In this case, better late than never.Late comment, but: it looks fine and reads amazingly, VD.
Here is a thing, if the game doesn't do well, there won't be any new games. Not because I need to make some money on it - I don't, but because if my team doesn't get paid, they won't waste their time working on another project. Simple as that. So, choosing between releasing a game that may not sell and a delayed game that may sell, I pick the latter. So far, the reaction at the Codex was good, but the visuals were often criticized. Not that I disagree though. Reaction at RPG Dot was mostly negative or indifferent. Reaction at #fallout when Saint posted a link was also negative.obediah said:If you wait until the next game, you'll be in a better position because you will have all the feedback and bugfixes from the first game. Combining all of this with a less rushed timetable for choosing and learning a 3D engine, and you should get a much better product.
Yes, ten guys the size of Jabba the Hutt. Not even ATMs are running OS/2 these days.Spazmo said:Well, you could release the game on OS/2. That'd help you hit a vast, untapped market right there.
When I started working on the project my goal was a Spiderweb-type game. I posted that first screen and the reaction was like "Well, it's nice to see that you are actually making a game, and the dialogues are kinda nice, but for God's sake do something about the graphics". So, we started updating the graphics and bumped up animations a lot. The reaction was much better, but the animations that got such a positive response were already too heavy for 25-50mb download. 8 weapon types x 6 armors (including plain clothes) plus npcs and monsters, not to mention shields - that's a lot of MBs. So, it was either reduce the quality and frames which would suck or forget about the download limit. If the download size is no longer a concern, then might as well go with 3D for all the advantages, especially in regard to character models.obediah said:I'm a bit worried that you're spreading your target audience too thin. It seems your core target "people starved for a computer role playing game". Then the size of the download and minimum requirements came into play, and now the visual quality. I'm pretty sure there is very little overlap between the latter two categories.
Do I *really* have a choice? No. When we discussed switching to 3D, I asked Dhruin to post something at RPG Dot. He did. The reaction was the answer.Do you have an idea of what this change would do to the release date? A delay from 4/2006 to 7/2006 would be a whole different ball of wax to discuss than a 10/2005 7/2006 delay.
No, I'm not aiming/blaiming/complaining about anything. I like the new graphics, I like the new animations, and I like new 3D stuff that show each individual weapons in different colours (short bronze sword or 2H steel sword) even better.Ismaul said:I feel a bit aimed at because I criticized the graphics a lot
Yep. We can't do the backgrounds like those in BG or ToEE. Anything else would look crappy.Have you thought of putting more time to create better 2D graphics instead of switching to 3D? It might make the game look better without having to start over, and with a smaller delay.
I'd prefer to have a game that looks like Fallout too only I can't do that.by that I mean I'd prefer the graphics of Fallout
Vault Dweller said:If the download size is no longer a concern, then might as well go with 3D for all the advantages, especially in regard to character models.
As for the "people starved for a computer role playing game", turned out there aren't that many of those. At least there aren't that many of those who are willing to overlook poor graphics. After all there should be a reason why 2 planned expansions and a sequel to PtD never happened.
Do I *really* have a choice? No. When we discussed switching to 3D, I asked Dhruin to post something at RPG Dot. He did. The reaction was the answer.Do you have an idea of what this change would do to the release date? A delay from 4/2006 to 7/2006 would be a whole different ball of wax to discuss than a 10/2005 7/2006 delay.
Not how I see it. There was only a handful of people who were interested, and I had to improve the graphics to the point of throwing the download limit out to get more people interested.obediah said:but to look on the flip side - you're giving the finger to those here who posted that download size was a serious issue, in an attempt to drum up additional sales from graphics whores.
Possible, but I'm not after max sales, I'm after min sales that would allow me to keep my team and afford more art (see the overly simple character screen).If it works and let's you make more games, great, but it seems likely that when you rolll out the new look, those graphics whores are going to say "Ugh, where are the RT 200xshadows and bip-burb-glump mapping".
Well, the reaction at the Codex has improved a lot when we posted the new screens, and reached its peak when I posted the animations. If I can improve the graphics without taking anything away from the gameplay, why not?I have serious doubts that fancy graphics are going to increase your market substantially.
I pick the "unhealthy obsession with games" one, but I can't do much alone.1) You need to be able to operate at a loss until you build up a name for yourself through quality products. 2) If you're in it for the money rather than an unhealthy obsession with games, run! run! run! away!.
Sounds about right, so I will do my best to make it right the first timeFrom the sound of your situation, you have the love of the genre, but the people working with you don't have the luxury of building up a name with several killer releases over a few years.
There were quite a few "graphix sux" comment, but it's not the problem. The problem was that only 2-3 people were interested.I can't find that thread on their site - only the long one where 3 people said they liked it, 1 person said the grafix sux, and 127 people said the Codex were a bunch of Diablo loving puds.
ThanksSerus said:Anyway keep up the good work - i like this project very much...
Roqua said:holy jesus, why would you change the graphics for the graphics whores? Screw em, those bitches will never be pleased. My vote is that you strip the graphics, make everything plain, get the game out and please us non-graphic whores. Then start working on part two with the same graphics. Seriously, the grap[hic whores just don't give a shit and will never spend a dime on a game that isn't supercicially stupid enough for them. Fuck em and cater to your base, the ones that like good gameplay and their rpgs to be rpgs and who run most of their games in dosbox, the ones that will buy your game in hopes a part two will be made, not just bitch about grass, dirt, and animiations, and other stupid shit only pansy ass bitches who should stop wasting money on games and just download tech demos from nvidia and ati complain about.
As of now the market is dry of good games, not good graphics. Make us a good game, the graphics whores will bitch about grass and resolutions and other stupid sissy crap no matter how many times you redo it, so fuck em, stupid whinny superficial bitches.
That's par for the course over there. And quite frankly, anti-codex sentiment overwhelmed the thread to such a degree that I doubt many of the posters that make up their numbers wanted to get involved.Vault Dweller said:There were quite a few "graphix sux" comment, but it's not the problem. The problem was that only 2-3 people were interested.I can't find that thread on their site - only the long one where 3 people said they liked it, 1 person said the grafix sux, and 127 people said the Codex were a bunch of Diablo loving puds.