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

so do you think the sc2 graphics team will just sit around and do nothing for the next couple of years, they will be improving the graphics everyday until the game ships

 

To be honest, I don't think Blizzard is intending to make SC2 a graphic powerhouse game. Take a look back at all the Blizzard games. All their games didn't have very good graphics in their time. But it is the quality of the game that sells Blizzard games.

So although SC2 isn't going to have better graphics compared to the other RTS these days, I'm sure that SC2 will sell alot better than all the other RTS games.

 

Yeah....Blizz graphics have never been top notch. Personally, I might have a bias towards WiC because I finally have the real world, modern warfare strategy game that I have been waiting for and know FOR SURE is gonna be one of the best.

The reason why Blizzard games sell is because its Blizzard. They've never had top notch graphics, the reason why their games sell is because you see Starcraft or Warcraft in the title. Not saying its bad, I mean I love SC and everything, just being realistic.

And even when you think about it, they don't have too much originality when it comes to their games, they just know how to balance stuff really well.

 

@guimontag - ahahahahahaha no, no they wont be doing either of those things.
1) Blizzard is not going to tell them to just throw some half ***ed thing up there so they can get some screenshots posted just to tell them later to do some real ****. They aren't going to pay them twice for the same work. Blizzard instead tells them to make models for the game at the limits of the game engine. If the models are liked (most of them), they are kept. If they are not liked (siege tank) Blizzard will make a new one. "What you see here is not final" does not mean "nothing you see here is final" it means "some things here are not final so if something does change, don't be surprised."

2) Look at Ghost. Look at WarCraft: Adventures. Part of the reasons that those games were postponed indefinitely/canceled was because of the graphics. It was a case of "this would have looked good 3 years ago." According to your logic, they could have just made new graphics for it just like that right on the fly. That isn't how it works. You make the game engine in the beginning and you work with that. In the case of WarCraft 3 they completely redid the game engine which is why you saw a completely different game from when they first revealed it to when it was released. In the case of starcraft 2 they started with the warcraft 3 engine and were just going to upgrade it. They changed this plan and instead made a completely new engine for starcraft 2. They have been working with this one for 3 years. They are not going to suddenly change the engine so that they can make better graphics for the game when it's basically slated to come out in around a year.

3. The graphics team (part of them at least) will either be put onto another project (hello WoW expansion) and the rest will be tasked with creating doodads, environments, single player elements, etc before the release. Eventually the only thing left to do will be balancing/bug testing. They are not going to have the graphics team hang around twiddling their ****s. They will move them to another project.

edit: ROFLMAO everyone who disagrees with me on this topic is power downing me. Yes Meloku, I'm talking about you. Yes, I made an entire topic just because you said that starcraft 2 was graphically stunning and top notch and bar none the best out there. Yes I did it because you were wrong. And yes, I'm sure that is why you power downed me. Because I said you were wrong.

edit2: itsmyship - better watch out. someone might power down you for "talking trash" about starcraft.

 

that is all.





Here's a new poll. Has paragon played starcraft 2?

 

where do you get this stuff paragon?

1. do you work for blizzard, becuase if you dont then where did you get that from. or did you just completely make it up.
2. ghost wasnt made by blizzard. They never started with the warcraft 3 engine, this is an outright lie.
3. same as 1.

according to your logic starcraft 1 prealpha should look almost the same to what we have now.....

 

It's pretty much common sense of what gaming companies do especially those that both produce and develop games as well as common sense regarding proper usage of assets so that time is not spent doing things over and over again which is a waste of resources.
Blizzard oversaw every step in the creation of ghost. They were not the primary developer but they were involved in every aspect of it. The final decision for Ghost and everything about it was theirs.
I didn't say they actually went with the game for any amount of time on the wc3 engine. It was in one of the interviews where they guy said they considered using the wc3 engine and upgrading it but then decided that in order to do what they wanted they had to build a completely new engine from scratch.

 

paragon i was not whining about this kind of stupid stuff plus i was only testing IF you had good eyes simple now?? plus i seen the images and the close-up graphics goes to SC2 i'm sorry paragon but seriously i saw the difference in my first sight it was so damn obvious plus these days it's all about graphics but not only that the most main thing that we want to see is the gameplay and oh yeah when you said 'take blizzard's **** out of your mouth' i'm sorry isn't that we always talk about?? BLIZZARD this is a starcraft 2 forum and we always talk about blizzard but mainly SC2 so i say you should stop your whining/ complaint about SC2 just wait the game and then complain by then that will make sense and plus not all game are perfect all games have negative features, i'm sure you do know that already

 

Well gee, because I want SC2 to be really graphically advanced so i have to spend the money on a game AND a whole new computer.

I'll stick with great gameplay and very good graphics over perfect graphics and oops, my computer won't run it.

 

@ Meloku - what is the point of you posting a screenshot of a 1 year old game on low/medium settings?
@ MarineCorp - did you even look at ANY of the WiC close ups or ANY of the other links I posted?
@ QueenOfBlades - that is what I've been trying to say the entire time. But these people seem to think that StarCraft 2 IS the top end.

 

yes the reason why is because blizzard is trying to make people who have a quite bad graphics cards can play so by then more people play SC2 plus of course blizzard is not good at doing graphics but it looks way fine to me

PS: i did see the close-up view of the graphics and.. yep SC2 is so much better

 

Starcraft 2 has not the top graphics, however it cant allow itself to do it since it needs to keep stuff simple becuse if it didnt, your RAM would probably melt down.

By the way paragon, you also know this. Why start a topic about it?

 

Because people like Meloku, MarineCorp, and GuiMontag still believe it is top notch

 

By no means are starcraft II's graphics bad but there state is still under that of most other rts games now.

 

And here is my definitive proof. I counted the polygons on the outside edges of each model starting with the terran marine and put a red dot next to them. For the next two marines (WiC in center, CoH at the bottom) I counted the polygons up to the number that the terran marine had.

Click the picture to get the full resolution

 

Stop defending the graphics of a game that:
1: Isn't complete yet.
2: Doesn't revolve around graphics like say, C&C3.
3: Is a sequel to perhaps THE most successful rts EVER. Be happy it's being made instead of some freggin World of StarCraft.

Also, do this:
1: Stop arguing with Paragon. He will win over you with both of his hands, both legs tied to his back as well as eyes blindfolded and mouth gagged. No point even trying.

 

Yeah but they are 3D figueres, you are counting the poligons seen from the front view, how about all those which cant be seen? Anyway, I agree with you.

 

Meloku, that game came out close to a year ago, and thats not on highest graphics. so that means there will be at least a two year difference of graphics between that game and SC2.

and, thats an individual unit from in-game of an RTS. thats way more than i would have expected. If we were talking about an FPS, you point might be valid, but we aren't so it isnt.

 

1) Starcraft isn't aiming for realism in graphics, like the other games are.
2) Blizzard would have an extremely small player base if they threw the best possible graphics, which are easily accessable to them, into Starcraft gameplay, where hundreds of units can be on screen at any given time, with such fast gameplay; would be far too demanding on majority of gamer's computers.
3) Starcraft is such a different RTS then the other games they cannot be compared; less concern about interaction with individual units, etc. and more about strategy, managing economy, etc.
4) Top quality graphics doesn't make a good game.
5) The current style of graphics is keeping it safe on Blizzard's part; keeping true to the original.

 

Redlazer, welcome to the forum

The graphics in SC2 are designed so that 8 players can each have dozens of units battling simotaneously on screen without slowing the game down. The graphics are therefore toned down, without completely sucking. If you watch the cinematics, you can see that blizzard could make a game with kickass graphics, but chooses for competitive playability instead.