http://www.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?s=109 this could just be a weird angle of a screenshot but it looks like the colossus legs are completely different! any explanations?
Do you plan on posting a new thread about every screenshot on the SC2 website? I'm trying to be patient with you, but you've so far posted the better part of half-a-dozen threads about old news.
ROFL Yo Ex-Marine my dude, take a look at the Colossus that's standing right next to it, and you'll see that the Colossus in question is just pressed into the ground (either because of a terrain feature (mud?), or a bug or glitch).
Neither. From this top-down view we only see the joints of that colossus, which hide the legs below them. Imagine a rapier shown to you near-horizontally and perfectly parallel with your vision - you would see the guard with only a small protrusion as the blade, if any at all.
Yeah but what about the other Colossus? why can we see that one in a standard angle, then? Does the view bend into vertical, the closer the units are to the bottom edge? That's kinda weird. Maybe they took the shot just when the lower Colossus was about to fall. I just think it's strange that two Colossi in the same picture would look so different, if they are both standing in the same way and on the same surface level (which they are). The only difference is that one colossus is farther away from bottom camera edge.
That is how 3D top-down view games look like. I'm a bit surprised that you find it odd. Observe: Units closer to the hud are physically closer to the "camera" and the camera is tilted downwards. Imagine a closeby unit, the camera, and a far away unit forming a triangle. You obviously see the distant unit from a different perspective. Here is the same thing where it's more visible: Look at the mini-map. The field of view is not represented by a rectangle but by a trapezium which has its longer side to the north. Why? Because you see more the further north you look simply because of how field of view works. That is also why units are smaller the further they are from the camera. And to make matters "worse" (and more accurate), the mini-map also takes into account elevation levels, which is why it is not a horizontal trapezium but a slightly skewed one. The top left corner is further away which should mean that you see further. And indeed that is the case because the camera is above a positive elevation level, from where you see more lowerground (top-left of the screenshot). Of course it would be possible to make 3D games have fully top-down views like how GTA works (actually, you can't, but you can approximate it to the extent where you wouldn't notice any warping), but then the whole point of being 3D is lost because you don't see any depth. With this current view you sense a lot of depth owing to smaller units at the back, different perspectives, etc. I think Warcraft 3 (and thus SC2 will have it too) also gave a bluish tint to distant units to make it even more realistic. I hope that makes sense and clears it up why the colossi look different.
Dude what are you talking about? I'm speaking of two units in the same picture. Just take the time and actually look at the OP photo, and you'll see what I mean. EDIT: Forget about it, let me show you instead: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinkseraph/4272058840/ (changed from previous link) Notice that both Colossi are angled exactly the same with regards of the camera. The only difference is in the legs themselves. The slimmer thigh area is also stretched more downwards on the lower colossus, as opposed to the upper one with thighs pointing outwards. Btw, please don't post those huge images directly, it seriously messes up the thread width.
I was talking about multiple units in the same picture. What's your point? Wrong. If you think their positions relative to the camera are the same then I don't see any chance of me being able to explain to you why they look different. One last time. Picture that fight scene from a thor's point of view, and compare the shortest straight lines between the colossus on the left and the camera and the colossus on the right and the camera. Now draw a vertical line from the camera to the ground and check the angles formed by the vertical line and the other two, separately. I can imagine a good 30% greater angle for the colossus on the left, which would translate into roughly the same amount of "distortion". ps the forum automatically resizes big pictures, so I will not refrain from posting them directly
Then why did you link those pictures of yours? in those picture, all the units look the same - except in the War3 picture, but that's because some of the units are moving downhill. I get your point now, but camera distortion won't produce such a huge difference. Besides, if you look at the picture you will see that the thighs of one colossus is different from the other. You can't blame that on camera angles. Colossi have a main hull and four legs - Those two hulls are clearly the same in size, more or less (there's a slight difference because of the camera angle). Very little difference (as is logical since both are in the same shot and very close to eachother. But then suddenly, the legs of one of the Colossi are much more together and pointing downwards, almost lodged into the ground. The other Colossus has legs that are much more spread out and pointing outwards (at the knees). Again, nothing close to camera angle logic. Yeah, it might be a browser issue or something. I'll look into it. EDIT: Here, I've updated the photo even further to show you what I mean -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinkseraph/4272058840/
It's not just because they're moving downhill. Just give W3 a go and see for yourself. And you say the units in my linked SC2 picture are all the same? Look closer. Twice, if needed. The tank furthest from the camera is almost shown from the side while the bottommost immortal is almost shown from the top. But I mean I don't have to rely on whether you notice these subtle differences, just look at the minimap. As I said - it shows the area you can see. Trapezium getting bigger to the north = you see more to the north, hence units get smaller and "distorted". As for your updated screenshot, the top one could be walking while the bottom one might have taken the attacking stance with its legs, or it could be at a different phase of the walking animation, for all we know. It is curious, but it's a screenshot, and screenshots don't justly represent the game.
Never said it represents the game, I continued the OP's question. You just said something you could've said in your first reply. Why are you on about cameras? I know how cameras work in a game, about trapezoids and everything. That's the basics of the basics. At least to me, who's been playing and studying 100+ games since Commodore 64 till today, on all platforms. But when any 3D model looks significantly different from another of the same type, it's not about angles. It's about something that is happening with the unit. I just wondered what. Anyways, doesn't matter. We'll obviously see more of it when the game ships, if it is an attack stance of sorts (which I would easily agree on, since the Colossus is firing that beam atm).
I'm not trying to make people annoyed, and what I've posted is simply because i am curious and would like to have more knowledge on what I'm asking about, which i couldn't find other threads on. I apologize for the inconvenience...
We all beat the dead horse occasionally (one of my first posts here did that in a BIG way). It's all about finding the right ways to ask a question without sounding naive. For example, in the future you can A) preface your posts with a statement along the lines of "I have not been keeping up with every piece of SC2 news/updates, so bear with me." (I'm assuming you haven't been devoting too much time to SC2 research). B) Once you have a few questions in mind, you can ask yourself "Do these questions share a common theme?" If so, you should probably group them all together in one thread (most of your threads could've/should've been merged because they all discuss visual aspects of SC2). Lastly, don't take my earlier post personally; one of my pet-peeves among forums is people who just assume whatever information they find is new and posting threads before even thinking to check the archives for threads that have already discussed the topic. You're not the first, and you certainly won't be the last.
