I've taken 2 screen shots of (nearly) the same part of a map. One is on low terrain graphics, the other is on ultra terrain graphics. If it at all matters, my graphics card is a geforce gts 360m.

Low:


Medium and High terrain texture looks like ultra but with a bit of blur.

Ultra:



So what do you think? Does the low or ultra graphics look better, cooler, nicer, whatever?

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2010, 12:25 am by fat_flying_pigs.

It feels weird looking at the low. Heh, my computer defaults to Ultra, so, it's all I've seen.

Both looks good, but of course, Ultra is better. ;o
Put a notice about the fact that Medium terrain setting is a requirement.

Of course ultra looks better, but low looks more like ice. Or is it supposed to be snow?

Oh, and btw, learn to post the Direct Link to images!
You say the backslash after the ".png" ? It means this is not an image, but a website page.
When you host an image on imageshack, copy the link that is called "Direct Link".

okkie dokie, ty. I don't really understand forum code.

The majority of that is supposed to be ice. However, if you look closely, I've used all 8 terrain textures. 3 Ice, 2 Snow, 1 Grass, 1 Rock, and 1 Dirt

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 16 2010, 6:19 pm by fat_flying_pigs.

I always play at Ultra, so Low looks... weird...

I always play at Low, so Ultra looks... weird...

I think ultra looks like what it was supposed to look like, whereas low looks like water or something.

Low sucks, but the ice on Ultra looks like snow, and like Blizz was trying too hard... Too high-res for flaws to be excusable, but too low-res to be truly good. But then, I can only play on Low, just ran the Beta offline for the first time on a 1024x768px CRT monitor, and have played my Ecksbawkz 360 for so long I'm no longer used to 3D on PC, so...

EDIT: OSHIT did I just necro? Sorry if I did. D:

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 26 2010, 4:53 am by DavidJCobb.

Medium Anyone?

High is best.

Are you people honestly going to pay attention to every aesthetic detail? Is a little blur going to "hinder" your performance? Besides there really isn't too much of a difference between Ultra and High, only that with High your computer is less likely to lag or slow down the game.

You are aware that the Ice tileset is not Blizzard's?

Ultra, for sure the best. Low looks more ugly than sc1 to be honest.

We need to have a game based on really old American animated films.

PAINTED BACKGROUND TILESETS!

I used too, until I decided to see Omni Lights and Lighting and many more... Medium -> High is a very great improvement. I don't really care if I slow down the game. >:D

I always played starcraft II on low graphics... High seems so weird now! I think both looks really bad.

Low looks to much like a cartoon.
High looks like it's still cartoon but in transition to weird looking details.

I liked Starcraft I graphics better.

Low looks better

Perhaps if we all saw effects we could make a better decision. I, for one, have to play it on low at the moment and wasn't able to experience any effects during the campaign. If someone were to post a high res and low res of a terrain having more aesthetics we could truly see a difference.

I think Ultra should be renamed to "Grimdark."

Grittier, darker, more mature... lawl