare to company of heros or world in conflict...

 

eh, world in conflict and company of hero's look pretty blah, not as good as sc2. However, worldshift looks pretty neat, and has some nice lighting effects.

 

Um... no, I'm not. If a game is boring I will not play it. I play f**king asteroids more than any other game I own because I like the game play. Your ship is a f**king A and you shoot at asteroids with dots.

Did you not read the part of the post where I said "this topic is not about anything but graphics. It is not about gameplay, features, etc. Just graphics." I don't give a s**t what you care most about. This isn't about what you care about, it's about graphics. Which is better, which is not.

You're dumb... no offense.


For the record, the gameplay of World in Conflict, Homeworld 1 and 2, and Company of Heroes is amazing.
In World in Conflict you fight the entire length of the game over the entire map
In Company of Heroes you fight over the entire map
The Homeworld series is the only one to successfully do a space based RTS in my opinion.

 

No SC2 graphics are worse, however I dont think Company of Heroes or World in Conflict have the massiveness that starcraft has. Thats the whole point of its graphics being worse... and thats why I voted "no".

 

@paragon, graphics buff does not mean that u will only play games that have good graphics! Calm down bro! ;D

 

Well I don't think it's very fair to compare it to those games because A) they are more realistic games and/or B) they are a different style game.

Not to mention that almost everything for SC2 is still subject to change and won't be out till late 2008 at the earliest.

 

To be honest I think the screenshots we've been looking at so far for SC2 'n all don't look as good as good as they did in the very first Protoss demo. The Protoss structures in that demo looked VERY good in my opinion. They didn't look saturated at all and the specular highlights and everything looked great. I think a lot of this is just the result of the pre-beta stage. I think we can only make a real judgment when the game comes out.

Oh, and Paragon, I think many of us are aware that SC2 may not have the best graphics in the industry. While the thread itself is solely about graphics, ppl still have a right to state in this thread that they see more importance in other aspects of the game like gameplay, because you have brought up an aspect of the game for comparison, so others can as well.

And also, as many have mentioned, Blizzard does tone down a bit on the processor demands to accommodate a larger demographic, which I personally think is great of them and what makes their games so popular. I think a great deal of us acknowledge this, and so we just sort of go with the flow and accept the pros that come with the "con" of less amazing graphics.

It's kind of like you're going up to a bunch of average-income blue collar families and showing them pictures of Ferrari's and Lamborghini's and sayin, "You see Mrs. Walsh? You're Honda isn't as fast as these bad boys."

I just think we've all come to understand and accept the pros 'n cons of Starcraft's visual quality. I think it's Blizzard choice, and not an incapability, to do what they do. Their outstanding cinematics demonstrate that they aren't technologically nor aesthetically lacking at all.

 

This is true. They are in alpha stage, if not pre-alpha. Another thing is that CoH is something where you interact more with individuals, making that a kind of RPG RTS.

~~dp02

 

Even if its alpha stage, the graphics wont change drastically, what we have is what we will see in the final version. At least I belive so. Redoing the graphics would be just take another century or so.

 

its really very simple, when starcraft 2 is more than 80% done it will look better than all those games.

how about you stop wasting our time and post screenshots of these games when they were 50% through pre alpha, then it will be a fair contest.

the gameplay in WIC was fairly boring btw lol.
[img width=670 height=446]http://sc.gosugamers.net/photographs/blizzcon2007/zeratul%20ingame.JPG[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e73/Leviathan9/relic00523.jpg[/img]
damn paragon your right, sc2 closeups ingame look absolutely shit (HAHAHAHA)

 

i disagree. graphics or visuals is as important as the gameplay. i will not play starcraft 2 if it doesn't look good, even a fair graphics is NOT ok with me. fortunately starcraft 2 as seen in the demo (not screenshot)is way more than fair, its awesome visually so im going to buy and play it. ^^

i voted yes. but i cant really compare, world of conflicts looks realistic while starcraft 2, well its a different style i guess. anyway i think starcraft 2 has good graphics and visuals too, it sharp and smooth and got a lot of details etc. CnC3 has realistic graphics but it doesn't really look as smooth as starcraft 2. i think blizz has made starcraft 2 visuals the way it is (not realistic, close up, or anything).. if they wanted to make it more realistic(without too much colors etc.) i know they can.

plus see the in game cutscenes of raynor, tychus etc, the model etc is not yet polish but it still looks the same as the screenshot of worlf of conflicts posted here. im not sure i have not played world of conflict.

 

the only other game that has the same style, and therefore comparable to sc2 is Universe at War and to a lesser extent worldshift
[img width=670 height=376]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/811/811392/universe-at-war-earth-assault-20070807062134528.jpg[/img]
sc2 looks way better.

worldshift doesnt look any better than sc2 either
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/795/795322/worldshift-20070608023557384.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/812/812187/worldshift-20070810021215029.jpg[/img]

 

wow the environment in world shift is detailed and there are many tress and bushes etc. starcraft 2 surrounding is more open, anyway starcraft 2 visuals is better.

 

Simply put, no, it wont.

CoH in April 2005
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/607/607410/company-of-heroes-20050425015820607.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/607/607410/company-of-heroes-20050425015825091.jpg[/img]
[img width=670 height=502]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/607/607410/company-of-heroes-20050425015822435.jpg[/img]

So being engaged in battle the ENTIRE length of the game is boring? Did you by any chance suck at the game and get raped by the other players.

Wow, you compared a half-cinematic of starcraft 2 to an in game less than highest settings shot of CoH. Can you really be that f**king stupid?