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

Seriously...a lot of ppl here would trust Blizzard with their soul and their first born child. Anyways, in reality, SC has no need for top notch graphics because
1) It would most likely look idiotic with the units they have
2) Again, it's Blizzard, they just need to put their little symbol in the corner of the box and the game will sell out
3) Its SC2...the only imaging ppl care about is the occasional ugly model (siege tank).
4) Enough with the "Everything Blizz does is of God" attitude...God...its like my fundamentalist elementary/middle school all over again

Oh btw, welcome to forums Redlazer

 

@ Redlazer
1) correct
2) A large range of computers can play both of those games. Playing them on low graphics is still exciting and still looks good. I play Company of Heroes on Highest and World in Conflict on Medium/High although I have looked at them on lowest to see the difference. My computer is mid/high range
3) True they are different games.
--> StarCraft 2 - classic base building and resource mining - each unit is it's own individual unit
--> Company of Heroes - strategic points throughout the map provide resources - also has base building - infantry units are in squads - large focus on micro
--> World in Conflict - reinforcement points build up to a certain amount and tactical aid points are gained through killing enemy units or taking command points - no base building, everything is called in - completely focused on micro - infantry units are in squads
4) All three games are good games. This is not the issue in this thread
5) I thought the original was grittier and darker than SC2 is turning out.

and welcome to the forum

 

ty for the welcomes ;D

I wasn't saying anything against any of the games, just defending Starcraft's graphics. Seemed like there was alittle Starcraft's graphics bashing going on. Gameplay > Graphics!

As for looking gritty/dark, I do agree with you. I wish they would make Protoss less clean looking and return thier strange voices and more warfaring attitude. I think they're doing great work with Terran, could dull down the shine of the metals alittle, but it looks good. The SCV portrait is a great example in my oppinion. I bet Zerg will come out amazing; they can capture the slime and organic-ness to a whole new level with this graphic's engine.

 

This discussion has gotten just a bit out of hand. I agree 100% with everything that Paragon has said. Basically, if you contradict Paragon, you fail. And, I suppose for these people who disagree, I must reiterate what Paragon and others have been saying:

Starcraft 2 does not have top-notch graphics and will not have top-notch graphics because the style of SC is not realistic, it is more of a fun, cartoonish style and besides, SC is not known for graphic perfection, it is known for gameplay, and in the end, gameplay is ALL that matters.

 

For christ sake Paragon. You're f**king smarter than this, arent you? I expect a shitload more from you intellectually then anyone else here on this forum, so f**king live up to the expectations.

Is Starcraft 2 a simple minded RTS like Company of Heroes or World In Conflict? We get it, you have a hard on for them. But they're not true RTS's now are they? No. While they fall under the category through definiton of "Real-Time Strategy" they fall under a category of Close Combat, G.I. Combat, Panzer Commander, and Firefight. Starcraft is not striving for this ridiculous amazingness in games graphically wise especially since IT'S A TOP DOWN VIEW!

Starcraft 2 falls under the category of RTS because it IS a true rts. Command and Conquer, Warcraft, KKD(bad example but shush), Age of Empires, Dune. THESE are what Starcraft 2 is aiming for is it not?

Do you mine minerals and build bases in World in Conflict or Company of Heroes? No.

You get a set amount of money, buy the units you want for the battle, and then utilize tactics the whole way. Are firefights and battles over quickly in WiC or CoH? No they are not, which gives you more time to enjoy the scenery and the graphics. In SC2, why do you need phenominal graphics that will not only slow down the game, take away from the traditional top down view, and cause longer delays into creating the game? f**k man. You're godamn ridiculous sometimes if not at all times.

"Waaah, the reaver doesnt look pretty." So the f**k what? Would it have done the job? "Who cares whether it's balanced or effective, it doesnt have that shiny gloss to it!"

"Waaaah, the buildings are too square, they should look like some hobo put them together!" Why? I realize the grittiness was a cool effect and brought alot out in the game, but hell man, it makes more sense for such a technological race to not be living like nomads "But the textures! I jerk off to textures!"

and finally

"Waaaah, no one litsens to my complaints about small things so i'll be general and post big colourful pictures to attract everyone." Paragon.

S H U T

T H E

F U C K

U P


And for the record, keep the minerals, I dont want a signature from a goob like you.

 

Someone's cranky today. Hadean, Paragon, and people in general, are entitled to make minor complaints. Without them, we would still have the Soul Hunter and other unwanted garbage in Starcraft 2. In fact, aren't you just complaining about Paragon complaining? That's called hipocrisy. Also, using special spaces to spell out your profane message will probably get the attention of the moderators. Good luck with that.

So Hadean, "Waaaah, Paragon gets too much attention so I'll just downplay her and spill profanity over the forum to get some attention for myself."

 

@ Hadean - The definition you just gave RTS's is the exact reason why it's considered a Class-B genre. The whole build up the base, farm minerals turtling crap gets really boring after a while. games like CoH and WiC are being original to a mostly un-original genre. The whole point of an RTS is micro and strategy, not build up a base, farm minerals, rush.

 

Okay, my only inquiry is whether ppl still think Paragon is a girl...

...cuz, Paragon, if you truly are a female, and the one that's presented in your avatar, I'll have a much easier time agreeing with anything you say. HaHA!

 

haha, paragons avatar is the tabasco girl.

 

Oh...OH... well in THAT case... Paragon, I disagree with everything you say! Just kidding ;P

 

I've been right throughout this thread. I'm pretty sure being right would make me smart.

Since when was innovating "simple minded?" They are actual RTS games. I have never played any of those other games you mentioned so I cannot talk about them. And anyways, CoH is an evolution of WH40k: Dawn of War and World in Conflict is an evolution of Ground Control 1 and 2.

My aren't you closed minded. Most games in the command and conquer series suck. Most games in the Age of Empires series sucks, the warcraft series is by Blizzard too so of course it's similar. StarCraft 2 is aiming to be the predecessor of StarCraft. It is not aiming to be any of those other games.

You build bases in Company of Heroes... and you build units from those bases. In World in Conflict you call in reinforcements starting at the beginning. As the game progresses you can get more reinforcements. So you are fighting right from the start.
Man fighting from the very beginning and not piddling around waiting for your economy? that must be boooooooooring. (sarcasm)

In Company of Heroes. you capture munitions locations, fuel locations, and strategic locations (manpower) these are all in various places over the map. you can put an observation post on top of them to protect them from being captured by the enemy (they will have to destroy the OP first). the more of these you have, the faster manpower, fuel, and munitions are added to your economy. you start on the bottom of the tech tree with basic units like riflemen, mg squad, mortar squad, jeep, sniper and work your way up to heavier infantry, light armored vehicles, and tanks. these are all built in buildings that you have to build at your base.
There are also abilities from one of three different ability trees you can choose at the beginning. Armored, Infantry, and Airborne for Allies and Defensive, Terror, and Blitzkrieg for Axis. These give you a variety of offensive, defensive, and unit reinforcement abilities to use. These abilities cost munitions. There are also upgrades at the buildings that generally cost munitions and fuel. units cost manpower and fuel with some only costing manpower.

In World in Conflict you get reinforcement points and tactical aid points. reinforcement points build up at a varying rate depending on how much of the map you control. the more reinforcement points you get the more units you can get. When a unit dies it frees up the points that that unit was using and you will eventually build those points back up in your reserve. Tactical aid points are built up through capturing command points or reinforcing command points or transporting units (you can transport an ally's infantry - it's a game rooted in teamwork and communication) or for killing/damaging enemy units.
There is no tech tree and no base building. However, you cannot use the better tactical aids until you get enough TA points. However, do you use some points for other abilities or do you wait for the big ones? also, you have a choice of either armor, air, infantry, or support. each one has their pros and cons and each one is required to win. since you do not have everything you have to communicate with your team in order to win.

Sometimes they are. Someone could drop an air fuel bomb in WiC (these DO look amazing by the way) on a group of opposing tanks and the battle for that part would be over right then and there far quicker than battles in SC. Then the battle would move somewhere else on the map. Also in WiC there are battles going on all over the map. You are not involved in all of them but it is generally a good idea to pay attention to what is going on over the whole map in case they need you somewhere else.
In company of heroes you could be moving your infantry units up and suddenly get pinned down by MGs and a sniper in a building. you retreat them right away so they don't get slaughtered. That particular battle was over right away. sure you will be back to that spot with other units and of course a new strategy will have to be thought out to get past or to that place so that your troops are not slaughtered.

You seem to have missed the part where I said that StarCraft 2 is not supposed to have cutting graphics. This thread was made purely because people were saying that StarCraft 2 HAD cutting edge graphics. Let the record state yet again - StarCraft 2 does not have cutting edge graphics. StarCraft 2 does not need cutting edge graphics.

So it's okay for people to b***h about the tank being ugly but if it's the reaver... heavens no, not that. And I never said anything even remotely like "Who cares whether it's balanced or effective"

Now you're just being a d**k. For someone who is such a traditionalist in terms of what the definition of an RTS is, I'm suprised you don't seem to care that they are changing the base graphical style for starcraft 2 alot. It leans more towards WC3 than it does towards SC at the moment.

 

..SirBaron...i'm not giving up so easily in this paragon
ArchLimit burkid i don't care if paragon is a female or not he/she is complaining about a game that we really like!!!
paragon WiC and CoH are both amazing games i had said before also the marine is just blizzard's style and plus that's early marine that you have shown there a real freaking early marine and you should see the polygons on the bushes and the trees in SC2 they are proof to show that SC2 has more polygons and plus NOTHING HERE IN THIS THREAD YOU SAID IS RIGHT, ALL YOU SAID HERE IS TRYING TO MAKE THINGS SENSE but seriously when i revised your comments which are quite good i'm justing going to ask you:
Are you a flamer???

 

i didnt say anything about paragons gender, just the identity of the avatar. And you cant assume that i like SC2. Neither of us have played it. Im hoping that im gonna like it, but its entirely possible that i dont.

The Marine shown is from one of the articles, and everthing shown in the article pictures have proven current. and, if you watch some of the Blizzcon gameplay videos, in one of them a guy zooms in on a group of terran units, one of which being a marine, and it looks just like the picture paragon had.

 

i disagree. final fantasy is not final fantasy without the graphics. thats why other rpg sucks, because they just cant compare to the graphics of final fantasy.. well aside from the story and gameplay too.

back to the topic. WIC and COH. good realistic graphics. but i think the next gen console will own any pc games in terms of graphics and realism. killzone 2, metal gear, final fantasy 13 resident evil 5 etc, looks cinematics in gameplay!..

WIC and COH are realistically portrayed unlike in starcraft 2. see the tanks. the tanks in WIC is the actual size as well as the soldiers thus they need to have this certains details etc to make it look real. as for starcraft 2, battlecruisers, thor, siege tanks, if you look at it closely the details are there even its unrealistic for its size. and its ENOUGH because they are miniature looking. lol

i dont think paragon is a girl. if he is then $&%)$*%(*%_

[img width=666 height=666]http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7162/ss26hirescopyae7.jpg[/img]

^ how do you make the graphics better for starcraft 2? sorry, im noob at 3d modeling. uhm. paragon, how do you want starcraft 2 to look like? like say for the marines? cause i can already see shaprness on them. (yah, they not look realistic ofcourse, but its a different game and play style.)

 

Yeah, i watched Killzone 2, its really just unbelievable...i was like jawless when i saw it.

 

No. Read my posts or don't post in this thread. Here I quote myself from my previous post:

It's a simple truth that SC2 does not have cutting edge graphics. I'm not complaining about it, I am stating a fact. A fact that you and the other 13 people will have to realize.

No, thats the current marine. Bushes and trees are made of very few polygons. They are planes with alpha channel on the texture which makes the part with the alpha channel on it invisible (the other use of alpha channel is to bring out team color in those models).

Everything I said in this thread is right.

No, I'm not a flamer. And I don't understand what you are trying to say before that.


zeratul11 - they shouldn't do anything to starcraft 2 aside from making the colors less flashy and vibrant. To quote myself YET AGAIN

 

Paragon, how old are you? Older than them.

 

Wow. I feel like an idiot. I thought it was another complaining rant from paragon. (you do it quite a bit, for the record)

Theres really nothing else for me to post except, sorry I guess?

 

Not a problem. Would you still like the sig? It's almost done.

 

Another question about power level:
paragon how did your power level went 3-5???

PS: you're not being right you should understand that quote you're just trying to make things sense when you think other people are talking nonsense it's not you being right at all