“The new presentation comes with a flatness that wasn’t present in the original lower-poly game. Color saturation sees the terrain’s soup of green and blue blur together, without any recognizable boost to unit or terrain clarity offered by details such as individual blades of grass. The lower-poly version at least made its roads, cobblestone paths, and other game-world clutter more discrete for the sake of instantly recognizable paths and obstacles. This arguably came because of pre-baked lighting systems, which, for example, added wild light bounces to spell effects so that any nearby enemies and buildings would glimmer in their wake. WC3:R’s new physically based lighting model sounds good on paper—that’s what modern games do to look realistic, right?—but as a part of the original game’s bright-and-bulky aesthetic, this lighting model honestly falls flat (pun intended).”
Send them this article if someone tells you the graphics look much better. hint it’s not.
So you present a review, a person’s opinion, as being an universal truth to show others that have different opinions. Rather than just post it and say it represents your position.
I have ocean-front property in Nevada I’d like to sell you.
I’d agree that the graphics are fine and the least offensive part W3R’s release. But next to all the other botched elements, the lack of awareness and vision become more apparent. W3R’s models are pretty up close and muddled from afar, the POV players are going to spend most of their time with. It’s the reverse for classic.
In general, yes, the graphics are find. However, a lot of the updated buildings, etc, look REALLY out of place with the terrain textures/lighting. I spent 12 hours playing the game last night, reconnecting with old friends.
At least 11 of those hours was spent actually in game, and in 70% of those games, I crashed, or my friend crashed.
The game is in an atrocious, buggy, unstable state. I literally crashed more times last night in those hours than I have in the ten years I spent playing it originally.
Gonna stop you right there. Those ARE my opinions and absolutely resonates with me. The article just does it better at expressing them and the screenshots there shows. See my posts during beta at the bottom, don’t assume next time.
I see blades of grass instead of blurred patterns on flat surfaces.
I see cobblestones instead of blurred patterns on flat surfaces.
I see elements that look natural instead of stretched, blurred polygons whose contiguous edges are visible.
I see fog and other elements adding to atmosphere instead of perfectly clear vision over distances.
However, the lack of shadows is bizarre.
No need to stop me. I know. That is what I said. I’m criticizing your last line that tells everyone who thinks differently than you (and your author ally) that their opinion is wrong. You’re doing the only assuming here.
Oh yeah, Ars Technica, the well-respected tech outlet is insane … can’t possibly be that you’re a Blizzard brown-noser … nope … that’s definitely not it.