Let Starcraft 2 devs know it looks like anime shit

[denizsi]

Or shitty anime. Spotted this on Starcraft Legacy

The Monthly Discussion topic for the Christmas season is all about the aesthetics of StarCraft II. We've seen a wide variety of opinions about the look of StarCraft II, not the least popular of which has been "cartoony". Now you can make your voice heard.

Here's what Karune says about this highly debated topic.

December Discussion Topic: Artistic Direction of StarCraft II

As everyone has already seen, StarCraft II has brought the world of StarCraft into 3D and added many new units, landscapes, and effects that have never been seen before. On this journey of consistent artistic evolution, we have seen Warp Rays changed to escort ships, the infamous Carrier brought back into action, and even the Siege Tank get a makeover. There is still much left to this artistic journey and now is the community's chance to let us know what you love about StarCraft II visually and what you would change.


Community Questions for Fans:

* Do you like the new look of the landscapes?
* How does the Terran faction look visually?
* How does the Protoss faction look visually?

* Additional Feedback you would like to give

Each StarCraft II fansite will be featuring different types of questions, so be sure to also visit those sites. All of this feedback will be compiled and sent to the development and community team.

If your fansite would like to participate in these monthly discussions, feel free to email me at karune@blizzard.com.

Please structure feedback as follows:

-----

[question you'd like to answer]
[your answer]

[question you'd like to answer]
[your answer]

-----

We are looking forward to some great discussions about the StarCraft II visuals!

In addition ask yourself these questions:

What overall theme do you think fits the SC universe best (ie realistic, huge disproportionalities, etc)?

Do you feel that SCII's art is more like SC or WCIII?

How much cartooniness is necessary in the SC universe?

How should the switch to 3d affect this universe's art?

Do you like SCII's art style?

 

[Cthulhugoat]

The devs are really going to read three different forums?

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

The devs are really going to remodel and retexture units and buildings if the feedback is negative?

 

[Ismaul]

They want to sell. And to sell, they need to please. I'm guessing yes, to a certain extent.

 

[sqeecoo]

In my experience, Blizzard is a quality company that actually listens to feedback. To a certain extent, of course. The last few games they made didn't suit my taste (WoW, W3), but their quality is undeniable. Blizz is one of the few big companies I actually have some (and I mean some) trust in.

 

[vrok]

Of course they'll change the looks if that's what it takes to make SC2 the accepted successor to SC, it's the easiest part of the game to change before extensive playtesting anyway. There's a lot more at stake here than giving a couple of artists extra workload.

 

[Lurkar]

I can't say I really see anything anime-esque in Starcraft 2. At all.

 

[Nedrah]

Me neither.
But then again, the only anime'ish things I have ever bothered watching tended to include humping and moaning, so I would probably not really know.

I happen to have quite a bit of trust in Blizzard, too. They are the kind of company that will just delay the game for half a year if they decide it has been developing in the wrong direction. Also, if Starcraft and wc3 are anything to judge by, they are probably making a game that is going to be in mainstream pro gaming for at least a decade to come, so that artstyle had better been good and optimized to age well. REALLY hard to do with 3d. I mean, imagine they had done Starcraft with the technology that was considered advanced at the time instead of 2d. Would be hillariously painfull to look at today.

 

[Gambler]

They want to sell. And to sell, they need to

...pretend like they care about feedback, and make people feel like they are participating in the game creation. That's how it usually works. Doesn't mean they will change anything based on the results, though.

I can't understand why anyone would wait for SC2. I played SC1 (for the first time) recently. Couldn't finish even the original game, let alone Brood War. Yes, the graphics do not look dated, but the game design is crap. Made me realize that all the bad design decisions I saw in modern RTSes were copied from SC.

I'd say WC1 is the best strategy game Blizzard made so far. And I played all of them recently, so it's not nostalgia.

 

[vrok]

WC1 is a singleplayer game. SC is a full-on multiplayer game with a long singleplayer storybased tutorial serving as an advanced unit introduction.

You're free to judge the quality of RTSes based on only the singleplayer portion of course, but you won't be taken seriously. Your post reads more like a bad joke than a serious opinion on RTSes.

 

[kris]

Starcraft is better in almost every way. warcraft was just two factions that was exactly the same apart from appearance. Less tactics, less variation and worse interface, what really made it better?

 

[vrok]

Orcs and dragons of course!

 

[almondblight]

Anyone care to complain about zerglings now being some kind of dogs with spikes instead of actual zergling? I don't feel like registering.

Oh, and I'm not sure how anyone can say WC1 is better. First, almost all the missions are "go and destroy the other base" with slight variation. No hotkeys and only being able to select 4 people at a time makes everything a pain. *select* *go and click on move button* *go and click on location* *go and click on attack button* *go and click on enemy* *go back to attack button and click again* *click on another enemy* eh eh eh. Also, at the end of the game all you need is a line of knights with catapults behind them and then a bunch of conjurers spamming water elemental or Daemon. It's fun, no doubt, and the atmosphere is great, but as a RTS it doesn't hold up so well against the likes of SC.

 

[yellowcake]

WC1 is a singleplayer game. SC is a full-on multiplayer game with a long singleplayer storybased tutorial serving as an advanced unit introduction.

You're free to judge the quality of RTSes based on only the singleplayer portion of course, but you won't be taken seriously. Your post reads more like a bad joke than a serious opinion on RTSes.

While i think the above is true, I'd like to add that singleplayer campaigns in SC had excellent plot, one of most memorable ever, and great background story giving reason to various aspects of the game. I didn't do much MP, but I loved the game because of this reason and hope they won't fuck it up in SC2.

as for it's pure RTS mechanics, it sucked big time compared to TA, which had a background two sentences long.

 

[Gambler]

You're free to judge the quality of RTSes based on only the singleplayer portion of course, but you won't be taken seriously.

First, multiplayer is based on the same game design as single player, minus AI and story, and some other things.
Second, most of the comments about shooter games won't be taken seriously by l33t cybersport dudes that worship Quake 3 either. That is only because those people have a narrow perspective on games.

Less tactics, less variation and worse interface, what really made it better?

Game dynamics. And I don't agree with "less tactics" part. SC has more tactical options, but that doesn't mean the game itself involved more thinking.

In WC1 the differences between units mattered more, since the overall system was cruder, and there were less possibilities to "offset" those differences by something else. Moreover, AI in WC was more adequate (probably because the system to manipulate was simpler). Mistakes had more costs attached, and good decisions gave you more benefit.

In SC I can win all of the missions (where building is allowed) by doing exactly the same thing. Build a moderately large task force, breach enemy defenses, destroy the production or supply buildings nearby. Rinse, repeat. Heck, sometimes that was the fastest way to win.

Also, at the end of the game all you need is a line of knights with catapults behind them and then a bunch of conjurers spamming water elemental or Daemon.

I didn't play till the end because of the horrible interface. But the beginning was quite good. In SC the repetitive strategy started from the mission 1 and lasted to the part where I had quit (2nd or 3d Protoss mission).

As for the story, I recommend Kohan II. In fact, it's single player is much better than in any of the Blizzard games. Much more interesting than WC3 for sure.

 

[Sovard]

Let's see... the Terran went from gritty industrialized pre-fab retro to putting neon strobes on their fucking units. Sigh, they aren't meant to be sleek.

The Protoss lost their "quirky, but functional" designs in favor of the millions of other generic alien races portrayed throughout RTS games. Now they're sleek, efficient, and in some cases extravagant. Gone are the subtle curves and the muted palette. Again with the sleek design. Sigh. It's not Xtreme, guys. Just give it the fuck up.

And the Zerg... well, they were just hideous spiny blobs of shit before, so I suppose any improvement to them can't possibly be that bad? Oh, right, the scenario of zerglings chasing around Samus in a exploding ball duel is on loop in my head. Set to ragtime music.

 

[Destroid]

Starcraft 1 designs shit all over Starcraft 2 designs. Whatever that giant mech thing terran have now looks like crap.

 

[Annonchinil]

I don't like how the zerglings look like mini-grasshoppers and the new art direction is certainly less interesting and unique than the original. Especially how the terran machine units and buildings feel too blocky and the translescent blue stripes on the Protoss.

The funny thing is that the new designs remind me of an RTS game called Conquest: Frontier Wars (or something like that) in which the three races felt like clones of the the original StarCraft races.

Other than that like the visual look of the game, I just think that it could look better.

P.S. Personally for the majority of the RTS games I find their single player to be rather boring. There are some I enjoyed like Homeworld, Sacrifice, WCIII:FT, CoH (for the medals) and recently WiC. I liked Red Alert 2 Soviet campaign too, but mostly for the cutscenes and the ability to do fun things, like turn the Eifell Tower into a giant Tesla coil and burn Paris.

 

[kingcomrade]

Starcraft2: Space Helicopters, Megazords, Somersaulting Zerglings

I fixed their Dark Templar for them

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Everything I read about Starcraft 2 gives me this "Design by Committee" vibe.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Aren't you a furry?

 

[DraQ]

Epic case of fail-by-ad-personam.

 

[Kingston]

I have to say some of the Protoss units are horrendous and that big mecha Thor is just retarded. Otherwise it looks alrightish.

 

[TheLostOne]

Didn't really get an anime vibe... but the screens sure as fuck look like any generic sci-fi RTS.

I watched the trailer also. I don't know why, but I feel absolutely no excitement or anticipation over this game.

 

[Nightjed]

its not just starcraft 2, most of the wow, w3 wallpapers and art they released the last few years is animeish

but i dont really care about that, what i hate is that they changed the cool original marine design into warcraft footmans with guns ductaped to their shields... they look even more medieval than fallout 3's brotherhood of steel models ( edit: i just checked their site and it seems they redesigned the marines, thanks god :p )

edit: also im more worried about the functionality and gameplay than the art, i hope they dont clone c&c3's "rush is the only option" style and that they fix warcraft'3 pathing and "cant walk though friendly units" syndrome, ever since they started designing rts for "quick multiplay matches" they suck