Terrans : Gritty or shiny?

Do you think that Terran units and structures in general need to look more gritty and realistic, with less bright team colors, more metal and dark colors (about the same coloring and grittiness as the SC1 Terrans, while keeping the unit designs from SC2 of course). Or do you want them to look shiny, rich and futuristic as they currently do?

 

just like i said this is bias. what are you talking about terrans being shiny now? i dont think they very shiny at all, its the reflection and its in 3d plus the fact that they have lighter team color.and the fact that making the team color darker DOES NOT make them grittier. and so you dont want them to be futuristic? then you should make a thread asking blizzard to remove the thor, cobra etc.

and making them look futuristic makes them UNrealistic? i dont think so. just imagine the future.

plus the shine is just a 3d realistic ligthing reflection approach. come on. if its the team color then no problem make it darker.

and rich? ok if you dont want it then just dont play sc2, coz they have thor viking etc, and i classify them as rich. its not like when they can build thor and viking doesn't mean they cannot paint it or make it look a LITTLE brand new. just check out tychus in the cinematic trailer and then imagine how the high tech vehicles of the terran will look like.

i want to see or know how gritty terran should look like first. is it not the way i made it look like in my (thor+marine+ghost) pic?...

i said make the team color darker and im pro with that, but not put any other grittier details like dents etc. maybe some stain will work but come on not exagerrated dirt and grit.

rich, shiny, futuristic? <- your getting the wrong impression when i said this. its like this, rich in a way, shiny in a way, futuristic in a way terran.

and you should just say it like this, do you want the sc2 terran to look like the old terran? mediocre tank and marines, 10 years old supply depot. a command center that looks like its going to fall apart.

shiny? come on.. say it like this, current look or more grittier?

you know what i may not even vote. or if ever i will, il just go with the grittier terran and i dont know why. shiny? lol.

we are having a very big misunderstanding here. and guys dont bother voting. lol.

 

They could look new at first but after sustaining damage it should show, simple.

 

i think a mix of both, they were shiny, but got grittier

 

When I think of what the Terrans should look like I think of the M1 Abrams:
It is a high tech tank but isn't flashy and clean. It is strictly utilitarian and you can see where soldiers have placed stuff hanging off the sides of it and have their gear stowed on it.
It is not at all symmetric and has various device protruding here and there

When I think of the Protoss I think of a picture of a knight is shining armor (the fairy tale type version). Where everything is shiny enough to see yourself in it and half of the design is able to protect you while still being ornamental. Able to inspire more awe than fear yet being very deadly

 

That was so emotional man *tear*

Also, the latest screens I saw of Terran, they looked shiny and dark at the same time. Looked pretty cool to me but yet again I'd be happy if they kept that look but showed the damage such as paint wearing, small dents etc
But remember gameplay comes first along with a good look.

 

Whoa take it easy zeratul.

Well, kinda like that, yes. Maybe even more ( but not much ) .

Are you kidding me? That's as partial as you can put it. I am asking the question without sneaking in my own opinions to poison the polls results. Otherwise it would say:
"would you like the Terrans to look gritty, badass, and ready for war? Or do you want them to have sissy robots that look fancy more than they shoot?" If what I just said upset you with its from your view wrong opinions, consider what you just said yourself, and how that feels for people that wants them to look gritty.

I just did, and I sure didn't see SC2 and its bright team colors etc.

I respect you, so I will add that to the poll. But I will keep shiny, since they are shiny, compared to what could be.

 

Zeratul I would very much like to know how the hell you came to the conclusion that the current poll is biased? It has a grand total of 8 words and 3 options, Im not even sure it would be possible to fit any bias (or any significant bias) into it. It is in effect a yes, no, or don't care question its about as unbiased as your going to get.

GMG's original post is longer and may have some bias in it but it really doesn't matter because the question itself is simple enough and completely based on personal opinion. This isn't a math equation there is no right or wrong answer it's a simple question involving peoples opinions so we can see what the majority of the people (who care enough to respond) think.

In my personal opinion I think the Terrans need some more grit. The Terrans  in my personal view are all about getting a job done as efficiently as possible it doesn't matter how cool or how much pzaz something has it matters it got the job done for as cheap as possible. It doesn't matters if the Terran factions are rich enough to make all of there units look nice and shiny because they won't stay rich if they spend their money frivolously.

So it doesn't matter what the Terrans can do its the fact that they (in my mind) try and do whatever they are doing as efficiently as possible. For that to look true in my mind I believe they need some more grit. 

 

Thanks LordKerwyn. Defending yourself feels a little... biased.

 

sorry. i was a little bit..well out of control. but im ok and GOOD now. lol

about the bias thing. it started all here.

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=5472.15

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=5472.0

yes.. because if its not precise then its not justifiable enough. and im saying that its not precise bcoz others will NOT vote. there are many sc fans outhere. just like in bnet... to many views, less particapation, and MORE unnecesary over the top complaints and thread. xp

i did not say the peoples votes are wrong but i was saying that 10 to 50 votes will not do. and i think the NEWER fans should also vote which unfortnately they dont really care or bother.

and plus more grit? how much? i wanna see it. maybe a little grit or perhaps more but not to the point that the terran will look trailer trash, UNhightech, weak etc. so this is what im afraid of and i dont want to happen, coz most people when they say more grit and dirt etc... there is a feeling that they want the terran to look closely to the old terran and make the terran well mediocre in a sci fi war, and wants the thor viking predator to be trimmed down or maybe axe.

im going to replay on some of your comments later. hey why is my thread "darker and grittier terran" locked?

 

Zeratul the question is not whether there should be more or less of anything it simply is: Do you want a grity Terran faction or a shiny one? period.

 

I think (as exampled above) that we need to be in the middle ground. We don't want the Terrans to look like their ships were built 50 years ago by welding scrap together but we don't want the to be all shine like they are made by apple.

They do need to have some kind of look to them that makes them look futuristic and the fact that the siege tank has 6 treads and the turret isn't a round barrel along with the infantry being in power suits portrays that look.

With that though they need to look utilitarian. These aren't the Roman empire with the best tech in the universe. Most of it IS improvised and thought up on the spot and the Terrans are defending their homes against aliens and pirates so they need to look like they have gotten fair use and custom field modifications as opposed to clean built-to-spec showpieces yet still retain a sturdy look to them. To me the Nomad emphasizes this thought. It isn't the best money could buy but it is sturdy and useful in many situations.

 

Zeratul11,
Making tl;dr posts over minor matters, since 2007.

Anyways, the Terrans are just too bright. So gritty. The last thing Terrans have on their mind is keeping their armor shiny.

 

I voted more gritty. And I totally agree to what BirdofPrey said about the Terrans being like the M1 Abrams. Very utilitarian and still powerful. Of course they should look high tech, but in a Terranish, gritty way.

 

I sort of think the gritty look is cool for the terrans, like have them show the bolts on buildings and rust spots. I don't care if it makes the terrans seem like they're welding peices of scrap together... that looks awesome. It goes with them being recoursful as well. Leave the shiny to the protoss, and I guess you can say the zerg have to look squishy.

 

WHy should the Protoss be shiny? The current units they make should be barely functioning. Right now, tghey have to make enough armor and robots and ships to fight the zerg And they're on Shakuras. So why the heck would they be making shiny new buildings/units. And don't say they warp them in. From where do they warp units and buildings in? A infinitely gigantic storage space with pre-made units/buildings? Remember, Protoss haven't been doing this for that long.

I think shiny isn't the right word for it. It's not like the terran are lit up and have gigantic patches of shiny, reflective material. Heck, to me, even the light green thors look pretty "gritty" and the red terrans look so awesome. And whats wrong with some nice looking armor? From a realistic point of view, if I saw that my armor was rusted and bolted, I'd quit the army. And have the tank with rust spots, half of the hood showing? I do not want to be near that thing. It'll blow up when you try to start it, or it'll go haywire. Don't you think that nice, "shiny" armor/hulls boost morale. Then the marines will think, my armor will probably stand up to a few scratches. CHARGE!!!!! and then he dies. But maybe he kills a few lings with him? Lol. My point is, rusty armor and hulls will discourage soldiers, plus soldiers wouldn't exactly want to lean on a rusted tank with the engine half blown up, and the cannon half borken. Or at least I know i wouldn't.

Zerg should have the "shiniest" units since they are dominating. Bulging muscles and blinding teeth. =D and maybe some really bright acid.

 

@ protoss: Motherships were called from far reaches of space not made during the war. Immortals are the few remaining dragoons - also made before Aiur invasion, just improved to raise their survivality. Colossi as well are old war machines brought back to live recently, but not made during war.
This may apply to several other units as well, I don't remember atm. The point is that protoss aren't making most of their units now. They actually do warp-in already made units.
Of course there are examples like stalkers, which however are actually dark.

 

Duh, Protoss use Diino. [img width=468 height=60]http://www.linkconnector.com/traffic_record.php?lc=020842015853003217[/img]
But you can't really say storywise how the units will look generally as the story is gonna have a huge change and we have no idea how the story is gonna go. I haven't been following the story that much either so... But yet again2 let units look ''gritty'' and rusty when they are on red hp points, also a nice visual indicator which units to move away or to target which would be a factor in a real army too.

For example: You're are sniper on a hill and the enemy has spotted your location, they are charging to you real fast. You ain't gonna shot the fastest guy you wanna take out the slow runners first then relocate.
Another: You're are Marine and you see 2 Thors widely spaced out and you're ordered to attack which one will you go for? The beat up one obviously cuz it will fall quicker meaning thats one less pair of guns shooting at you which boosts the survival rate of your army.

 

Lol, if the immortals are improved, then how are they improved? They'd probably need some kind of generator to activate hardened shields. And would they have a pre-made one? I really doubt it. ANd I acknowledged the fact that they warp in units. And biological units obivously weren't "stored" for warp in. TO me, it seems like collosi would have to be built, since there can't be 100's. All the ones on Auir probably were destroyed. Phase prisms, pheonixes, biological, and observers would probably all have to be made, unless they're running out of units because every unit you make in-game are pre-made before the war.

But yeah, I say Terran just have to be moderate. And I don't see whats so bad about shininess. I hate dark units because when my windows are letting in sunshine, I can't seem them. And turning up birghtness and contrast on the monitor isn't great for eyes. Every action has an opposite reaction. So if the units look camoflagued to the enemy, it'll be camoflagued to me, too. and it's not that hard for the enemy to just attack-move. But ti'd be hard to pick out the tanks from the marines (an exageration, of course) if everything was DARK DARK DARK DARK blue. In other words, almost black. Especially against shadows or something like that.

 

this is going nowhere. we should see or know first how this MORET gritty terran should look like.

as far as i can see making them MORE gritty or dirty or rusy, just like in starcraft1 is not badass and great anymore for them. just look at the terran in sc1, yes they look mediocre and i dont know why the protoss can't finish the terran with only goliath (very low calss mech) and an average looking seige for their high tech ground units. plus the buildings looks like trash really, and that these trash can like metal could fall apart. xp

a little shine is needed. and over the top grittiness is BAD. you dont want to make them to look completely UGLY and TRASH would you?

example the goliath in sc1 looks shiny to me or brand new, i didn't see any scratch or anything but only some metals were dark and thats only it.