GFX and Engine Capability

No, I haven't. As I said before, I remembered it from seeing it earlier and literally spent hours looking for it. It was a shot from Karune to show some fans the close up detail and rendering, etc.

 

I just can't wait to see how the game will look down the road, as it's still in Alpha, anything is subject to change.

 

I can't understand why people want it to look even BETTER.
It looks awesome and I prefer it running well than having better graphics.

 

Heard of graphics sliders tavio?

 

You can only do so much with those. It's like Crysis. I doubt a low end system could play it on minimum settings with favorable frame rates. Making a game higher end, 100% of the time will make it less of a low end happy game. That's what Crysis did wrong. Most of the people in the PC market can't even play Crysis, so why would you make a game catered towards the higher end? Making both sides happy enough is well in the business world, I think.

 

Comparing sc2 to crysis is a mistake, increases to SMALL graphicial details etc would NOT be much of a slowndown at all. I was suggesting better, more detailed faces not next gen uber physics and textures which would ofc slow down bottom end pc's.

read meh posts!

I am only applying this to the last two posts however. I understand the incentive for blizzard to use less detail close up.

 

It was an analogy, not a direct comparison.

 

Of course I did.
Let me point out the most recent Source engine games (HL2 EP2, Portal, TF2). They have graphics sliders, but I never had to use them to lower the settings in those games, because they games are optimized, look good enough, and most people can run them well. I prefer SC2 to be like that.

 

You most likely wouldnt have to lower the sliders in the case of what i was suggesting tavio.

@Cyberpits: That may be the case but the rest of my post still stands. I was not asking for insane detail that would hamper low end pc's in the first place.

 

Any increase in the detail of StarCraft2 will hamper outdated computers, which is what Blizzard wants to avoid in order to make more sales and a more diverse game. You seem pretty impressed with the close-up of the Zealot, so I don't see why you're complaining anyway. You keep telling people to read your posts, well read mine, don't just look at the pictures, and you'll see why StarCraft2 is not the game for detailed graphics, and does not need to increase their current level of detail. If you'd have read it properly I'm sure you'd have more to say that 'Oh and yeah btw ur probobly right', especially seeing as you're still pushing for the graphics.

Also, you can't just ask for a minor increase in detail. Blizzard wouldn't purposely start with a purposely low level of detail just so that they can increase it later on. They'd start at their limit, so to speak. Obviously it's not their full potential limit, but a limit that they've all agreed on in order to keep the game's spec requirements as low as possible. Just because their current level of detail isn't amazingly high, it does not mean that they can up it slightly with little to no consequences. The slightest improvement in detail could drastically change how smoothly it runs. A slight increase in the detail of the any model, when multiplies hundreds of times over, can have an extremely significant effect on gameplay.

 

Must i quote myself?

I have stopped 'Pushing' since we last argued about this itsahexgor. And have admitted that smaller details are not needed. I was simply telling the others that what i was originally asking for would not hamper slower pc's.

Again must i quote myself on the dawn of war 1 example?

 

Almost everything you've been saying has implied otherwise

Suggests that you're still looking for ways to accomplish what you want.

Shows you're still pushing for small graphical details, which as I said earlier, when multiplied hundreds of times over become extremely significant.

States that you want people to go back and read your previous posts, in which you were arguing for better detail.

Says that you still want an increase in the level of detail, even if it's not a major increase, which again, when multiplied hundreds of times over becomes extremely significant.

If you've honestly stopped pushing for all that you'd tell the others that you understand that any increase to the level of detail will hamper any computer, and admit that StarCraft2's level of detail is perfect as it is and does not need to be increased. However, above all, you'd stop arguing with them because if you now understand how StarCraft2 should not increase their detail, and everyone else is saying the same thing, what are you arguing with them about?

 

You're misinterpreting my posts im afraid Itsahexgor.

This is what made me continue to argue, NOT in favour of my missunderstanding of why blizzard wouldnt implement it but because of people not seeming to grasp the fact that graphical increases detail wise WOULD NOT hamper low end PC's because of ---->SLIDERS<-----.

I was not continuing to argue why blizzard should find an incentive, BUT that they WOULD be perfectly capable without much of a dent on low end computers.

I have AGREED with you ONLY on the other front that.. (yep here comes the quote again.)

"I am only applying this to the last two posts however. I understand the incentive for blizzard to use less detail close up."
I only agree with you about blizzard not having an incentive. (Stressed that enough?)

As for the rest. I was arguing about low end pc's not being hampered. Which i will continue to do now, simply because people still dont seem to understand what graphical sliders are for, and capable of.

Better detail, would NOT slow down low end pc's SIMPLY because it would only be avalible via 'Highest' or w/e on a graphical slider. People with **** PC's wouldnt have to go upgrade because of this. Instead they can just CHANGE IT to Medium!, or Low! and then stick with good looking graphics but not as much detail.

Blizzard is perfectly capable of this from a technological viewpoint and however would only do this to cater to the small % that have high end pc's. But as i said earlier in the post, i am not arguing that they should. Only that they could.

here is an example of what blizzard COULD do http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/images.gamezone.com/screens/25/8/61/s25861_pc_4.jpg

see the detail? the amount of units?
Sliders people, cater to the low. And the high. Making mass details which would otherwise be significant from a lag point of view. Not very significant at all, because they wouldnt exist only to those who choose to run it on Highest (those with a high end pc).

 

No, here's the part you're missing. You understand that Blizzard has no incentive to increase graphics, but you're saying that they could implement sliders to accommodate for people with better computers, etc. The fact is that they have no incentive to do so. Would you go on a diet if you had no incentive to? Would you get up really early in the morning if you had no incentive to? No, you wouldn't. The reason is that you've got no reason to, no need to. It's the same with Blizzard's graphics in StarCraft2. They've never had ground-breaking graphics, but that's not to say that they don't have great graphics, nor do they need ground-breaking graphics or even improved graphics for that matter. They don't care if all the people with the top of the line computers complain about the graphics because they know that's only a small percentage of people and those people will still buy it anyway. And why will they buy it? For its gameplay, not for its graphics. No incentive means no point which means no increase in graphics.

 

Indeed if you check my last post you can see that im not arguing that they should. Only that they COULD. i stressed that multiple times. I understand blizzard wouldnt bother adding sliders etc. But you, and other people here didnt understand that it would be possible to do so without major lag, i was just giving evidence that its perfectly possible.

 

So is that what you've been trying to say the whole time? Of course they could! They could do anything with it, like make it into a movie, an MMORPG or replace each race with Orcs, Murlocs and a non-violent organisation of pink ballerina warriors. There's absolutely no point in arguing what they could do, because it's obvious that they could do it. The fact is that they don't. And the reasons why they don't have already been listed numerous times in this thread.

 

if its so obvious that they could do it then why did you and many others continued to blindly spout that they couldnt do it because it would not cater to low end pc's?

You and the others were wrong about such, and i have been saying multiple times that this is the case but people continued to complain about their PC's not being able to handle it! or other bs.

 

The reason was that I didn't expect you to be arguing something so pointless. Most of the time when people use the word 'could' in situations like this, they use it to propose a suggestion, for example, if someone says that the Thor is really bad at the moment, someone else would reply saying that Blizzard could fix it by doing x, y and z. This was how I was just assuming you were using it. I didn't realise you actually meant it as they are physically able to do so. Of course they've physically able to do it, the fact is that they're not and there's no reason to.

 

"I didn't realise you actually meant it as they are physically able to do so. Of course they've physically able to do it, the fact is that they're not and there's no reason to."

Erh, that may be the case but what you said earlier suggests that you did indeed know what i meant, see next quote:

Either way im glad you understand me now.

 

I don't see how that would only apply to being physically able to do so. Why can't that apply to a suggestion? Besides, it was taken out of context. I said that in response to you saying:

It doesn't have to get to an insane level of detail before it starts to hamper outdated computers, which is why I said that any increase will hamper them.

Also, you've tampered with that quote. There was never a fullstop after 'computers' as I went on to say that that is what Blizzard wants to avoid in order to make more sales and a more diverse game. Fortunately you didn't tamper it in any significant way, but changing quotes is generally not done. If you only want to use that part and exclude the rest of the sentence, etc, then it's best to finish it with an ellipsis to show that it keep going, but that part is al you're referring to.