Starcraft 2 3D 2006 year, 21 centry!

[SlickR]

Where are you living and what time are you living?
Some recent threads and posts concerning SC 2 and 2D are just stupid!
2D technology is 10 years old now.
3D is the current thing and it may not be long until we see 4D:P and some of you are talking about 2D!

I agree the angle view in SC is aweseome but that doesent mean it can't be done in 3D, infact it can be done even better!

To see just how much people think SC 2 should be in 2D i've set up a poll!
So go on and vote!

[PillsC2E]

It will have to be 3D to keep up with the gaming market. Making a 2D game now is financial suicide!

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

I agree, whats sup with those people. The graphics is one of the reasons SCII is being made. The only reason it's 2-D becouse it was the best graphics of its time. If you don't wan't 3-D graphics, just keep playing the Original StarCraft.

Also a mapper, I would like have a campaign that doesn't show the top view of everyones' head all the time. 3-D graphics can make StarCraft more realistic which can make the maps more exciting.

[SolidSamurai]

Dude, I'm uhh... pretty sure 4-D animation won't appear for awhile...

It'll probably not appear for another 50,000 years in fact, unless we somehow master quantum mechanics to the point that even god is shaking his head. I'm not kidding either.

They can make SC 3-D, but the physics have to be insane enough to be just as fun and rapid fire as the original. It can't be as "boxy" and in a single-minded, straight forward style of incorporated physics and animation like WC3 (ie. only ONE death animation for each unit, plus they move in an exagerated sense that doesn't really follow up exactly with how fast they move, which can easily be altered and get tangled with in the editor with a single click of a button... and look screwy as hell because of it).

I'm also thinking of slight environment alterations due to explosions, and holes created in buildings due to a siege tank blast, ie. And a 'rine stumbling a ways backwards, with blood pooling quickly out of his visor due to being hit hard in the front with large goliath rounds.

O ya; and kismet, blizz opted for 2-D at the time because they believed they could incorporate it in a witty sense, even though fans were ranting and whining about how AoE2 would kick its ass cuz it was going to be 3-D. Blizz showed 'em! But now, that isn't really an option or even a realistic risk anymore, I'm afraid.

[SlickR]

Dude, I'm uhh... pretty sure 4-D animation won't appear for awhile...

It'll probably not appear for another 50,000 years in fact, unless we somehow master quantum mechanics to the point that even god is shaking his head. I'm not kidding either.

They can make SC 3-D, but the physics have to be insane enough to be just as fun and rapid fire as the original. It can't be as "boxy" and in a single-minded, straight forward style of incorporated physics and animation like WC3 (ie. only ONE death animation for each unit, plus they move in an exagerated sense that doesn't really follow up exactly with how fast they move, which can easily be altered and get tangled with in the editor with a single click of a button... and look screwy as hell because of it).

I'm also thinking of slight environment alterations due to explosions, and holes created in buildings due to a siege tank blast, ie. And a 'rine stumbling a ways backwards, with blood pooling quickly out of his visor due to being hit hard in the front with large goliath rounds.

O ya; and kismet, blizz opted for 2-D at the time because they believed they could incorporate it in a witty sense, even though fans were ranting and whining about how AoE2 would kick its ass cuz it was going to be 3-D. Blizz showed 'em! But now, that isn't really an option or even a realistic risk anymore, I'm afraid.
i'm totally sure you are talking things extremly seriosly or mauby you lack human interaction skills.
Coz that was a joke, or sarcasam call it what ever you want. I did not mean it serious.
I was pointing out how OLD 2D is!

[SolidSamurai]

Unfortunately for you, I like to keep threads actually interesting for once.

And who the hell's mauby?! Sounds like some ludicrous TV host for a ludicrous show that involves dumb asses tearing each other apart, and has viewers laughing at how pathetic they are. Maybe that was Maury... can't quite remember. =P

And 2d can still exist today; it's just made to be more glossy and colorific (countless online games)... only a game that appears as a non-free game that's mass marketed in stores can't take this kind of leap of faith.

[DarkMirror]

I think that being 3D would ruin thew feel. i like the idea of it having adfvanced graphics, with the hles and stuff. buit being able to turn the camera around to peek behind the trees would ruin it.

[100thlurker]

In today's market, 2d is like trying to jump to the other side of the Grand Canyon with nothing but yourself. No matter how many of the older gamers are there, Starcraft still needs new blood, and many possible new players will be turned off by 2-d graphics.

No matter how much we like it, it won't happen.

[PrestonBurke]

3D would be nice for mapping. =p

[Superiorwolf]

I wouldn't want 3d too much, especially if the camera moves and can go up and down and everything, it will just become another warcraft (in space)

But as long as the game is still good I would still play

[Dayoh]

SC 2d graphics are really awesome in my opninion it has a real good feel, in D2 LoD it was released in like 01, and it has 2D graphics and they are awesome, in my opinion i couldnt careless if SC 2 is 2D or 3D, i just cant wait for it if it ever comes out.

I dont play games for looks i play them for what they have inside :cool:

[snakeskin009]

yeah if anyone wasnt blind and saw the 3D of wcIII. then they would know that sc2 like that would look like bad. the look was good for a dark middle age rts like that but it would make online not fun.

[snakeskin009]

all im gonna say is that if the view was like st but had a 3D look to it then it would be good but if its like wc3 3D. it will not look good at all and it will make the game look not as cool. wc3 with that 3D looked good but if it was on sc2. i would never go online and play like id never play wc3 online cause of the 3D look.

[snakeskin009]

ok i do want 3d ones but if it looks like the ones from warcraft 3 then i will cry. cuase that would look bad and make the game suck alot. so i think 2d with a 3d look to it just to be on the safe side.

[own3d0406]

^^w00t triple post^^

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

People might have been arguing about this before WCIII came out. Tell me one thing, is WCII being played more then WCIII, O.o?
If that's the case, WarCraft III is better then WCII by certain improvements.

[Dayoh]

Instead of a SC2, why not a new expansion all together but its far too long since the game has been released so that wont work, so all they can do is make anouther RTS, but by the looks of it i dont know when it will come:confused:

[SolidSamurai]

Dude haven't you seen the warcraft in space image?

Dammit I don't have a link.

Anyway, ACTUAL warcraft in space looks pretty different then SC; that's all I can say.

Not to mention, blizz even made fun of the "warcraft in space" with their flamethrower wielding space orc from WC3. It also kinda disses warhammer 40k. =P

Warhammer 40k is more likely to be "warcraft in space" then starcraft, guys.

3 simple factors, really:
- Offbeat
- Openess (whacky unrelated races in different plot lines and crap all over the place; similair to warcraft)
- Space Orcs

[SolidSamurai]

People might have been arguing about this before WCIII came out. Tell me one thing, is WCII being played more then WCIII, O.o?
If that's the case, WarCraft III is better then WCII by certain improvements.

O ya, you can win WC2 by massing ogremages. In the case of sea, you just threaten them with transport ships and axethrowers. Range upgrade for the axethrowers takes the cake in this scenario. Did range upgrades even exist? If they didn't, then that was just a sorry attempt by blizz to actually force the player into multi-unit strategies. Starcraft also incorporates actual physics and elevation. This prob explains the fact nobody plays WC2 anymore.

I used to think ogremages were a pretty funky idea, despite the "Ogre-magi" that apparently appear in D&D. I could swear the idea came out of an apparent "goofy swing" at fantasy, attempting to popculturalize the genre. D&D just likes to add logic to all this shit, which can be incredibly annoying at times.

[Holocaust]

Triple followed by a double, what is this, The World Ice Figure Posting championships?

I personally want SC2 to be 2D, it's a long time before I can get some new RAM sticks with a better Vid Card

[DBCooper]

it may not be long until we see 4D:P


You DO know that it is impossible to do that? the fourth dimension is time, not any physical dimension, such as lengh, width, and depth. Also, it can be debated that 3d could possibly ruin the game, making strategies like hiding behind trees (which only marginally worked in the first place) useless. I am leaning towards seeing through cameras mounted on armor or eyes in the case of the protoss and zerg and hybrids (possibly Xel' Naga)

[SolidSamurai]

DBCooper appears to be trying to eat my dust enough that he'll catch up to me and somehow have me eat his dust. To that i say ha! Never will happen.... <_<

BTW, Snakeskin's idea of 3d graphics for SC2 is definitely what I want... if it's WC3 graphics I'll cry and probably kill myself... well maybe not kill myself zomg. But ya, I'll cry.
Only I'd like to have more realism, rather then how warcraft put it... too damn cartoonish really.

[Seal]

blizzard can do futuristic design.

..believed they could incorporate it in a witty sense, even though fans were ranting and whining about how AoE2 would kick its ass cuz it was going to be 3-D. Blizz showed 'em! But now, that isn't really an option or even a realistic risk anymore, I'm afraid.

aoe2 was 2d, thank you very much.

i dont really get why people dont want 3d. there is *nothing* to prevent it now, as even the lousiest machine should have 3d acceleration by now. besides, 2d is less versatile.

[SolidSamurai]

Versatility relates to speed for me. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if you can do a whole buncha shit ("versatility"), if the enemy is faster then you micro management is that much more crappy. In WC3, microing was pretty much unit placement before battle (casters and rangers behind, while meatshields in front, etc.). That sucks really. Not to mention, most units didn't move all that fast in warcraft. Or at least it appeared that way. Except in WC2, only it was too fast, because when one thing was fast, EVERYTHING was fast.

[DarkMirror]

The flexibility connects with the tax for me. If it does not matter,
if an excrement to finish it buncha ("versatility") to give
the form, if the enemy is faster then you he, you are inscato more of
the micron of the management he altretanto when miserabler. In WC3
many of Microing of the disposition of the front battles of the unit
were graceful (the papers of the foot and the Foerster after, during
meatshields in the front part, the etc.). This really aspires. The
decree not to indicate, the greatest piece of the units moved not
everything, of that warcraft of the digiunano inside. Or to little
that it looked like in these art. excluded in WC2 was too fast only,
because, when one which it was fast, ALL it was fast.
This is the awsome power of the babalizer. see the "telephone" thread for details.

Now my post!
I still stand by my beleif that SC2 should NOT be 3D. it would ruin some of the feel for me, and I dont want to have to learn it all again...

BECOMES:

They are aspect arrested for beleif of the mine of the use that SC2
would not have that to being 3d., of that one have always gone away of
sensitivity for me would go to ruin and it would not wish to all I
still have it to learn...

cool, eh?

[ShadowGonissa]

Personally, I think they should just keep it generally 2d, but with 3d-ish units and doodads so that the whole terrains looks nice and realistic.

Warcraft graphics = poo.

[SolidSamurai]

Babalizer?! Wtf?
Kinda sounds like newspeak.

Anyway, this intrigues me, darkmirror, and I wish to learn more.

[xodkrm]

I hope it would have 3d graphics that look like 2d.
And maybe HDR. :XD

[lluke7]

I'd like 3d.

We're in the year 2006 for crying out loud! 2d too old.

[Kabam]

Idiots, I've been gone for a year, come back and greeted by idiocy of a 3D SC? IDIOTS. RTS can't be 3D and be good. If you want a 3D RTS game, it will suck. You can't have good and 3D, it doesn't work. Hell, the reason SC is so succesful, is because lamers like my friend Ez, have crappy computers that can play games like SC, and nothing else. Idiots! And that poll was a biased piece of shit, typed by a moron. <.<

[Garbeld]

Kabam apparently doesn't know I've liked Homeworld/Cataclysm, and that I play Starcraft for its modability.

Regardless of all, I would like an integration of the two. As far as graphics go, I prefer 2d, as it is optimised -- the reason Starcraft looks so good is because all the sprites will always look exactly as good as they were when they were made with zero data loss, and each pixel has a maximized value of, um, goodness? Whatever.
Though, of course, I understand that two dimensions do have the problem with being unable to accurately simulate various aspects of the game, such as cover. Thus, an integration of the two.

You DO know that it is impossible to do that? the fourth dimension is time, not any physical dimension, such as lengh, width, and depth. Also, it can be debated that 3d could possibly ruin the game, making strategies like hiding behind trees (which only marginally worked in the first place) useless. I am leaning towards seeing through cameras mounted on armor or eyes in the case of the protoss and zerg and hybrids (possibly Xel' Naga)
Though I'm late on this, I would like to say...
Point one: Turn the attacks into actual projectiles, as in first person shooters, along with a random cone of fire-direction ( how much their attacks will spread, for accuracy ) . This will make cover work even better. Rather than having cliffs give a %chance to be hit, you would have a percent chance to hit the target depending on the cliff height, your height, the target height, how far either of you are from the edge, and how much of an arc your shots can make. It would also be a practical necesity for a first-person mode, as you suggested ( it exists in Machines, along with some other RTS' ) .
As for your comment on dimensions... I can only laugh. Well, that and point out how it's wrong.
The specifying of the fourth dimension of time is a debatable and arbitrary one. What we can't do is image four dimensions - a computer, and sufficiently intelligent people, can still perform the math for... hm, would it be called 'hyper-topography'? Adding another dimension is simply adding another plane, albeit one that we are unable to visualize and can only concieve mathematically. Even if you do want to insist that the fourth dimension is necesarily time ( in which case, we don't have 2d games, we have 3d and 4d games seeing as time is already integrated into them by nature ) , 5d would still be possible.

[MaxedOutBC]

I would like for SC2 to be 2D, but the actual game will be diffidently 3D. I've never really had a fun experience with 3D before. It's just that 3D has this way of making things rather complicated and also gives me ocassional headaches :D. Perhaps SC2 will change this, perhaps it won't.

But, as long as the gameplay is good and the new 3D graphics arn't all block-like, whether it's 2D or 3d is pretty much irrelevant :).

[Seal]

this far most of the anti-3d arguments are because of "no good 3d rtses". define good. Total Annihilation was 3d, it was awesome. back in the 90s. there has been plenty of good RTS, regardless of 3d or 2d: c&c generals, aoe3, the upcoming supreme commander.
goodness of those can be debated, but if you hate all of them, you probably will not like sc2.
the rest are "it will not look as nice".. newsflash, current 3d will look better than 2d. it scales up with resolution, no blockyness even with large screens. you gotta be really cheap to not have that 3d acceleration. if that's so, you probably don't need any new technology.

you have to remember this thing: blizzard doesnt show what can be done.
blizzard shows what should be done.

[EvilEmpire]

Lets not forget Earth 2160, Seal. Good thing I got a new VGA so now I can play lag-less. It has Great graphics It will be great to see the non-upcoming SC2 exceed it.

[Infested_Zeratul]

StarCraft was famous because at that time, it has like the best 2D graphics. It stays famous because of it's graphics. The reason why i hate WC and like SC is it's graphics.
3D games are perhaps the only type of profitable games around. If it was 2D SC fans will definitely buy it but what about those who quit on it after it got old?

Like the other, say 250 threads, with the topic "SCII with 3D graphics", it is good to have a 2D/3D/criss-cross gaming. If you played ROM Total war, you'd know that you can look from birds eye view, isometric and zoom in from various angles. you should be able to change it in the options menu. Other games like Tycoon games like rollercoaster tycoon 2, mall tycoon 2, zoo tycoon 2, and whole lotta others have a 4 angled 2D graphic.

In my opinion, judging from SC ghost screen shots, if SCII is slightly better than that, then i'm fine, but out of thin air voting, i'd suggest a 8 angle rotating 2D graphic.

oh yeah, one key thing*: When you have an elevated ground, you can place water terrain right next to it on the 'right-down' side of the elevated ground. But when you place water terrain on the 'top-left' or 'top-right', you have to leave a gap of low ground. It's pretty gay. Like you can't put ramps when the cliff is facing the other side.
They should really modify that.

[nekiruhs]

I'd actually prefer 2-D. As long as the color pallet is improved and sprites aren't used. I like th environmental defacing option and maybe some better special effects, but i think a 2-D isometric view would be perfect for SC: II.

[TheProspector]

2-d is the best way to play the game all it needs really is some new units.

[bobboy]

I believe Artanis has something to say:

Artanis: This is not warcraft in space!

[Ktan]

Is that supposed to mean you don't want 3d? It's pretty weak logic, however, if 3d were to be shunned because Warcraft was in 3d. :/

[4046]

Well, by reading almost all the pages of this thread about people complaining about SC 2 being 3D, I think you all dont want SC2 to be like WC 3 and I understand that very well. And if they did like in WC 3 then theyd fuck up the POP limit although if Blizzard didint focus so much on the detail like WC 3 did then SC 2 could be even better then WC 3 with out screwing up the POP. I mean 3D I want but not so much detail and im pretty sure thats what everyones aguing about. SO LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

Gesh, what's with people thinking SCII will be like WCIII because of 3-D? The WarCraft 3-D engine isn't the only way to make 3-D games you know.
Now, when I mean SC being 3-D, I mean maybe better like this:
http://www.groundcontrol2.com/modules/xoopsgallery/cache/albums/album02/Desert_Bridge_and_Planet_jpg.jpg
http://www.groundcontrol2.com/modules/xoopsgallery/cache/albums/album02/Desert_Snipers_overlooking.jpg
http://www.groundcontrol2.com/modules/xoopsgallery/cache/albums/album02/GCII_A_lot_of_Copters.jpg
http://www.groundcontrol2.com/modules/xoopsgallery/cache/albums/album02/City_Shooting.jpg

Now, these come from Ground Control II. This is a strategy game that has beautiful & stunning graphics. My 1.86Ghz Centrino laptop with (no upgrades) was able to play this game nicely. Best of all, this game was released in the year 2004. It's 2007, think what of the awsome game engine Blizzard can make! StarCraft 3-D will be the most thrilling realistic game ever. Unless, you guys want to degrade it to the graphics of the original pong game.

[4046]

Nice, I bet everyone wants to join your side now... =( + =)