Star Craft II graphics, and do they matter?

[Deleted member 4644]

What do you all think about star craft II graphics? I, for one, am dissapoint. They appear to be just OK. If SCII were a 2006 game I would say they are good, but for 2010, they are just barely OK.

Maybe, however, it doesnt matter. SC was (and is) about gameplay.

What do you all think?

 

[Kabob]

When I first saw the screenshots I was horribly dissapointed. After watching some of the vids of how the game plays I'm not so much. The polygon count isn't astronomical or anything but movements are very fluid, sprites are good, textures are decent.

And honestly in the end gameplay will be the deciding factor. I don't think that any of Blizzard's games have ever been about graphics.

 

[Firsttime]

All I want is support for higher resolutions, similar gameplay, and maybe some new units. Graphics are a serious side consideration. I would still be content with WC3 engine graphics if it supported 1920x1080 resolution.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Disappointing, but gameplay is key.

 

[Maximilian]

I think it looks great, a bit like warcraft III which i really liked. There arent any RTS games today which look as good IMO, except dawn of war II, its maps and scenery were impressive although a bit limited. Of course im judging its graphics by how it looks to me and not by polygon counts/features/etc, RTS games are all about gameplay.

 

[lothar]

Blizzard games are never about graphics.

 

[EvilComputer92]

It looks like total garbage. It seriously looks like they took the Warcraft 3 engine and added a few effects. It's 2010, not 2003. Starcraft was never supposed to be cartoony and stupid like Warcraft. There is a balance between warcraft style graphics and gears of war style graphics, but game devs dont seem to realize that and go for one of the other.

I mean CNC3 looks way better and that came out in 2007. What's funny is that CNC4 looks worse than it does, but considering how much EA is screwing that game up and making it into a load of casual junk, it's not surprising.

 

[IEC]

All I want is support for higher resolutions, similar gameplay, and maybe some new units. Graphics are a serious side consideration. I would still be content with WC3 engine graphics if it supported 1920x1080 resolution.

I am running 1920x1200x32 with all settings maxed out. I would not say it looks cartoony or "horrible". Are the graphics amazing? No. Will the CG cutscenes be amazing? You bet.

But as others have stated, the game is one of the most fluid I have ever played in terms of animation and lack of slowdown even with mass units on the screen. It is also faster paced than the original Starcraft.

 

[gorcorps]

RTS games don't need to be graphical showpieces in my mind. If the strategy gameplay is there then that's really all that's important. While it helps, it's less of an issue than with other genres.

 

[dank69]

Anyone know if it can run at 2560x1600?

 

[JTsyo]

I voted that the graphics mattered but the gameplay more so, the reason being that the computing power needed for high end graphics would limit the player base. With light requirements, Blizzard can reach a larger base.

 

[Lotheron]

Anyone know if it can run at 2560x1600?

EDIT: Duh, Can't read.

 

[soccerballtux]

Hm can you guys link some videos or images where the graphics look disappointing?

I thought they looked great, but I never looked very hard.

 

[Magusigne]

Graphics somewhat matter...anyone know if they implement the hero unit feature from Warcraft 3? Also customizeable...lol SC2 Dota!

 

[lozina]

The game uses sprites??? I thought it was 3D

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

My meter for acceptable graphics is the Might and Magic series. Anything that looks as bad as two or earlier is too bad for me to stand; anything three and on is good enough. Seven and on was trying too hard and didn't look as good artisticaly imo, but was acceptable.

 

[MStele]

Graphics matter in this case, for these reasons. First, Starcraft II has an extrordinary budget, and to throw millions at a project and have it look second rate is waste. Second, Blizzard knows they need to deliver with SC2, given the hype and past performance. That means they need to succeed on all points, which includes graphics. Lengthy delays were implimented to make it the best it could be, therefore it should be. Three, this is the first non-World of Warcraft top tier game they are releasing in years. They need to prove to everyone that they can still make great games that don't involve a monthly subscription.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Graphics matter in this case, for these reasons. First, Starcraft II has an extrordinary budget, and to throw millions at a project and have it look second rate is waste. Second, Blizzard knows they need to deliver with SC2, given the hype and past performance. That means they need to succeed on all points, which includes graphics. Lengthy delays were implimented to make it the best it could be, therefore it should be. Three, this is the first non-World of Warcraft top tier game they are releasing in years. They need to prove to everyone that they can still make great games that don't involve a monthly subscription.

Artistic direction is a much bigger factor in graphics than the resolution/cheap shader effects/poly count imo; so it can be weak on the technical aspects of graphics and still be first rate in my mind, and I'm sure many others.

 

[soccerballtux]

Hm I can see what you guys are saying.
I was really expecting more bump mapping.
Terrain leaves something to be lacking too--definitely does look like WoW terrain.

 

[MStele]

Artistic direction is a much bigger factor in graphics than the resolution/cheap shader effects/poly count imo; so it can be weak on the technical aspects of graphics and still be first rate in my mind, and I'm sure many others.

I agree. I just meant that in general Star Craft II is going to be scrutinized from every angle under the microscope and if it is graphically weak (in whatever case a gamer may judge it), it could lead to bad PR for blizzard. Thats why it matters. I'm with you on the artistic front.

 

[Acanthus]

Hm can you guys link some videos or images where the graphics look disappointing?

I thought they looked great, but I never looked very hard.

2010 SC2

2007 Supreme Commander

2010 Supreme Commander 2
http://www.eurogamer.net/gallery.php?game_id=10748&article_id=938733#anchor

World in conflict, 2008

Command and Conquer 4, 2010

 

[Bryf50]

2010 SC2

2007 Supreme Commander

Starcrafts general art direction is infinitely better and more imaginative then supcom.

 

[Acanthus]

Starcrafts general art direction is infinitely better and more imaginative then supcom.

I would agree, but their engine is severely dated.

Supcom2 seems to focus a lot more on art direction, a lot of the new units are VERY good looking.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

No, the gameplay is what matters most in a GAME.

What matters most is their decision to split it into three full-priced sets. That is why I will only buy it after the SC2 Battle Chest is released.

 

[shortylickens]

So long as I can tell what the fuck is going on, it doesnt matter.
I've played games so devoted to AWESOME!!!! graphics that I couldnt even see well enough to interact with it.