For comparison:
Can you spot the five differences?
Seriously, though, the one on the right looks a hell of a lot better, but the perspective is the same, and with good reason.
Isometrics. Not just for 1975.
What do StarCraft and and 1970’s exercise routine have in common?
Frankly, nothing except the name, though a Zergling with sweatbands and ankle weights would be a hell of thing to see.
“Isometric” refers to anything which has equal dimensions or measurements. In physical fitness, this involves having two body parts – for example, the hands – pushing against each other. The idea is to keep the forearms, biceps, tense without changing their muscle length or measurement. This is done by not allowing either arm to move during the movement.
The end result is theoretically a bigger, tougher, body, but the actual movement gives the impression you’re fighting with yourself but too stupid to figure out how to win.
Well done.
In the world of StarCraft, it is the Isometric view, rather than the odd muscle movement that is of relevance. An Isometric view is defined as a “rendering of a 3D object that eliminates the distortion of shape created by true perspective”.
What this string of words simply means is than an Isometric view makes 3d objects look “not weird”. A 3d rendering of say, a cube, on a 2d surface like a computer screen will look strange if it is not Isometric. The top of the cube will appear too small, and all of the cube’s lines will trail off into the distance, causing a lack of detail.
An Isometric view makes all sides of the cube look equal in size, and it looks “right” even though it really isn’t. Way to mess with our minds.
Most strategy games are rendered in this view, which is also known as ¾ view. It allows for the best perspective on the action, and makes units easy to organize and order around. Originally, games rendered like this were not actually created in 3d. There was no option to rotate the camera to see the backs or sides of buildings. This could be frustrating if a unit or object got behind a building, but overall, it had the best of both worlds.
Not surprisingly, the original StarCraft used an Isometric view. More recent games, such as the Total War RTS series have used a fully 3D environment, allowing the player to move the camera around at will.
This can often be a hindrance rather than a help, as too much camera movement can mean that players lose sight of the action, and get caught up in the twisting and turning of camera angles and zoom levels.
In what is not at all a shocking development, StarCraft II uses an Isometric viewpoint. Mostly. We say mostly because as we’ve recently learned, it is possible to partially rotate the camera, giving a peek at the mysterious backs of buildings and units. While not terribly functional, it at least permits players to have a larger measure of control than in the original StarCraft, even if that control has no specific and practical purpose.
Initially, there was a feeling of disappointment that StarCraft II didn’t use a free-floating 3d camera, but after a few games, we changed our opinion. There’s simply too much going on in StarCraft, and too quickly, for anything but an Isometric view to be of any use. Often, fully 3d camera systems are used to show off a game’s slick graphics or cutting-edge something-or-other. As they have so many times in the past, Blizzard appears to be focusing on game play rather than grandstanding. The graphics are good, certainly, and the weapons fire and explosions look top-notch.
But so as not to punish players with lower-end systems, StarCraft II keeps it Isometric, vastly increasing the number of things that can be going on at any one time. In most cases, units only need to be seen from one angle, limiting the amount they need to be rendered, and increasing the ability of the game to handle large volumes of units with minimal slowdown.
Frankly, we’ll take 500 vs 500 unit battles over some more pretty textures any day of the week. Blowing stuff up is so much more fun the more of it is onscreen to blow up at once.
