Lame "Balloon Deaths" as seen on Battle Report 2

@Aurora: But, the animations are basically the same. That's what we're talking about. Detail settings and such are a given in PC games these days. Gimping animations wouldn't have that big of an effect on performance especially given everything else that's going on. The reason Blizzard gimped the animations in multilplayer is gameplay-related; not framerate-related.

@Sueco: Pro gamers shouldn't be playing RTS then? That's what your statements imply. Now, I'm not saying I agree with them but they do have some very valid points but you seem to only be interested in arrogantly dismissing them (probably because you don't understand their points) instead of trying to understand them and discuss them like intelligent people do when they're in a debate.

(Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying you're unintelligent.)

 

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to say that Blizzard never makes innovations other than good balance, but that they tend to be smaller innovations and that's not really what they're known for.

Don't most people classify Dune II as the first RTS? That came out in '92, while Starcraft didn't come out for another 6 years after that.

I wouldn't say they've never been topped. I would agree that they're good games, but it all comes down to a matter of perspective. Some people may think they suck, and they'd be right from their perspective, because not everyone likes the same thing. Some people may say that they're the best games in the world bar none, and they'd be right from their perspective.

Just make them optional.

I agree that Blizzard probably shouldn't waste time with sync kill animations, but that doesn't mean they should make them super simple. If some people want the fancy looking animations that are eye candy but may impede vision in the game, let them have them. If other people don't want them, give them an option to turn them off.

What I think he's trying to say is that people should just chill out. Yes, it's a game, some people play it competitively, but in the end, it's for fun.

 

@ first rts ever
Dune 2 wasn't the first rts ever. I played it many times, but there were about 3 similar games before Dune 2. It just introduced proper structure into the game, and was the first to let you use a mouse to control units.

I see starcraft as the first proper rts because of balance, tech tiers, upgades, good mission structure, etc. No other game before Starcraft was just that good in every aspect. That is why I used that as an example. But feel free to comment and play Dune 2 from my latest thread. -made that before checking this one, actually-

 

After reading through this, I'd agree that the best solution would be to have an alternative, where players can switch it off if needed, like say, similar to 'spell detail' option in warcraft 3? Man, I get the point that Blizzard wants to make this game as competitive as it is in Korea throughout the world, but adding in better animations can add a lot to the game, especially single-player wise. Obviously there needs to be a compromise on the overall graphics, but creating different sets of animation shouldn't be too big of a task. And by the looks of it, I'm pretty sure that many if not most should be having a computer that will easily handle this game. (Sorry I'm wrong though . Just an assumption)

 

@TychusFindlay
I understand the argument for clean deaths, and it is valid. Basically complex graphics can get in the way of unit commands.

Quake3 pro players mod the game untill it becomes a collection of brightly colored polygons that are easy to target. It makes them play better but it looks fugly and makes the game so arcane and unatractive that noone but those original diehards play it that way.

I believe Starcraft 2 runs a similar danger since it also haves a large fanbase, and some people are very reactionary. I've always loved blizzard for their attention to detail and I do not think the greatest RTS in a decade should be a rerun because people who haven't seriously played anything else for 10 years don't like changes.

I'm not implying anyone here is like that, but i certainly dislike the whole "should be like SC1" argument. Red Alert fans probably missed their sidebar in the beggining too.

 

Good, I'm glad you at least make the attempt to understand. I was mistaken then.

Also, I agree with several people here that complex animations should be made a toggled option if possible.

 

On further thinking, maybe complex deaths are a matter of development time more than anything else?

Picture this:

A: Zergling dies, and explodes generically in a puddle of blood as in SC1.

B: Zergling gets killed by a zealot, and gets sliced by a blue flash before collapsing into a heap. Zergling gets killed by a marine, and twists spamodiscally ass bullets riddle it before collapsing.


All animations take the exact same amount to happen, say 0.5 secs. so:

1. CPU load is the exact same whichever happens, as no animation is necessarily more intensive than the other. A blue flash is no more demanding than the regular death animation.

2. All animations happen within the same timeframe and physical space. Playability remains the same.

3.Actually, playability could become better as seeing most of your zergling getting pierced by stalker fire you will quickly realize it is they who are doing the brunt of the damage, and not the zealots in front. More information begets better decisions.

 

Yes, that's almost right. But, you forgot one thing: The more factors; the more processing. Also, the second animation could easily be more intensive. Animation length is not the only factor to measure how intensive it is.

Still, it wouldn't really make any difference. Animations of either complexity are child's play compared to what else will be going on in the game.

Again, the animations are gimped in multiplayer because of gameplay-related issues; not framerate-related issues.

(I'm assuming you mean static deaths that are the same everytime. If you mean physics influenced animations then, of course, the opposite is true.)

 

Those Quake 3 players basically cheat imo. Nothing hard about targeting a bunch of bright pixels in an empty and dark area. And what has that to do with starcraft 2 anyway? As for Red Alert: EA went to far in part 3. They just made a cartoon out of it. I am back to playing part 2. Screw the naval combat, I can easily live without that.

 

In the above example, the CPU load would be a little higher, since the computer has to make at least one more decision (possibly two more, if there are several zergling-killed-by-marine animations). Probably not a big deal, but it's not CPU load neutral.

 

Yeah, it's kind of like worrying about gas consumption in a vehicle so you remove the seats, the floors, and other "useless" features to consume less gas. It probably wouldn't make even the slightest bit of difference and what you would be losing would be more than what you be gaining ... by a looooong shot.