Starcraft II - Graphics

[Susurrus]

Can someone explain to me why I keep seeing people saying how amazing this game's graphics are?

Maybe it's just because I've seen screenshots, but it very much seems to be something I would have expected around the era of, say, C&C generals - well, maybe a bit crisper than that, but coupled with the style.. When games like CoH, Empire (for all its other faults), and for something less realistic, Supreme Commander (1, not 2), have been and gone (some, like CoH, released 5 years ago), they just seem rather underwhelming..

 

[rabidmidget]

They seem fine to me, besides, the gameplay would make up for the graphics anyway, I mean, it is starcraft 2 after all.

 

[Lemon Of Life]

I think discussing Starcraft 2's graphics is silly, honestly, they're really not important.

Even so, watch some gameplay, the graphics are great.

 

[Canadian Briton]

Maybe because the Zerg stuff looks really organic (well they are)which is cool and the creep, also maybe the protoss because they are all shiny and glowy. those are just my theories on why people think starcraft 2's graphics are really good.

 

[veloper]

Blizzard do a pretty neat and consistent art style.

SC2 isn't much of a polygon pusher or a tech demo, but that's not a bad thing.
You can have alot of units at the same time on screen and the system requirements are modest.

 

[Susurrus]

So the answers are: It's an art-style, it's not cutting-edge, and it's not important?

 

[Alfador_VII]

Personally I think it really does look great. It's actually better that it's not cutting edge, means it's more likely to age well, as well as needing less computing power.

For example, take a look at World of Warcraft. That game's well over 5 years old now, and still looks pretty decent. If they'd gone for "photorealism" or as close as they could get 5 or 6 years ago, it would be looking pretty ropey by now

 

[David Bray]

Everyone's going crazy about the Hyperion graphics which are about 2% of the actual game. Yeah, they're great for an RTS but nothing to write home about.

 

[DesertHawk]

On their own merit, the RTS-play graphics in SC2 are exactly what a sequel to the original Starcraft should be. There certainly is that "Blizzard style" at work here, and I feel that a push for something more 'realistic' would have felt wrong in the end.

However, I think that there is a big disconnect in SC2 between what you find when playing the RTS missions vs all of the in-game cutscenes and Hyperion sections. The Hyperion sequences look damn good for any modern game (aside from some character models clipping into themselves), but to go from that to the RTS stuff is jarring. While this direction allows them to express the story in a far more compelling way than the talking heads of the first SC, it in a way also cheapens the RTS game play for me.

In the end it feels a lot like Jim Raynor, as Dark Helmet, playing with his dolls again...

 

[David Bray]

Everyone's going crazy about the Hyperion graphics which are about 2% of the actual game. Yeah, they're great for an RTS but nothing to write home about.

It's not just the hyperion, they do a lot of in-engine cutscenes which look absolutely amazing. Yes, it's something to write home about.

Mate, they're not in-game cinematics because that's not the graphics of the main game. It's completely the opposite of in-game.
If they were in-game, they'd look like this:

http://phenomenaonbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/starcraft2-boom.jpg

and that they do not.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think that, like some have said, it's a unique art style rather than going for photorealism. That said, they do look very good. Everything is unique, there's a lot of great effects - shields and lasers and explosions and craters being left behind and blood and all sorts of stuff. It definitely does look really good IMO (and this coming from a "graphics whore") I only wish ATI would allow me to enable AA - especially in the Hyperion.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Everyone's going crazy about the Hyperion graphics which are about 2% of the actual game. Yeah, they're great for an RTS but nothing to write home about.

It's not just the hyperion, they do a lot of in-engine cutscenes which look absolutely amazing. Yes, it's something to write home about.

Mate, they're not in-game cinematics because that's not the graphics of the main game. It's completely the opposite of in-game.
If they were in-game, they'd look like this:

http://phenomenaonbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/starcraft2-boom.jpg

and that they do not.

They are not "in game". They are real-time.

-m

 

[John Funk]

Everyone's going crazy about the Hyperion graphics which are about 2% of the actual game. Yeah, they're great for an RTS but nothing to write home about.

It's not just the hyperion, they do a lot of in-engine cutscenes which look absolutely amazing. Yes, it's something to write home about.

Mate, they're not in-game cinematics because that's not the graphics of the main game. It's completely the opposite of in-game.
If they were in-game, they'd look like this:

http://phenomenaonbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/starcraft2-boom.jpg

and that they do not.

They are not "in game". They are real-time.

-m

They use the game's engine, I believe. Just much higher-detailed models, obviously.

Blizzard's games are never technological marvels graphically - they're no Crysis. But they make up for it with wonderful art direction.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Everyone's going crazy about the Hyperion graphics which are about 2% of the actual game. Yeah, they're great for an RTS but nothing to write home about.

It's not just the hyperion, they do a lot of in-engine cutscenes which look absolutely amazing. Yes, it's something to write home about.

Mate, they're not in-game cinematics because that's not the graphics of the main game. It's completely the opposite of in-game.
If they were in-game, they'd look like this:

http://phenomenaonbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/starcraft2-boom.jpg

and that they do not.

They are not "in game". They are real-time.

-m

They use the game's engine, I believe. Just much higher-detailed models, obviously.

Blizzard's games are never technological marvels graphically - they're no Crysis. But they make up for it with wonderful art direction.

I had heard Blizzard refer to them as "in engine" but I wasn't sure, and couldn't speak to that authoritatively. The they are real-time is absolutely without question.
Those ain't no prerendered cutscenes.

-m

 

[imaloony]

So far, I've only seen the graphics in the pre-rendered cinematics, which look good (But don't they always?), but the best graphics I've seen in a game still goes to Final Fantasy XIII.

 

[TheTaco007]

Let me put it this way... Have you SEEN the first one?