They are not 3D models in the actual game. In fact, they were high-poly, high-quality models which were later turned into 2.5D, because, ta-da:
Computers cannot support 3D of that quality! But you can turn it into 2.5D and you are fine. But now they try to make the computer support that quality (FPS kind), and, obviously, we can't. That's why any 3D game will lose to a 2.5D game in terms of static look.
When I say a game is 2D/2.5D I mean the game is 2D currently. How they made it, I don't give a damn. Fire in 3D games is 2D, I hope you know that.
D2 is 2D, you can't really debate that. I'm not sure what are you saying here, as far as I know, the Diablo II LoD that I am playing is 2D/2.5D.
Physics? OK, let's see.
1. Whatever physics they may put in there eat performance.
2. Whatever physics they may put in there will not replace the beauty of 2D. SC2 will still be low-poly low-res.
3. Whatever physics they may put in there can be imitated in 2D, in fact, there are special techniques of using 3D on top of 2D and so on. I didn't see anything in the movies that can't be done in 2D.
4. Any 3D game has choppy connection physics due to the absence of a proper grid. E.g., people will pass/not pass in wierd places, they will bounce off each other and other 3D problem.
2D with today's technology can look so fucking amazing that 3D doesn't even come close... like, look at Baldur's Gate, and that was 8 years ago, and now they can have high rez and all that motion capture stuff and so on.
System Reqs? Well, you can make 2D demanding (to imitate detailed rotation and texture interaction and so on), but it will still be not even nearly as demanding as 3D that looks the same.
The reason they use 3D only now is because 3D makes a game look more advanced, and 3D is easier to do.
To Carloseus
I understand what you are trying to say but I don't remember a 3D RTS that looks at least as good as StarCraft 1 and supports as much units. So far, they were mostly low-rez, choppy, and low-poly. I don't think Blizzard is suddenly going to make some technology jump from the current screens. I saw the initial WC3 screens, they were a lot worse than WC3, true, but that doesn't mean the final WC3 looked better than 2D.
Well, you are just a 3D lover, we can stop there, you prefer choppy polygons and shiny plasticy effects with low-rez textures to 2D, and that is beyond my understanding.
We weren't talking about my notebook. It's very old. That wasn't my point, again. If you can't even see my point, you are just stupid.
StarCraft 1 runs smoothly on my notebook and looks great.
WarCraft 2 runs smoothly on my notebook and looks... pretty good.
Age of Empires 2 runs smoothly on my notebook and looks awesome.
WarCraft 3 looks like crap on any computer and slows down on my notebook. WTF?
I wasn't amazed. It took me a while to accept WC3 because I actually liked WC2 and I still do, and WC3 kinda isn't even WarCraft anymore. And the fact that such crappy graphics actually ate my computer's performance pised me off.
Quote from "Carloseus" »
WC3 was their first 3d game, and also it looked good for that time. Say what you will about it now, but when it came out the graphics were really good.
So, WC3 looked better than Age of Empires 1/2, better than StarCraft, and Baldur's Gate, better than whatever other 2D games came out before it? I do not think so. Maybe you just like the 3D concept, but I don't. The problem is, 2D was first, and 2D is a lot better looking and no matter how much you optimize you have a long road to go towards 3D that can counter 2D. So far I haven't seen any. Maybe Titan Quest? But I don't see StarCraftII looking like that. It looks like WC3 with a bit more neon glow, but the same sloppy textures, the same sharp polygons, the same choppyness. I see low 3D when I see low 3D. How can you make it better? The game is ready for beta test.
Understand, 2D is raw, plain image. You can fit so much detail into a raw plain image that 3D just can't even get close to that with the computers we have at the moment. Even FPS still have issues with making realistic fire, what can you say for an RTS which has to fit 200 worth of supply of units all fighting together, turning, summoning color spheres, whatever. Imagine an FPS with 100 units at once. I don't see that happening.
I can't really bash Blizzard for going 3D because if they don't go 3D no one is going to buy it. I can't bash StarCraft II for looking bad because 3D is just bad because of what it is. I just have the opinion that while I can still marvel at the StarCraft's sprites (despite their low resolution), StarCraft II is something I will rather be annoyed at.
They are Blizzard, they made WC3, that game has bad graphics. End of story. I never saw WoW except on screenshots and it looks the same as WC3 for me so something tells me millions of people is not the issue here.
SC2 is in development for a long time, and it seems to be rather in finalizing stage than beginning stage. I'm telling you, these are pretty much the graphics we are going to get. And it will be slow, too. 3D is like that, there is nothing you can do about it. Blizzard isn't Carmack, they are bad optimizers.
I meant that while playing you won't really notice the plastic feel around the game.
Not true, I could never stop thinking "the graphics suck" while playing WC3... :rolleyes: And I play SC1 on the tiny resolution and I love it... in 3D, the Zerg would never be the same...
To Carloserus - you can't polish 3D. SC2 is low-polygon and it will stay so in order to allow enough units. Blizzard doesn't have a guy like Carmack to optimize it so that they can have good 3D and good speed.
If you think 3D sucks, I guess you don't like games at all. However I think you meant you don't like RTS games based on 3D, well that's understandable.
2.5D forever! Just kidding, of course I meant low-quality 3D. Such that is present in many RTS and RPG. So far, I favor 2D in RTS. It will even out eventually, but it is going pretty slow. 3D games end up having lesser maps, choppy physics (in terms of passing through and stuff), less units (which explains StarCraft 2's low graphic quality compared to Age of Empires III, for instance)... I just don't see what is so good and dynamic, and, God fobid, realistic (wtf? how is 3D realistic when it's low-polygon???) about it. :rolleyes:
Quote from "hndW" »
Agree. Hopefully it'll look a lot better while actually playing the game. Screenshots can really mess everything up.
I don't remember screenshots messing anything up so far. AoE III actually looked better on the screenshots. The dynamic quality may improve it, but it won't improve StarCraft II, it's just very low quality.
It's the 3D problem. It's hard to do a lot of things in 3D which can be done very realistic in 2D. Like, plastic look is just a material that doesn't take a lot of FPS. And then comes texture detail, very expensive.
Computers cannot support 3D of that quality! But you can turn it into 2.5D and you are fine. But now they try to make the computer support that quality (FPS kind), and, obviously, we can't. That's why any 3D game will lose to a 2.5D game in terms of static look.
When I say a game is 2D/2.5D I mean the game is 2D currently. How they made it, I don't give a damn. Fire in 3D games is 2D, I hope you know that.
Physics? OK, let's see.
1. Whatever physics they may put in there eat performance.
2. Whatever physics they may put in there will not replace the beauty of 2D. SC2 will still be low-poly low-res.
3. Whatever physics they may put in there can be imitated in 2D, in fact, there are special techniques of using 3D on top of 2D and so on. I didn't see anything in the movies that can't be done in 2D.
4. Any 3D game has choppy connection physics due to the absence of a proper grid. E.g., people will pass/not pass in wierd places, they will bounce off each other and other 3D problem.
System Reqs? Well, you can make 2D demanding (to imitate detailed rotation and texture interaction and so on), but it will still be not even nearly as demanding as 3D that looks the same.
The reason they use 3D only now is because 3D makes a game look more advanced, and 3D is easier to do.
To Carloseus
I understand what you are trying to say but I don't remember a 3D RTS that looks at least as good as StarCraft 1 and supports as much units. So far, they were mostly low-rez, choppy, and low-poly. I don't think Blizzard is suddenly going to make some technology jump from the current screens. I saw the initial WC3 screens, they were a lot worse than WC3, true, but that doesn't mean the final WC3 looked better than 2D.
We weren't talking about my notebook. It's very old. That wasn't my point, again. If you can't even see my point, you are just stupid.
SC looks better, WC2 looks better, AoE2 looks better, but they all eat LESS! What's the point of 3D if it looks worse and costs more?
My notebooks is very old, yeah, but it still runs all those 2D games with beautiful graphics.
WarCraft 2 runs smoothly on my notebook and looks... pretty good.
Age of Empires 2 runs smoothly on my notebook and looks awesome.
WarCraft 3 looks like crap on any computer and slows down on my notebook. WTF?
So, WC3 looked better than Age of Empires 1/2, better than StarCraft, and Baldur's Gate, better than whatever other 2D games came out before it? I do not think so. Maybe you just like the 3D concept, but I don't. The problem is, 2D was first, and 2D is a lot better looking and no matter how much you optimize you have a long road to go towards 3D that can counter 2D. So far I haven't seen any. Maybe Titan Quest? But I don't see StarCraftII looking like that. It looks like WC3 with a bit more neon glow, but the same sloppy textures, the same sharp polygons, the same choppyness. I see low 3D when I see low 3D. How can you make it better? The game is ready for beta test.
Understand, 2D is raw, plain image. You can fit so much detail into a raw plain image that 3D just can't even get close to that with the computers we have at the moment. Even FPS still have issues with making realistic fire, what can you say for an RTS which has to fit 200 worth of supply of units all fighting together, turning, summoning color spheres, whatever. Imagine an FPS with 100 units at once. I don't see that happening.
I can't really bash Blizzard for going 3D because if they don't go 3D no one is going to buy it. I can't bash StarCraft II for looking bad because 3D is just bad because of what it is. I just have the opinion that while I can still marvel at the StarCraft's sprites (despite their low resolution), StarCraft II is something I will rather be annoyed at.
SC2 is in development for a long time, and it seems to be rather in finalizing stage than beginning stage. I'm telling you, these are pretty much the graphics we are going to get. And it will be slow, too. 3D is like that, there is nothing you can do about it. Blizzard isn't Carmack, they are bad optimizers.
To Carloserus - you can't polish 3D. SC2 is low-polygon and it will stay so in order to allow enough units. Blizzard doesn't have a guy like Carmack to optimize it so that they can have good 3D and good speed.
I don't remember screenshots messing anything up so far. AoE III actually looked better on the screenshots. The dynamic quality may improve it, but it won't improve StarCraft II, it's just very low quality.
3D SUKCS! Period.