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

obediah

Erudite
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
5,051
Vault Dweller said:
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.

I'm sure you don't see it that way. ;) And to be honest neither do I. I think it's unfortunate that the reality of money has to interfere with the design at all, but my concern lies with whether the change will work, not your motives. I just brought it up because it was another angle to look at it from.

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).

My guess is you're going to have to decide on whether or not to make a second game before you know if this one is a success. As a first time indie release, I would expect sales to build slowly It would be a shame to give up on the project only to have sales pick up a few months later. I'd be really tempted to get something playable out regardless of graphics just to get buzz and feedback.

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?

I do enjoy pretty graphics. I was questioning the premise that redoing the graphics and then releasing, checking sales and going on from there is a quicker and safer path to $$$ than releasing in 2D and then diving into the revisions. But I'm not an expert and don't know the details, so I'll have to assume you've thought this through yourself and not made a retarded decision. :)

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.

So you're hoping that people weren't even taking the time to look over the game because it was ugly, so with a pretty screencap, more people will read about it, follow development, download the demo, and purchase the game? It sounds reasonable enough, I just can't imagine how anyone hungry for a game like this could have the luxury of being a graphics snob - but then I never have been able to figure out people, so I hope you're right!

Anyway good luck again, and as long as I don't need a paypal account you've got 1 sale.
 

Atrokkus

Erudite
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
3,089
Location
Borat's Fantasy Land
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.
OMG, Shagnak is actually right again (this is getting disturbing)
Seriously, I do love the style. And yeah, the scenery and background should be improved. Other than that - everything's great. Simple, stylish, neat.
 

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
if you're modelling yourself after Jeff Vogel, why don't you release an "exile" version of the game and then an "avernum" with 3D graphics? In any case, whatever you decide is good for me, because you took the simple step of designing, working on, locking, and implementing all (or at least, most) of the gameplay before worying about graphics. OF COURSE, if you don't cut back on the gameplay now that it's implemented, the better the game looks the more we'll like it. It's just a question of wanting my candy now, for me. But I would seriously consider something like releasing the game now to minimize expenses and get some returns, and use the (however minimal) word of mouth to fuel the new, improved, 3Dfied, sequel. Keep the same gameplay engine, work on the Torque graphics at leisure, design the new story and dialogue, release it in a year and a half.
 

Kamaz

Pahris Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,035
Location
The Glorious Ancient City of Loja
So, the reason for going 3D is because very few people were interested in AoD (D) when the info was posted on RPGDot? And how would 3D solve this? IMO it has to do with marketing, advertising and building up reputation outside RPGCodex walls. What can you expect when you show to people crappy screenshots with no detailed information (the post on RPGDot said nothing or little about features of the game)? Maybe you should have elaborated those 2D graphics even more as you promised to do later. I already said - game looks pretty bad with those boring tiles, with no diversity. Its pure tech-screenie and means something only to few. You should have showed final state 2D.

Plus, that would be just the first step. As I said, you lack recognition. Project is - as I understand - in pretty late phase, its almost ready. So it wouldnt harm starting to publish some hype around. Hype is not bad while its true. And, as I understand, your game has tons of things to hype about.

Lets say, I gave link to the Codex forum-thread to some people around here and they were really interested. The lesson? You dont have even home-page with clear list of features game has, nice screenshots, story pieces, characters etc.. I had to convince those guys that there, in the thousands of forum posts lays interesting information. And it is really bad you aint releasing any information outside Codex walls. Your game has to be known and then and only then you get your sales.

My suggestions to do:
1) at the moment stay 2D, get some nice looking screens;
2) make a homepage with crucial information about features and all the goddamn cool features AoD has allready;
3) trade your banners with other sites;
4) try to get published in as much gaming sites as possible;
5) NOW evaluate the interest of people

You can go 3D then if you still feel you need to. There are many people that would buy a good cRPG even if it is 2D as long as it looks good. Download sizes? Come on, here in Larpland people download hundreds of megs without thinking. Most people have good broadbands and I dont know anyone who has dial-up anymore. Not counting mobile-phones/GPRS, of course. 100 megs wouldnt be a problem. Even 200.
 

Dhruin

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
758
I wouldn't read much into the initial reaction at all. However, Kamaz has some good points ("crappy" graphics aside because I think that is an overstatement) - we already talked briefly about a website. You will have to develop a level of hype and profile, because other than RPG Codex and RPGDot there will be few sites that pay much attention. This is one of the reasons I never understand the overreaction to hype here.

I think the whole line of thought with size restrictions is wrong but 3D won't look better unless you have the resources to do it properly. So...can you make a 3D version look better (in practice, not theory - within the restraints of time, budget and capabilities) by a big enough gap to justify the effort?

Either way, I would put together a coherent image before judging the response.
 

Roqua

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


Sometimes I do something without seeing the big picture. I really thought this was a 1 page thread, ending on the first page after Vault Dwellers 2 posts in a row. Then I come back to check and see this tyhread is 7 pages and my post is on page six, so their are 5 pages of stuff I didnt even know about.. I'll have to read through the wholoe thing to see where I jumped in, etc.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Shagnak said:
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.
Progression is a key word here. The graphics progressed to the point where switching to 3D made more sense than continuing with 2D. The main reason why we went with 2D is to keep the size down. The new animations changed that. I don't think that simplifying them and reducing the frames would have been a better option.

obediah said:
My guess is you're going to have to decide on whether or not to make a second game before you know if this one is a success. As a first time indie release, I would expect sales to build slowly It would be a shame to give up on the project only to have sales pick up a few months later. I'd be really tempted to get something playable out regardless of graphics just to get buzz and feedback.
I don't lack patience which is some people say a virtue. Releasing *something* playable just to see the reaction is a risk I'm not willing to take.

So you're hoping that people weren't even taking the time to look over the game because it was ugly, so with a pretty screencap, more people will read about it, follow development, download the demo, and purchase the game?
Pretty much. Even now there are plenty of people in this thread, who actually know about the game and its mechanics, and who feel that the graphics should be improved. People who know nothing about it will take a look at screenshots and quickly move on. That's what we are trying to fix now.

Astro said:
if you're modelling yourself after Jeff Vogel, why don't you release an "exile" version of the game and then an "avernum" with 3D graphics?
If the exile version doesn't sell, I won't have any people left to make the avernum one, and this game is much more complex than Jeff's stuff so I won't be able to do that alone.

OF COURSE, if you don't cut back on the gameplay now that it's implemented, the better the game looks the more we'll like it.
I'd rather turn it into a text-adventure game than cut back on the gameplay.

Kamaz said:
So, the reason for going 3D is because very few people were interested in AoD (D) when the info was posted on RPGDot?
One of the reasons.

What can you expect when you show to people crappy screenshots with no detailed information (the post on RPGDot said nothing or little about features of the game)?
First, the post was detailed enough. Second, a lot of people evaluate games based on screenshots. That's a fact.

I already said - game looks pretty bad with those boring tiles, with no diversity.
Exactly

Its pure tech-screenie and means something only to few. You should have showed final state 2D.
The screens demonstrated not the graphics but the dialogues which in turn represented the writing, the gameplay, the mechanics. Clearly that wasn't enough.

1) at the moment stay 2D, get some nice looking screens;
I'm afraid that it's easier to switch to 3D than to "get some nice looking screens" that would satisfy people with higher standards in regard to graphics.
 

ichpokhudezh

Liturgist
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
179
Location
germantown, md
Whenever I see an AoD reference, somebody would ask "what's the website for that one?" and the inevitable "check out rpgcodex forums" follows, with the attached emotional baggage.
The game has got to have its own site - with features, background story, dev blog/diary, hype, etc.
BTW, the whole better graphics versus smaller download dilemma - can you guys do split download, where there is a separate piece with better tiles/textures, more diverse maps, better gfx engine?

And, apropos, the latest 2D screens that I saw looked fine to me.

PS. If you have a finished engine for dialog tree processing/attribute application which can be separated and offered under GPL or somesuch you, probably, can put in on sourceforge - with enough news posts around this can generate good enough google PR to get advertisers in.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Dhruin said:
I wouldn't read much into the initial reaction at all. However, Kamaz has some good points ("crappy" graphics aside because I think that is an overstatement) - we already talked briefly about a website. You will have to develop a level of hype and profile, because other than RPG Codex and RPGDot there will be few sites that pay much attention.
I can hype it, I can deal with other sites, but if after a game is shown the interest level is non-existent, mostly because of the graphics, that points to a problem. I'm not trying to please everyone - that's impossible. What I'm trying to do is to establish what visual level is acceptable in order to generate a modest interest to the game. Even at the Codex that level was high enough. Outside the Codex the level is much higher. I thought that I can get away with simple graphics, turned out I can't. I'm fixing an error I've made earlier.

I think the whole line of thought with size restrictions is wrong but 3D won't look better unless you have the resources to do it properly.
Aint that the truth.

So...can you make a 3D version look better (in practice, not theory - within the restraints of time, budget and capabilities) by a big enough gap to justify the effort?
Honestly? No idea, but I would know within a month. As always, I'll post some stuff here for folks to see and take apart.

Whenever I see an AoD reference, somebody would ask "what's the website for that one?" and the inevitable "check out rpgcodex forums" follows, with the attached emotional baggage.
The game has got to have its own site - with features, background story, dev blog/diary, hype, etc.
I don't have time for everything, besides, imo, forums are way more important for estimating interest and dealing with potential fanbase. There is enough info here from screens to design features to satisfy anyone's curiosity and interest. If someone has an issue with the Codex, well, not much I can do, especially considering my own contribution to the negativity.
 

Roqua

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


Sometimes I do something without seeing the big picture. I really thought this was a 1 page thread, ending on the first page after Vault Dwellers 2 posts in a row. Then I come back to check and see this tyhread is 7 pages and my post is on page six, so their are 5 pages of stuff I didnt even know about.. I'll have to read through the wholoe thing to see where I jumped in, etc.

Wow, just read through and now I know that instead of just updating the graphics they are going crazy with 3d.

To care about graphics makes you a graphics whore: bottom line. This is crap. A game that was finally catering to me and my taste is now catering to people I can't stand and who I feel have wrecked the rpg genre. A bunch of superficial bitches who just cry and whine about assanine bullshit and are never happy until a game looks like doom and is stripped of all complexity to be streamlined. Game resources will be poored into graphic resources and the game will suffer. The game will come out much later, get the same exact critismism from the same superficial bitches, but won't get the praise from the normal folk since too much was stripped for the fancy graphics. Thats my prediction anyway.

To reinerate: to care at all about graphics makes you a graphics whore. If you have ever mentioned subpar grapohics in a gaming forum you are a graphics whore. If your taste has a minimum standard of graphic goodness you are a graphics whore. And graphics whores are a bunch of pansy ass superficial bitches who should be raped and beat about the facial area with a bamboo rod until they die and stop wrecking games for people who like games, not graphic tech demos with a little functional;ity.

Seriously, the graphics whores will never be pleased, they will not buy the game, just post negativity. Trying to please them is useless and is just a resource sucking activity. Your base, the people who will actually pay money for the game, do not care about graphics. And the Fate crowd does not like complex games. In my opinion in order for you to bust into the Fate sales you would not just need the graphics, but you would need to also go back to the drawing board until you also have a diablo clone. Or you could try to please everybody and just end up with a game that pleases nobody.

Who is your base market? What can you give them that is value added? Better gameplay and more functionality, not graphics. Graphics is an appeal to a different market. AoD's core market pf buyers is dry. The are not price setters, they are price takers. There is demand for the gameplay AoD will offer and no supply; on the other hand there is a large supply of much better graphics than you could ever offer and the demand will never be there. The demographics of your paying sustomers want value-added for them, not the enemies of them. Just like macantosh, handspring, airborne express, etc, you need to realize your market is niche and give them value-added for what they want.

Genral market feel isn't enough to make changes off of. I would of p[reordered two or more copies of this game before reading this thread when I felt gameplay trumped graphics and this game was going to be a real rpg. But now I don't trust it. I have been burnt too many times by devs that cater to the graphic whores and try to please them to my detriment.
 

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
oh bollocks. You are willing to basically gut the graphical engine of the game to prevent people from getting a bad first impression (which is mostly what graphics affect), but you aren't willing to spend a few days (or, gods help me, pay Rex a few bucks to make you a site design as a contract job, no strings attached) to make a site about it? A place where you can:

- Have organized information in a readable format. I mean, check this screenshot thread. You think people are gonna find the new style screens on page 5? No, they'll look at the first post, and take their conclusions from that. You didn't even bother to edit it to include the new stuff.

- Keep an updated journal of development, with comments for each post, thereby giving you a lot more granularity of feedback than the overly-inclusive threads that exist here.

- Keep detailed server logs that allow you to gauge the interest your game generates. AFAIK there's no way for you to know how many unique people read your stuff here, etc.

- Have contact information for stuff like possible distributors, contributors, testers, whatever. Hey, maybe Interplay can offer you a publishing deal ;)

- Separate once and for all AoD and the Codex. This is VITAL. First of all, because we ARE, after all, a bunch of angry cunts. When the developer is separate from the general "atmosphere", like Wolf Mittag, it works relatively ok, but you *are*. Unless you separate VD the staff member here from *whateveryournameis* the developer, your game will sell to the RPGCodex guys and that's it. Besides, I want to separate your game from the Codex so that I can finally start posting news about it on our main page. It's completely unfair to you that I can't cover the project that interests me most at the moment.

- Have a "linkable" place to put on other forums, send to news sites, etc. Face it, goddamnit. How many projects have you covered on this site that are WAY less developed than yours is when we add them to the game database?

Dude, there's a reason why companies don't let programmers run the marketing department. You're proving that reason true every day you let pass without a website being up. Do this *right*, goddamnit. It's getting frustrating.
 

Niektory

one of some
Patron
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
808
Location
the great potato in the sky
Astromarine is right. A LOT of people will go to the website if you make one, simply because it's the fastest way to find information about the game. It's very important considering it doesn't require much effort compared to the benefits.
 

corvax

Augur
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
731
"separate AoD and the Codex" - face it, you already have the codex crowd buying your game. you won't compromise anything and reach a much greater # of potential customers.

as far as publishing, have you tried contacting spiderweb? i know they're willing to work with other indie devs but i'm not sure what kind of deal you could get and whether it would be worth it. just at thought since in that way you could reach a pretty solid fan base
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Roqua said:
A game that was finally catering to me and my taste is now catering to people I can't stand and who I feel have wrecked the rpg genre.
We are not catering to those. We are not after max sales, we are after the acceptable, by average RPG fans, visual minimums. I'm glad that there are people like me who don't give a shit about graphics and care only about gameplay, but it turned out there aren't as many of those as it used to be.

The game will come out much later, get the same exact critismism from the same superficial bitches, but won't get the praise from the normal folk since too much was stripped for the fancy graphics. Thats my prediction anyway.
Compare the reaction to the first screen and the animations:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 63&start=0
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 99&start=0
See the difference?

I would of p[reordered two or more copies of this game before reading this thread when I felt gameplay trumped graphics and this game was going to be a real rpg. But now I don't trust it. I have been burnt too many times by devs that cater to the graphic whores and try to please them to my detriment.
I wouldn't accept any preorders anyway simply because I don't want anyone buying my promises. When the game is ready, get a demo, play, then decide if that's something you like.

Astro said:
Have organized information in a readable format. I mean, check this screenshot thread. You think people are gonna find the new style screens on page 5? No, they'll look at the first post, and take their conclusions from that. You didn't even bother to edit it to include the new stuff.
Huh? All images go into the same place. I may have posted that tweak to the dialogue window that Ismaul asked me about separately, but that was a very minor stuff. As for the rest, the threads are clearly labelled (i.e. char system, trading screen, animations, gamedesign: inventory, etc). Looking for and finding info easily isn't a problem here. From that point of view, any complaints about the lack of info are unfounded.

- Keep an updated journal of development, with comments for each post, thereby giving you a lot more granularity of feedback than the overly-inclusive threads that exist here.
Those are gay. "Hallo thare, my awesome fan(s)!!! We are still working on our awesome game and we've just added another feature that will like totally roxxor!!! Please preorder and we'll add a retarded NPC that looks just like you in our totally awesome game!"

- Keep detailed server logs that allow you to gauge the interest your game generates. AFAIK there's no way for you to know how many unique people read your stuff here, etc.
That's not a good way to measure interest. Many people may hear some hype, go to the site, check it out, go OMFG!It's horrible! and leave.

- Have contact information for stuff like possible distributors, contributors, testers, whatever. Hey, maybe Interplay can offer you a publishing deal
Too early for that.

Separate once and for all AoD and the Codex. This is VITAL. First of all, because we ARE, after all, a bunch of angry cunts. When the developer is separate from the general "atmosphere", like Wolf Mittag, it works relatively ok, but you *are*. Unless you separate VD the staff member here from *whateveryournameis* the developer, your game will sell to the RPGCodex guys and that's it. Besides, I want to separate your game from the Codex so that I can finally start posting news about it on our main page. It's completely unfair to you that I can't cover the project that interests me most at the moment.
Thanks, Astro, that's very nice of you. I will have a site eventually (sooner than later). I will have it when I have enough stuff to show and when you, a bunch of angry cunts, are done tearing my game apart. Your feedback was and is very useful. We have improved the interface (Fez comments helped), we have improved the dialogue screen a lot, Ismaul's many suggestions were very helpful, there were some suggestions to trading/crafting screens, etc. I can't find a better place to get such a great feedback. Once the majority is satisfied with the overall look, then I'll go and get me a decent site.

- Have a "linkable" place to put on other forums, send to news sites, etc. Face it, goddamnit. How many projects have you covered on this site that are WAY less developed than yours is when we add them to the game database?
I will, once the overall look is done.

Dude, there's a reason why companies don't let programmers run the marketing department. You're proving that reason true every day you let pass without a website being up. Do this *right*, goddamnit. It's getting frustrating.
Dude, I'm not a programmer, I know enough to play with the code without bothering other people, but my role on this project is the non-programming one: setting, story, quests, npcs, dialogues, char system, combat and gameplay mechanics, etc.

Coincidentally, when I'm not working on this project or call people idiots on the front page, I run quite a few marketing departments as a vice-president, sales & marketing, so I know something about marketing.

Overall though, I appreciate the interest and support. The game will be released simply because my team and I personally have done too much already to stop now. We are trying to improve the graphics WITHOUT removing a single feature previously discussed or mentioned. There is nothing wrong if the game plays good AND looks good, and many features will benefit from 3D.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
Seriously though, a website that informs of the game's existance would be a really good idea. You don't need to put up "PREPARE FOR THE MOST AWESOMEST GAME EVARRRR - BETTER THAN TITS!!!", just include screenshots and all the info you can spare on its development and features. People prefer a website for an initial look to trawling through forums for information and you should have it up LONG before release. Wolf Mittag's site got me interested in his game.

The change to 3D is a big move, I hope it's not going to be exchanging pretty 2D for ugly 3D. You seem to have some talented artists working on it so far though. Get some screenshots of scenes or models posted up when you can to alliveate my concern.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Vault Dweller said:
I'd prefer to have a game that looks like Fallout too only I can't do that.
Meh, that didn't seem to come across right. What I meant was, while technically Fallout's graphics are outdated, artistically they are sound, and that's why I can still enjoy the game. In the case of ypur very first screenshot, something about the character art just didn't work for me. The characters on the new screenshots just look better, because of the art, not some technical improvement.
So when you switch to 3D, you make a technical improvement with a great effort attached to it. But it says nothing about whether or not the art will be appealling.

So in short, what I meant was, there is a difference between a technical improvement and better art, and the latter is what matters. To me, anyway.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Fez said:
Seriously though, a website that informs of the game's existance would be a really good idea. .... People prefer a website for an initial look to trawling through forums for information and you should have it up LONG before release.
How long, in your opinion? Imo, anything more than 3-4 months is useless. I don't hype the game on this forum, I discuss the features and get some feedback. Think of it as a workshop. When the product is ready then it will be moved into a showroom.

Wolf Mittag's site got me interested in his game.
I assume that the game was already available for download.

The change to 3D is a big move, I hope it's not going to be exchanging pretty 2D for ugly 3D. You seem to have some talented artists working on it so far though. Get some screenshots of scenes or models posted up when you can to alliveate my concern.
The characters you saw were done in 3D, for example, so we are not talking about ugly. We'll post some stuff when we have it.
 

Kamaz

Pahris Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,035
Location
The Glorious Ancient City of Loja
Actually I agree with Claw pretty much and I am pleased there is someone else but me who thinks Fallouts graphics still are awesome. Yes, its art, style, design, not technology in fallouts case.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,654
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
Im skeptical about changing the graphic engine when the game is almost ready... there are exemples in history of game industry where it ended very badly for the game and its developers. And i agree with people bitching about a website... it should be made earlier than later, once its done it doesnt require that much work to maintain it (compared to developing the game itself), im surprised you disagree with them so strongly. There is nothing wrong with a website for a game still in development, it wont hurt but can help a lot.
Anyway its good that you will take your time to consider IF you (and the team) are able to make better looking 3D than 2D, better by a marigin large enough to be worth the inevitable delay (i guess at least 1 year).
 

Nick

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
317
Location
Over the hills and far away
As Vault Dweller has already said: all the map object you could see on our screenshots (including characters' models) originally were made in 3D and by 3D artists. So it's not about remaking our graphical resources from a scratch, everything we need is to tweak the existing stuff and play with Torque, to check all of its features, pros and cons. IMNSHO, it is good enough for AoD.
 

Hazelnut

Erudite
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
1,490
Location
UK
So - has this been decided for sure yet VD? You going 3d?

I think that the comment from Claw was spot on! FO gfx are fine for me - they still look good, because they are good art. I think the real advantage of going 3d maybe in the scalability of detail.. with a 3d engine you can allow the player to set the resolution so you can cater for ppl at 1600x1200 as well as those that only run 800x600 which would be nice. A side-effect is that you can set the size of the displayed world correctly (I hate scrolling the screen round in GF3 to find foes that my party can see and I'm in combat with - really gets on my nerves) with the low res ppl just ending up with pixelated models. (tough tits!) Maybe you could even implement zooming to the users preference (within limits) - might be a good improvement to the genre, or be crap, but worth a try no? It sounds like you really only have the backgrounds & engine implementation to do if all the models were done in 3d and rendered into 2d previously.

I think you definitely have points about the min gfx quallity expected these days and the 'I'll pass on this' reaction to screen shots.. this is one reason I took a while to get around to playing Spiderweb games - they looked clumsy from the screenies. (and they are clumsy to play, but great fun)

I do hope that it translates to more sales for you though.

H.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Hazelnut said:
So - has this been decided for sure yet VD? You going 3d?
Nope, not decided for sure. We should be able to post a test screen this week, then we'll decide.

I think that the comment from Claw was spot on! FO gfx are fine for me - they still look good, because they are good art.
They also look good because of the great art resources that we don't have. Fallout was an amazing game, graphically, and I don't think that we could approach that level of quality.

I think the real advantage of going 3d maybe in the scalability of detail..
Also, we can have more diverse models and animations. For example, we couldn't even include shields before because that would double the size: a guy with a sword - a guy with a sword and shield - an attack animation with and without shields, death animations, etc. Now we can display every individual weapons, i.e. not one generic sword for all swords, but a short sword that looks like a s/sword, have different animations, etc. That would also be reflected in the Disguise and other gameplay mechanics.

If we can do the height thingy correctly, that would add a tactical element to combat, etc.

Besides, free exposure at GarageGames (when the game is done) wouldn't hurt either.

It sounds like you really only have the backgrounds & engine implementation to do if all the models were done in 3d and rendered into 2d previously.
That's why we are considering switching
 

Atrokkus

Erudite
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
3,089
Location
Borat's Fantasy Land
3d is okay, as long as it doesn't interfere with other aspects.

Hm... maybe there is some work done in that direction already?
Post some screenshots, hmm?
Try this thing out, and if it doesn't go too well, return to 2d ^_^

I don't give a damn whether it's 3d or 2d, as long as it has style and RPG in it.
 

Kamaz

Pahris Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,035
Location
The Glorious Ancient City of Loja
As Vault Dweller has already said: all the map object you could see on our screenshots (including characters' models) originally were made in 3D and by 3D artists.
Wouldnt those be high-poly models in comparison to low-poly ones usually used in games? I am not into computer graphics, but AFAIK creating low-poly object and makingprerendered sprites from 3D models aint the same thing.

So, Torque? That means Mac. That is good for indie.

Graphical engine for the game should be just a component - easy to add, update and remove. If it interferes with other game too much so that it can not be easily substituted, its not very good coding. Like you should have functions like DrawMap, DrawObject and you should not care how you draw the map or character when creating the game - it might even output ASCii chars, if needed. So, the switch to 3D theoretically could be easy.

OK, I guess you should switch to 3D, VD, if you are sure you can handle that. If that does not mean reworking all the artwork and deep-hack of allready tested things, then it should be worth it.
 

Hazelnut

Erudite
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
1,490
Location
UK
Vault Dweller said:
Hazelnut said:
So - has this been decided for sure yet VD? You going 3d?
Nope, not decided for sure. We should be able to post a test screen this week, then we'll decide.

Look forward to seeing it.

Vault Dweller said:
Also, we can have more diverse models and animations. For example, we couldn't even include shields before because that would double the size: a guy with a sword - a guy with a sword and shield - an attack animation with and without shields, death animations, etc. Now we can display every individual weapons, i.e. not one generic sword for all swords, but a short sword that looks like a s/sword, have different animations, etc. That would also be reflected in the Disguise and other gameplay mechanics.

Oooooh! Yes! Can you accurately model bow & arrow physics too???? :P :lol:

Seriously, seeing changes to the PC model on screen is good feedback and helps to get attached to the char, but isn't that important as you know. Should help sell the game though. (if ppl aren't already put off by TB RPG..)

Vault Dweller said:
If we can do the height thingy correctly, that would add a tactical element to combat, etc.

Yes, but how much game would need reworking - be careful on that one.

H.
 

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