5 ms·

There may only be so much they could do and maintain compatibility with the old game, but I don't think the remastered graphics look that great. A clear step up

by cwyers 10y ago

There may only be so much they could do and maintain compatibility with the old game, but I don't think the remastered graphics look that great. A clear step up from the original on modern screens, but not that great.

microcolonel 10y ago
Think of how the original looks with bilinear upscaling on a HiDPI display.
- cwyers 10y ago
  Um... could you maybe show a screenshot and save me the trouble of having to think through that? I was just looking at their "before and after" slider visualizations.
gruez 10y ago
How could they make the new graphics look "great" without changing the aesthetics?
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
  They're higher-resolution and a better colour-depth, but it's a bit jarring how they're all identical... at first-glance the game's overall visuals feel like a low-production-value freemium web-game. If they did things like apply random aesthetic changes (like dirt, grime, slightly different greebling) to structures of the same class then I think that would make the game look better - some games did that, for example CNC Generals had different models for the GLA Technical vehicle, and non-functional animation speeds for infantry units were randomised too.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    Does SC2 even do this? It might just not be within their design aesthetic.
  - plorkyeran 10y ago
    That would make the game look better, but play worse. One of the things that BW's art does very well is that all of the units and buildings are instantly identifiable and distinguishable, and adding variation in the appearance would hurt that.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      A bit of texturing that would be smaller than a pixel on the original version would not hurt that.
  - EamonnMR 10y ago
    I think they re-rendered from the same models.
  - ido 10y ago
    One of the peculiarities with starcraft's hardcore player-base (and probably anyone that still plays it today is hardcore) is that they are very, very conservative. This was probably one of the reasons it was extremely difficult for them to make any changes that are too wide-ranging even for starcraft 2 (which never pretended to be the same game).
Camillo 10y ago
In the example on the page, I think the Zerg spike-things (forgot what they're called) stand out. In the remastered version they are a bit too shiny, and look like they're just sitting on the creep, which makes them look more like plastic miniatures. In the old version they appear grimier, and they look more like they're growing out of the creep.
- lloeki 10y ago
  An effect somehow related to the Donkey Kong shots at the middle of this article[0], where being "too crisp" breaks the "blend" between the sprites and the background. [0]: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.fr/2015/03/the-case-for-composite.html http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.fr/2015/03/the-case-for-comp...
theandrewbailey 10y ago
Before it was released (or much was known), I was hoping that SC2 would look more like this. In SC2, Terrans lost all of their scrapyard dweller vibe, and Protoss look like TF2 superheroes.

by cwyers 10y ago

microcolonel 10y ago

Think of how the original looks with bilinear upscaling on a HiDPI display.

cwyers 10y ago
Um... could you maybe show a screenshot and save me the trouble of having to think through that? I was just looking at their "before and after" slider visualizations.

gruez 10y ago

How could they make the new graphics look "great" without changing the aesthetics?

DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
They're higher-resolution and a better colour-depth, but it's a bit jarring how they're all identical... at first-glance the game's overall visuals feel like a low-production-value freemium web-game. If they did things like apply random aesthetic changes (like dirt, grime, slightly different greebling) to structures of the same class then I think that would make the game look better - some games did that, for example CNC Generals had different models for the GLA Technical vehicle, and non-functional animation speeds for infantry units were randomised too.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Does SC2 even do this? It might just not be within their design aesthetic.
- plorkyeran 10y ago
  That would make the game look better, but play worse. One of the things that BW's art does very well is that all of the units and buildings are instantly identifiable and distinguishable, and adding variation in the appearance would hurt that.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    A bit of texturing that would be smaller than a pixel on the original version would not hurt that.
- EamonnMR 10y ago
  I think they re-rendered from the same models.
- ido 10y ago
  One of the peculiarities with starcraft's hardcore player-base (and probably anyone that still plays it today is hardcore) is that they are very, very conservative. This was probably one of the reasons it was extremely difficult for them to make any changes that are too wide-ranging even for starcraft 2 (which never pretended to be the same game).

Camillo 10y ago

In the example on the page, I think the Zerg spike-things (forgot what they're called) stand out. In the remastered version they are a bit too shiny, and look like they're just sitting on the creep, which makes them look more like plastic miniatures. In the old version they appear grimier, and they look more like they're growing out of the creep.

lloeki 10y ago
An effect somehow related to the Donkey Kong shots at the middle of this article[0], where being "too crisp" breaks the "blend" between the sprites and the background. [0]: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.fr/2015/03/the-case-for-composite.html http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.fr/2015/03/the-case-for-comp...

theandrewbailey 10y ago

Before it was released (or much was known), I was hoping that SC2 would look more like this. In SC2, Terrans lost all of their scrapyard dweller vibe, and Protoss look like TF2 superheroes.