Cartoonish Graphics or Death?

General Discussion
Blizzard games are known for their art styles, not sharp graphics.

They are able to be played on a wide range of systems.

Also, the sharper the unit models the harder it is to make adjustable graphics levels, especially for a RTS.

If it had realistic graphics, SC2 won't be able to go from ultra all the way down to low.
03/29/2011 5:36 PMPosted by Panzerkin
I have a $1500 alienware computer, sure, it's not the greatest alienware and surely not as good as one I could have built myself for the same cost (except I'm horrible with tech), but I can only play on lowest graphics and still have some FPS issues sometimes on SC2. This is fine.


I find this really hard to believe. As the computer I built myself, at roughly that same price; can run this game at ultra without getting warm. Sorry, but that just doesn't seem realistic. I've never had an alienware, but that's just crazy. I can run Crysis at full settings, really doubt SC2 is that bad.
The art style in sc2 is superb, as is always the case with Blizzard games.
Cartoonish (AKA Artistic) Graphics > "Realistic" Graphics.

Blizzard has an awesome art style. You will remember Iconic stuff like the Hyperion/Kerrigan or Illidan/Arthas long long after you have completely forgotten what last years Call of Duty was about.
Am I the only one that actually much prefers Blizz's art style to the never ending onslaught of "photorealistic" games? I feel like good creative art is going the wayside for ZOMG SUPER REALISTIC GRASS AND CONCRETE WALLS AND IT'S SO REAL. I like "cartoonish" - to me, it takes more skill to pull that off well than the alternative.
Someone plays on low.
I don't know... I guess its just sad to see Blizzard ditch the original StarCraft graphics and make a new engine to make all their games... but whatever. Not the actual graphics, just the "style"...

You don't need cartoonish gay looking graphics to be able to run on low ....

I still love the game i just find it sad it looks.. lame.. looks aren't everything of course =)

Blizzard was better before they were bought out and started making wow junk...


i liked WC3 and even frozen throne, but when wow came out, i thought the graphics were way lame. then i had seen some SC:GHOST (R.I.P.) images that made me think about the same. i like the way SC2 is now, b/c i don't see it as quite as cartoony as WoW or WC3, however it could look a little more realistic.
Actually I do know what i'm talking about. It happens Activision runs blizzard now idiot. And no I do not play on low... High.. and i'm talking about the overall graphics... asking your guys opinions now that said calm down .. seems like starcraft 2 is full of a bunch of 5 year old flamers these days =/
03/29/2011 11:41 PMPosted by Bazing
I have a $1500 alienware computer, sure, it's not the greatest alienware and surely not as good as one I could have built myself for the same cost (except I'm horrible with tech), but I can only play on lowest graphics and still have some FPS issues sometimes on SC2. This is fine.


I find this really hard to believe. As the computer I built myself, at roughly that same price; can run this game at ultra without getting warm. Sorry, but that just doesn't seem realistic. I've never had an alienware, but that's just crazy. I can run Crysis at full settings, really doubt SC2 is that bad.


$1500 comp you built yourself > $2000 alienware. but yeah, I'm guessing his $1500 alienware is a few years old as well...

My $560 laptop can run SC2 in high settings....

Alienware is overrated this is proof :p

What´s your laptop? I need to buy one because i must travel and the one that i have runs sc2 at 1 fps.
02/08/2011 1:10 PMPosted by Vexinize
Whom, is satisified with the cartoonish graphics in SC2 and who would rather have a more augmented realistic touch to it? =/ Perhaps this "new" engine has capabilities to modify it to be better =-d?


I think the engine is awesome just the way it is. But then again, I was used to playing SC1 on its crappy graphics, so SC2 is like a blessing to me.
I have an alienware aurora, $1500 4 months old, I can run WoW on ultra and raid no problem, but I can't play sc2 on ultra QQ (at least I don't think I can.)

Specs:

3gb ddr3 1333 mhz ram
CrossFireX HD5670x2 cards
i7 960 @ 2.67ghz.

My computer never goes above 24C because the cooling is pretty nice. Alienware FTW.
SC1 had a darker, bleaker feel to it. Don't know what it was. I look at it now and it just looks like giant pixels. Weird how when a game comes out, it looks great. Then years later, it looks horrible.
03/31/2011 8:45 AMPosted by ChewBiscuit
SC1 had a darker, bleaker feel to it. Don't know what it was. I look at it now and it just looks like giant pixels. Weird how when a game comes out, it looks great. Then years later, it looks horrible.


SC2 looks amazing imho. I play it on high/medium and it looks great, can't wait to see what it looks like if I can somehow overclock my system and play it on high.
I agree SC2 looks great. Especially when a nydus gets roasted or covered in acid.
Anyone know if they will upgrade the graphics engine as the expansions come out? There's going to be a good deal of new technology by the time they release the 3rd.

On-topic: I like the SC2 graphics. I play on high to ultra settings. I'm normally paying too much attention to what's going on in the game to appreciate all the little details anyway.

I do miss real CGI for the cut-scenes though... It is pretty impressive what they can do these days generating the scenes in real-time and if you had shown me this game 5 years ago my jaw would have dropped. I just think that CGI could have added a bit more detail and really wowed the gamer. The CGI in WC3 was awesome... You could see stands of hair being blow in the wind before epic battles, grass being blown in the wind and crushed under foot, etc... I miss the those little details.
Go play Warcraft III. It is much more cartoonish than this.

This is actually fairly gritty and dark compared with previous titles.


I was going to say, I didn't think SC2 felt all that cartoonish.

WC3 on the other hand definitely had that "anime feel", not that I think it's bad. Art done well is fine with me, be it more "hand drawn" or "3-D super realistic"

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum