Starcraft 2 graphics are not outdated, especially for an RTS.

Console gamers who have been calling Sc2 as ugly should do a bit more research imo.

The engine is extremely flexible: being able to render two radically different perspective and excels at both. Most engine will go into halt.

It has all the goodies of modern graphics: dynamics light, SSAO, depth of field (all of which Dawn of War 2 doesn't have, though Dow2 has more high-poly models). It has true HDR (not fake one), specular maps (something Dawn of War 2 and Halo Wars don't have)

Also, in Sc2's, Debris and broken parts cast shadows while in motion.

Each unit lighting affects its environment and other units. Imagine having hundreds of units simultaneously doing that. Most engine will crash, so Sc2 is pretty technical.

Sc2's on ultra will not able to render smoothly on consoles.

http://www.geforce.com/#/GamesandApps/games/starcraftii/description

http://developer.amd.com/gpu_assets/S2008-Filion-McNaughton-StarCraftII.pdf

Hmm? I've never seen anyone call Starcraft 2 ugly. If that were to happen you wouldn't have to argue the game's graphics but the guy's sight.

Hmm? I've never seen anyone call Starcraft 2 ugly. If that were to happen you wouldn't have to argue the game's graphics but the guy's sight.

N30F3N1X

actually i argue that the visuals are quite childishly done.. in fact ever since warcraft III ive thought this and diablo 3 appears to be the same way.. the way games have looked since and including warcraft III has been a primary reason for me to not give them much credit anymore.. warcraft II and diablo 2 were really good in the art department with alot of nice set pieces.. i havent seen that in warcraft III onwards.. just ugly textures and poorly formed shapes and obscure faces.. like sure sc2's cutscene work is good but the game itself visually doesnt appeal to me..

a game needs to artisitcally look real to me .. WoW felt like i was playing a game set on backgrounds from childrens picture books.. not cocept art

Starcraft 2 is a great looking game,I´ve never heard anyone call it ugly.

actually i argue that the visuals are quite childishly done.. in fact ever since warcraft III ive thought this and diablo 3 appears to be the same way.. the way games have looked since and including warcraft III has been a primary reason for me to not give them much credit anymore.. warcraft II and diablo 2 were really good in the art department with alot of nice set pieces.. i havent seen that in warcraft III onwards.. just ugly textures and poorly formed shapes and obscure faces.. like sure sc2's cutscene work is good but the game itself visually doesnt appeal to me..

a game needs to artisitcally look real to me .. WoW felt like i was playing a game set on backgrounds from childrens picture books.. not cocept art

ionusX

The reason for the cartoony look is so that the game won't look outdated after a couple of years. Blizzard games are played for years and years after release. If they didn't go with the cartoony style it would look really old when you will compare them with future games.

That's why WOW was designed to look cartoonish. It helps it age better in looks. They will probably stick with that style for all their upcoming games.

actually i argue that the visuals are quite childishly done.. in fact ever since warcraft III ive thought this and diablo 3 appears to be the same way.. the way games have looked since and including warcraft III has been a primary reason for me to not give them much credit anymore.. warcraft II and diablo 2 were really good in the art department with alot of nice set pieces.. i havent seen that in warcraft III onwards.. just ugly textures and poorly formed shapes and obscure faces.. like sure sc2's cutscene work is good but the game itself visually doesnt appeal to me..

a game needs to artisitcally look real to me .. WoW felt like i was playing a game set on backgrounds from childrens picture books.. not cocept art

ionusX

I don't know about wow, but the reason starcraft 2(and warcraft 3)'s models seem to look 'childish' is due to the need for strong silhouettes on such a far camera looking down. They're meant to be pleasing to eyes and easily differentiated as entail by that perspective, sharpness and rectilinear is bad for that kind of design. Besides, most people are fine by the way diablo 3 looks right now.

Well, the graphics are very unimpressive, but no necessarily bad.

Only people who call it ugly are fanboys who compare Uncharted 2/Killzone 3/God of War 3/ Halo: Reach/Gears of War 2 to Starcraft 2 and then cry foal when PC gamers bring out the Crysis pictures.

very true, one of the best looking rts out there. The best thing I love about it is the engines scalability, One one hand I can run it at max on pc and it'll look spectacular, while on the other hand I can run it smoothly at minimum on very, very crappy laptop.

Well, the graphics are very unimpressive, but no necessarily bad.

magnusm1

[QUOTE="magnusm1"]

Well, the graphics are very unimpressive, but no necessarily bad.

Ravenchrome

There's an astonishing amount of detail, most of which u ll propably never see cause ur busy macroing/scouting/microing/holding off that 6pool/4gate/3rax/dropping his mineral line/sieging up ur tanks etc etc etc. Apart from the detail though, the game doesnt look outstandingly good. The graphics are just there...they are not bad, but not that great either. The real time cutscenes and the ship sequences etc etc looked stunning though. But ingame, it doesnt look better than say, red alert 3 or world in conflict.

SC2 looks like trash when you compare to Crysis 2 :P jk

It even holds up well vs. Shougun 2

I don't recall any Console-RTS vs PC-RTS, but visually World in Conflict and Company of Heroes blow away anything consoles have brought to the table. Both of which are praised as great games.

Starcraft's artstylle may disagree with some people, but I wouldn't call it ugly.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

actually i argue that the visuals are quite childishly done.. in fact ever since warcraft III ive thought this and diablo 3 appears to be the same way.. the way games have looked since and including warcraft III has been a primary reason for me to not give them much credit anymore.. warcraft II and diablo 2 were really good in the art department with alot of nice set pieces.. i havent seen that in warcraft III onwards.. just ugly textures and poorly formed shapes and obscure faces.. like sure sc2's cutscene work is good but the game itself visually doesnt appeal to me..

a game needs to artisitcally look real to me .. WoW felt like i was playing a game set on backgrounds from childrens picture books.. not cocept art

sleepingzzz

The reason for the cartoony look is so that the game won't look outdated after a couple of years. Blizzard games are played for years and years after release. If they didn't go with the cartoony style it would look really old when you will compare them with future games.

That's why WOW was designed to look cartoonish. It helps it age better in looks. They will probably stick with that style for all their upcoming games.

Brood War seems to have gotten along fine as far as longevity is concerned without "cartoonish" graphics.

SC2 has no AA

thats just quite sad

SC2 has no AA

thats just quite sad

HaloinventedFPS

It would be sad if there was need for it. Not saying there aren't jaggies at all, but its hardly noticeable.

I never saw anyone calling SC2 graphics outdated. It has actually excellent graphics.

SC2 has no AA

thats just quite sad

HaloinventedFPS

you don't really need AA. The only time I notice jaggies in the game is the menu screen with the revolving planet.

Good graphics.

But I really hate the art style. It's a pity a game like Supreme Commander 2 turned away from a more realistic approach (in Supcom1) to try to copy the Starcraft 2 style. It's even worse that SUpcom 2 turned away from its classic Total Annihilation/SUpcom1 economy to copy Starcraft's economy...

Good graphics.

But I really hate the art style. It's a pity a game like Supreme Commander 2 turned away from a more realistic approach (in Supcom1) to try to copy the Starcraft 2 style. It's even worse that SUpcom 2 turned away from its classic Total Annihilation/SUpcom1 economy to copy Starcraft's economy...

milannoir

SC2 has no AA

thats just quite sad

HaloinventedFPS

'cause forced aa @ 60fps is hard. (4x)

oops, fps didn't show up

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/562/sc220110501072910020.jpg

"Starcraft 2 has no AA" = "I don't know how to force AA"

It's a great looking game, particularly when you get hundreds of units fighting each other at a time.

It has no AA, which is pretty bad for any type of engine.ocstew

AA is the last important thing, especially for an RTS.

(Dawn of War 2, even Retribution has no SSAO, last I recalled)

actually i argue that the visuals are quite childishly done.. in fact ever since warcraft III ive thought this and diablo 3 appears to be the same way.. the way games have looked since and including warcraft III has been a primary reason for me to not give them much credit anymore.. warcraft II and diablo 2 were really good in the art department with alot of nice set pieces.. i havent seen that in warcraft III onwards.. just ugly textures and poorly formed shapes and obscure faces.. like sure sc2's cutscene work is good but the game itself visually doesnt appeal to me..

a game needs to artisitcally look real to me .. WoW felt like i was playing a game set on backgrounds from childrens picture books.. not cocept art

ionusX

opinions are great arent they....

cuz i like Blizzards games now more than ever partly because of their arts*tyle... WoW looks AMAZING when you think about when the game was released and how easily it can be run. Running WoW on ULTRA (everything maxed) is still a beautiful looking game, even in 2011.

Diablo 3 already looks WAYbetter than Diablo 2... not just technically either... artisticly also.... go back and play Diablo 2, sometimes your imagination fills in the blanks and makes you remember things better than they were. Happens to me all the time, when I remember old games, then I see them again and think "Man... I don't remember this being so ugly".

OH NOES... it haz COLORZ it beez onLy 4 da kiddiez!!!!!

[QUOTE="ocstew"]It has no AA, which is pretty bad for any type of engine.Ravenchrome

AA is the last important thing, especially for an RTS.

(Dawn of War 2, even Retribution has no SSAO, last I recalled)

imo this is beautiful

just a quick pic i took... could have gotten a better one, but I just happened to be in STV at the time.

PS. btw lvl 85 MM Hunter FTW! 17k dps approx. depending on fight

Starcraft II has excellent graphics. Its just that Blizzard is the greatest PC dev (along with Valve), so one could expect it to have Crysis/Metro/Stalker/Total War/Arma level of graphics at some point. Its still pretty and its ingame cutscenes, not to mention the CGI ones are gorgeous.

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]It has no AA, which is pretty bad for any type of engine.ocstew

AA is the last important thing, especially for an RTS.

(Dawn of War 2, even Retribution has no SSAO, last I recalled)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Space_Ambient_Occlusion

NO ME2, ME, Killzone 2, and especially your FAVORITE: HALO WARS.

Hell, even Dow 2 has no SSAO.

StarCraft 2's graphics were outdated before it was even released. To this day, Age of Empires 3 remains the best looking RTS game ever made.dzimm

[QUOTE="magnusm1"]

Well, the graphics are very unimpressive, but no necessarily bad.

Ravenchrome

Starcraft II has excellent graphics. Its just that Blizzard is the greatest PC dev (along with Valve), so one could expect it to have Crysis/Metro/Stalker/Total War/Arma level of graphics at some point. Its still pretty and its ingame cutscenes, not to mention the CGI ones are gorgeous.

Mozelleple112

Valve isnt a PC dev anymore, Portal 2 was a console port, invb4 Valve fanboy denys it

World In Conflict and Shogun 2 look a gen ahead though, DOW2 looks better in my opinion. SC2 is still an awesome looking game.

Starcraft 1-2 was never about graphics but it does not look ugly

Yeah who calls Starcraft 2 ugly?

It's not the most graphically intense game, but that was by design. It is meant to run smoothly on a massive amount of systems. Though on its highest, the game looks absolutly beautiful and runs at smooth framerates. So many little details and effects, it's crazy.

World In Conflict and Shogun 2 look a gen ahead though, DOW2 looks better in my opinion. SC2 is still an awesome looking game.

DreamCryotank

I actually think that Starcraft 2 looks better than World in Conflict. World in Conflict is a beautiful game, don't get me wrong, but it's rather rough. Maybe it's the artstyle.

People think this looks outdated? One of the best looking rts games imo.

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/101805323-4

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/101931920-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/101932225-4.jpg

Starcraft 2 imo does not look like a graphic powerhouse but doesnt stop me from playing everyday

imo this is beautiful

just a quick pic i took... could have gotten a better one, but I just happened to be in STV at the time.

PS. btw lvl 85 MM Hunter FTW! 17k dps approx. depending on fight

moistsandwich

Why do you keep talking like you're in the mintority? You wanna talk about opinions yet you Blizzard fanboys shut people up all the time if we dare don't like Blizz's artstyIe :|

And why does everyone keep say stuff like "The game looks good even in 2011!" Blizzard has upgraded the engine with each expansion. People with bad PC would notice FPS drops when they went from WoW to BC and BC to WOtLK and the biggest upgrade was Wrath to Cata, it was one of the things that was hyped about Cata. And of coruse if you don't like the art styIe to begin with the game is ugly from day one.

BTW about the 'Colors are 4 kiddies!' people you guys just them blew it off without actually listening to why they were complaining.

1. Seeing it adopt a more WoWish art ****people were afraid gameplay changes will also be made to make the game more like a WoW lite. As if Blizzard was just going use Diablo 3 to make a quick extra buck for WoW.

2. Many were also upset because they want Diablo to stay a gothic low fantasy (they were upset about the more fantasy approuch from Diablo 1 to Diablo 2 aswell) and Diablo 3 looks like WoW with blood.

Not a Diablo fan but this is from what I've gathered. Its not because Diablo 3 is too bright, many of them liked Titan's Quest after all.

The thing with SC2 is, I play it on ultra on my home PC, and on lowest on my non-gaming laptop. It runs about equally well on each, but while I'm sure side by side there is an obvious difference, I don't feel there is that big one of from low to ultra while playing. So its like uber optimized, but never looks that amazing. 110million