Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

AoD - brand new screens

Jora

Arcane
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Messages
1,115
Location
Finland
I'm perfectly happy with the way the game currently looks. Hopefully I get to play it in november.
 

Crazy Tuvok

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
429
I have no problem admitting that I like my games pretty and if the move to 3d is handled with the care and intelligence and downright skill as everything else about this game then go for it. While I am most excited about the non-graphical features of the game, nothing wrong with a pretty and deep game.

I have been looking forward to this for a long time and am willing to wait. I am looking forward to this more than any other game I know of right now... VD, you guys have my money day of release no doubt. Keep up the great work.
 

Sarkile

Magister
Patron
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
1,379
Well, I don't care too much either way because I won't be able to play it until next year anyways. But really, the game looks great as it is imo. The last screen I saw my only problem with it was the grass, and maybe the lack of lighting. And that was just me being a picky bitch. I love the art style and the character animations I saw were great.
 

Rulion

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
424
Location
bath salt city
I'm really eager to play this game. I'm currently all hyped with Rome/Medieval Total War, so I'm looking forward to AoD to satisfy my Roman crave.
 

obediah

Erudite
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
5,051
I don't have a big problem with 3D vs. 2D. Both have strengths and weaknesses and both can be pretty or ugly.

From my experience as a developer, and following other projects, making such a substantial change this late in the process always takes way more time than even the most convervative and safest estimates. As a game developer, this may not affect you quite as much because bugs are much more acceptable and you measure uptime in minutes vs days.

I'm speaking with minimal information, so assumptions I make may or may not be valid. If anything I say later on is shown to be completely idiotic, this paragraph is my out.

One very nice thing about being a game developer is you have the ideal release cycle. Take advantage of this and save such a big change for the next game. I can promise you that as you switch engines, you will see many new possibilities that you hadn't considered before and probably some things that work well now, won't work as well. All of these would force you to either push back the date more, or release a game that you feel could be better.

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.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
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.
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.

Considering that we can do better graphics (the animations look very decent), not going for it would be a mistake at this point (the RPG Dot news post was basically a test). On the bright side, if the game does ok, we'd have a decent engine and won't have to waste any more time in the future.
 

Vykromond

Scholar
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
341
If that's the reaction you were seeing from the informal "press releases," go for the 3D. Development of any product for consumption is a balancing act between "shiny," mass-appeal features (a 3D engine, in your case), and the features that really make the product tick, but will only be actively and enthusiastically appreciated by a much smaller group of enthusiasts. It's much more difficult to "sell" a game on dialogue options (though the samples so far have certainly sold me) than it is on "shiny" features. Spiderweb circumvents this by having a (fairly) large pre-established fan base, but you can't get that until game #2, at least.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Spiderweb also relies on a game-starved Mac community, which, I assume, contributes a lot to the sales. As for the rest, having decent graphics doesn't hurt. If nobody cared, it would be one thing, but many people do, and I mean people at the Codex not some MW fans, and ignoring that wouldn't be smart.
 

obediah

Erudite
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
5,051
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 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.
 

Ismaul

Thought Criminal #3333
Patron
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,871,804
Location
On Patroll
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
I feel a bit aimed at because I criticized the graphics a lot. But they look much better now.

IMO, thechnology is not as important as the way you use it. If I'm not mistaken, ToEE and Metalheart use 2D backgrounds and they look pretty good. If you make the switch to 3D, you have to make sure that you can use the technology to create better visuals (more immersive/atmospheric) than by using 2D. Otherwise, it might not be worth it.

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.
 

Psilon

Erudite
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,018
Location
Codex retirement
Spazmo said:
Well, you could release the game on OS/2. That'd help you hit a vast, untapped market right there.
Yes, ten guys the size of Jabba the Hutt. Not even ATMs are running OS/2 these days.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
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.
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.

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 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.
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.

Ismaul said:
I feel a bit aimed at because I criticized the graphics a lot
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.

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.
Yep. We can't do the backgrounds like those in BG or ToEE. Anything else would look crappy.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
You know, there are poor graphics and poor graphics. I overlooked this topic before, but the graphics are far better than in the first screens, especially the characters.
The graphics on the first screens you posted seemed somwhat cheesy to me, and by that I mean I'd prefer the graphics of Fallout or Syndicate, even though they are old and low-rez. They just work.

So, you're definitely switching to 3D now?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Not definitely. We are playing with Torque right now to see if we can work with it. When we have something to show, we'll post it and evaluate based on that. I hope we can have something in 2-3 weeks.

by that I mean I'd prefer the graphics of Fallout
I'd prefer to have a game that looks like Fallout too only I can't do that.
 

trystero

Novice
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
72
Just found...

Just noticed this thread... Echoing many here, it looks great.

- trystero
 

obediah

Erudite
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
5,051
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.

That makes sense, 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. 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".

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.

It's a bummer there aren't more of us. Actually, I think there are plenty of us, it's just finding us all and convincing us to part with our money for some crapshoot indie game. I'm old enough that waiting doesn't bother me, and young enough that if you finish the game I will still be alive for it, so I don't mind too muchwaiting for changes to improve the game (I still have a little of the kid waiting for christmas in me). I am getting a wary feeling about the focus on selling more copies. One - we've all had terrible experiences with developers making changes to expand their market, and two because I have serious doubts that fancy graphics are going to increase your market substantially. I think 99.9% of the new people that would try your game in fancy 3D but not in old busted poor-animation 2D, are going to delete it in the first 10 minutes when they have to learn stuff during character creation, or have have to read some stuff, or find out it's not a diablo clone.

My far less than 2 cents on indie game development, would be that it seems to be like running a restaraunt, but stretched out even more. 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!. A demo with enough to really get people hooked, and then several months to finish the game while word of mouth builds seems like a good start. Then while working on the next game, the money trickling in from sales may not feed you, but it at least keeps your spirits up.

From 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. Finances do have a way of interfering with the way things should be (i.e. I'm not typing this while floating around the pool in back of my mansion).

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.
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.

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.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,654
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
I like the game looks as they are now judging from the screenshots - with a little more polishing it will be more than enough eye-candy to my tastes. As someone alredy mentioned - switching from 2D to 3D that late in development - is a bad idea. On the other hand - nicer is better... and it may (or amy not) result in better sales.
Anyway keep up the good work - i like this project very much...
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
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.
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.

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".
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).

I have serious doubts that fancy graphics are going to increase your market substantially.
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?

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!.
I pick the "unhealthy obsession with games" one, but I can't do much alone.

From 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.
Sounds about right, so I will do my best to make it right the first time

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.
There were quite a few "graphix sux" comment, but it's not the problem. The problem was that only 2-3 people were interested.
 

Roqua

Prospernaut
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual In My Safe Space
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
4,130
Location
YES!
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.
 

Crazy Tuvok

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
429
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.

Not entirely true. Unfortunately not even close. There is no chance that AoD (or D or whatever VD and Co. are calling it now) will satisfy graphic whores. None, zero, zilch. There is another group who won't care about the graphics at all. Fuck both of these groups. I think most of us here at the Codex who have been following the game are likely to get it at this point no matter. Fuck us too. The important group is the one that has not yet decided or are not predisposed to buy it. For them they may not need kewl part-ikle effx and boom boom light bloom cool bs, but they may be more inclined to give the game a chance, a game they may be interested in for all the reasons many of us are, if it looks better or decent or whatever. There are plenty of gamers with taste who despite liking a game for many of its pluses have a hard time getting past primitve graphics.

I have no problem with the way the game looks now. I think it looks just fine. But I am also more interested in what is being done with the game otherwise. Most gamers, and yes many of them are smart people with taste, might not be.

Let's drop the pretension that to care about graphics is to make one a graphics whore - if that is the case then let's all play text RPGs - huzzah! those were surely the golden days of gaming! I play a ton of indies, and do I wish they looked better - of course. That is why I have a monitor attached to my computer. Well, that and occasionaly I even do some work on it.
 

Shagnak

Shagadelic
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
4,637
Location
Arse of the world, New Zealand
Vault Dweller said:
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.
There were quite a few "graphix sux" comment, but it's not the problem. The problem was that only 2-3 people were interested.
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.
Really, I am quite surprised you are taking anything out of that debacle, other than that the codex has a negative reputation over there.

As for 3D, I have been following these threads and I was under the impression that the majority of people were pretty damn happy with the progression of the 2D graphics, especially the animated sprites, and that you only needed to update the "background/scenery" graphics a bit.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom