Delete me sahttdj

General Discussion
25

Well there’s 3 parts to that.

  1. How the SC2 engine handles rendering Specularity
  2. How the Model’s Specularity is set
  3. How the map’s lighting is set.

The same model can look wildly different depending on the lighting the map is using as well as how the spec is set in the model. With very ambient lighting (lighting that is evenly distributed), even a shiny looking model would look very flat (like a WoW model). But even then SC2’s spec is very basic since it relies on white/colored spec rather than actually reflecting the environment as real spec would. PBR looks more realistic because it reflects the environment (or an Environment Map).

26

From the universe that I come from, WarCraft 3 had more or less cartoony art style and colors, while Diablo was more photorealistic (if that’s the correct term) and characters had more realistic proportions.

Then Diablo 3 came out in 2012 and was cartoony, and in 2018 we learned, that WC3 Reforged will have more photorealistic and less saturated colors… why?

Also, why does Arthas look like a giraffe in Reforged? Sup with that neck?

Then you go on youtube, and read the comments. This one is under a video of Grubby playing the Culling of Strathholme at BlizzCon:

“First I would like to make it clear that the way the game looks now is way too cartoonish, at least when it comes to the terrain. I want the dark, realistic and epic atmosphere Warcraft 3 had.”

Uhm… yeah. Me and that poster deffinitely come from two different universes. I don’t recall WC3 not being cartoonish.

HAhahahah, I swear to God, that’s EXACTLY my thoughts. I’m laughing so much right now lol

And see, it’s not a matter of opinion. Artstyle is something very objective and clear to identify. If you see Venus de Milo statue you’d never say the artist weren’t trying to do it as realistic as possible. It’s almost like a ‘technical matter’. So, yes, people that are saying warcraft 1, 2 and 3 were realistic and bloody are not typing their opinions, they are just expressing an incredibly wrong statement. Or I came from another dimension as you.

In every thread I ask people that believe those titles were realistic to show me a single screenshot in-game that can prove they’re right, but they never show me anything :rofl::rofl::rofl:

1 Like
27

I mean, MAYBE they say that because the CGI intros stuck in their heads. But it would be very strange… since we spend much MUCH more time playing with the ingame graphics than watching the 2 minutes CGI of Arthas ascending to the frozen throne.

If we stop to think, actually the old CGI of warcraft III had totally cartoonish anatomy to the characters as well, the only difference was that they used extremely pbr realistic textures for everything (from characters to environments), but the anatomy of the characters WERE stylized. Actually, this is the same CGI pattern they use to date for wow.

I mean, are all these ‘old school players’… youtube teenagers in the end? :thinking:

Jokes apart, the only reason I can find behind these erroneous interpretations lies in details such as the ‘fog of war’ option, which is on by default and turns all unexplored areas totally black, what can cause certain ‘ominous’ feeling. Or even the maps with natural ambient fog, those can add a misterious tone to the game. But ** REALISTIC **? Hell no.

2 Likes