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: What do you think of TEH GRAFIKS?

What do you think of the graphics?

  • I can't play a game that looks so awful (1/10)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The graphics are bad, but I've seen worse (3/10)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The graphics are ok (5/10)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I can't explain it but I actually like the graphics (7/10)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Excrément

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,005
Location
Rockville
Vault Dweller said:
Well, I don't claim that the game is like totally awesome and surely one of the best role-playing games I've ever played, do I?
no but you are in front of this problem :
you basically developed this game in order to satisfy people like you (fed up with shiny grahics game without depth) so you insist on
1 : the storyboard
2 : the dialog
3 : the consequences
and you feel that if 1,2 and 3 are good (that is to say excellent compared to the "modern" standards") your game will rock for the elistist codexers because you think the graphics are not very important for your target audience.
But, I think (I may be wrong), you underestimate the underlying hidden graphic whores inside of each of us.
everyone mostly agree here that graphics are "just" good for the immersion, and if the dialogue, the choices&consequences and the storyboard are good, shiny graphics are not needed to have a good immersion, the proof : Fallout. Fallout has crappy graphics and remain an excellent game!
My point is : yes fallout has crappy graphics but these graphics were OK in the 90s, now with the time, we uncounciously raised our level of expectations about the graphics for a new game.
to sum-up : we enjoy fallout because it's an "old" game, but if it was a recent game I am pretty sure a lot of people would't do the effort to get used to the graphics because our level of "tolerance" (allowance?) isn't the same for an old or new game.

so to my mind, even if the graphics of AoD are not that bad and aren't horrible at all, but these graphics don't match the nowadays uncounscious level of tolerance even for all the elistist hardcore rpg player of this board.
of course, this isn't true for everybody, and every one on this board officially encourage you but don't expect too high future sales. don't forget that they will never admit they didn't want to buy the game because of the graphics they will use more subjective pretext, excuse like "we appreciate your effort but the dialogue eventually sucks/the combat system sucks/the storyboard is boring and repetitive)
 

Fryjar

Augur
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
176
One more thing about the implementation of unique design to create a better atmosphere:
Just a simple idea: So far, what we've heard about your factions, makes us think that they are far more than plain role models but truely unique instead. If you really want to convey this feeling to your graphics, you should consider to implement some more art for them. For instance, give all your factions an emblem (for example a snake on a staff for one of the houses). If you would just consider to create 3 altered versions of that (for each faction) depending on the ingame size (one small, a medium and a big version) and decorate the interiors of their main halls/ buildings with that, you would certainly enhance the atmosphere greatly.
These signs help you to set the mood correctly and make your game unmistakable and not just another one with the torque engine.
Since so late in the development cycle, creating too much art would certainly be a pain, you should think about at least doing that for these factions, because they are probably one of the more important visible elements of your game world.

Aside from that:
I agree with the other posters who mentioned the importance of tiny details like mudds and little stones, because these elements help to take away the sterile look that is still existant in the game and greatly help to emulate a believable world.

On top of that I also comply with the others in regards of the game colours: It tremendously helps to convey a dark and gritty atmosphere if the colour intensity is tuned down and the game world overall visually less bright. Right now, there is still room for optimization.
 

VenomByte

Scholar
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
271
Excrement's point is very valid, although everyone has differnet levels of tolerance.

Personally, I never played Daggerfall when it was first released, and even though I have a copy (or two) now, I've never really gotten into it. The reason? I can't stomach ugly first person views. they just seem too... restrictive. I can't stand the original Wolfenstein either. The first Doom is just about tolerable though.

Having said that, other types of view (such as isometric or scrolling 2D), I have no problem with whatsoever, even if the game in question is very dated and standard of graphics pretty poor.

In my mind, AoD graphics exceed my minimum tolerance levels by leaps and bounds, which is why I rated it a 7. But then, I'm highly tolerant of almost any graphics except awful first/third person.

I think it would be interesting to see if anyone else has different 'tolerance' levels, and whether they vary depending on the genre of the game or the style of the main view.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
I can live witht he graphics. The character models are actually very good and look decent ingame, although metal lacks the metallic look.
I agree that the game looks a bit empty in some places, you've shown us some screenies with diagrams and stuff hanging at the walls. That certainly makes it look more real than a huge, plain surface. Maybe some kind of light sources would look good on many walls, like in 6a, there could be racks and shelves, too. They'd probably make the places look less artificial even if they were empty.
Oh, and I complained about the smithy in 4a before. It looks like it's a model with a baseplate. You know, like the stuff you use with a miniature railroad. Maybe you could obscure that, sink the baseplate into the ground, or just make the area around it look less empty.

Oh, and it's true that the screenshots look too bright in general. They remind me of unlit levels in Unreal Tournament. Even just making them a little darker might help.


PrinceofLowLight said:
Good art direction can make primitive graphics workable, even better than things cooked up with expensive software. Not this, though. It's lifeless and completely without character, which is a shame because every other part of the game seems to be crawling with it.

Don't fret too much about what tools you can afford. Good art always wins against good tools.
Yeah, don't fret, VD. It's not your tools' fault the graphics suck. Blame the idiots responsible for the art. :D


PS:
Also, since someone mentioned it. Graphics and art aren't the same, and Fallout has great art. The graphics aren't up-to-date, but the art won't even stop being great.

PPS:
Regarding sales and graphics, what about Vogel's audience? AoD should at least grab those. I haven't yet bought myself to buy any of Vogel's games mainly because of the graphics. I am also concerned about the interface.
But evidently there are a some people who buy his crappy-looking stuff.
 

Excrément

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,005
Location
Rockville
VenomByte said:
In my mind, AoD graphics exceed my minimum tolerance levels by leaps and bounds, which is why I rated it a 7. But then, I'm highly tolerant of almost any graphics except awful first/third person.

I think it would be interesting to see if anyone else has different 'tolerance' levels, and whether they vary depending on the genre of the game or the style of the main view.

I think the tolerance level depends on the price of the game too.
some indie free downloadable game with crappy graphics exceed my level of tolerance but as soon as I have to pay even 1$ (the problem of paying isn't often the price -except if we judge it not reasonnable- but the effort to do the payment -go to the store/buy online...feeling we have to pay for crappy graphics-) my level of tolerance is higher than AoD graphics.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Excrément said:
Vault Dweller said:
Well, I don't claim that the game is like totally awesome and surely one of the best role-playing games I've ever played, do I?
no but you are in front of this problem :
you basically developed this game in order to satisfy people like you (fed up with shiny grahics game without depth) so you insist on
1 : the storyboard
2 : the dialog
3 : the consequences
and you feel that if 1,2 and 3 are good (that is to say excellent compared to the "modern" standards") your game will rock for the elistist codexers because you think the graphics are not very important for your target audience.
I do feel that the 1,2,and 3 are good; and I do think that the graphics aren't important, but in a "a game doesn't need to have the latest graphics to be good" way, not in a "shitty graphics are ok" way. That's why people like simplistic 2D Eschalon screens and are less than impressed with AoD screens.

I'm not trying to make a game that can compete with the latest and greatest, that's both impossible and unnecessary. I'm trying to make a game that doesn't look bad.

, shiny graphics are not needed to have a good immersion, the proof : Fallout. Fallout has crappy graphics and remain an excellent game!
Fallout had great graphics and still does.
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
Excrément said:
Fallout has crappy graphics and remain an excellent game!

Mammutshit! Fallout had the best 2d graphics i have ever seen in any 2d game. Sseesh you people realy have very low art standards to claim a game graphics are shit because the game used indexed color images instead of 24bpp images.

Tell me one game that has more expressive and natural talking heads models than Fallout. Compared to Fallout taking heads, Oblivion ones look like crap in all its glorious pixel shader 3.0 model.

Excrément said:
don't expect too high future sales. don't forget that they will never admit they didn't want to buy the game because of the graphics they will use more subjective pretext, excuse like "we appreciate your effort but the dialogue eventually sucks/the combat system sucks/the storyboard is boring and repetitive)

That maybe true but it's allways worth to try. Things are not allways the same and theres more people fedup with stupid action self-proclaimed rpgs than there was before.

Still if it doesn't sell enough just make a medieval max-payne/deus-ex with arrow-time. But at least have some nice optional quests with mini localized fake consequences and different solutions to quests like in deusex, and one linear main quest for each basic class to startup. Later join them in a single linear quest for every class near the end. Less than this is untolerable crap and doesn't deserve to be called rpg.
 

Amasius

Augur
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
959
Location
Thanatos
elander_ said:
Tell me one game that has more expressive and natural talking heads models than Fallout.
Bloodlines. But I agree - Fallouts graphics are still great. (And in both games was Leonard Boyarsky involved, it shows.)

But we should go back to the topic of the thread.
 

obediah

Erudite
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
5,051
Vault Dweller said:
Excrément said:
Vault Dweller said:
Fallout has crappy graphics and remain an excellent game!
Fallout had great graphics and still does.

My apologies for arguing over semantics, but I'd say Fallout has great, (GREAT!!! even) art and style. The graphics barely lived up to that art and style at release, and certainly don't now.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
Fallout's 2D art was not only excellent for its time, but is still very much so. I think PS:T edges it out though, with its style, architecture and design.

I actually prefer polished 2D art to rudimentary 3D representations beacuse I am a graphics whore, and looking at non-nextgen 3D graphics always makes me notice: the aliasing, the texture crawling and shimmering, lack of or not enough mipmap levels, exposed seams, lightmaps and lighting in general, whether the shadows are hard or soft or aliased, the resolution of the textures and if their clarity, polish and work are consistent across the entire game, etc.

Shoddy or primitive 3D graphics take me out of the "immersion" faster than traditional 2D art, because 2D art is already perfect. It will always look like the artist intended, no matter what. It's like saying a technically proficient or creative painting was good for its time, but not anymore. Well-done traditional 2D art is also easier for me to appreciate because I can recognize an (unfortunately) mostly obsolete way of game design in its most evolved state. Compared to 2D art, 3D graphics still have a long way to go in order to look timeless or classic.

With all that said, I don't think AoD needs anything done to it at all. The screens seem fine to me as they are right now, but I do concur with everyone else that everything looks too clean for it being the age of decadence.

Have you guys agreed on a price-point yet?
 

crpgnut

Augur
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
337
Location
St. Louis,MO,USA
I'm late to the poll, but I find the graphics to be quite adequate. They're mostly better than Vogel's stuff and this is just your first attempt.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
Frankly, I don't want to drag this off-topic, but I think Vogel's graphics are better. (Of course, I haven't seen AoD in motion, so this is an almost baseless opinion.) I'm talking about Avernum here. I guess it's about a coherent art style which manages to convey the appropriate atmosphere - namely, of being stuck in a vast system of caves. These are perhaps small, but important touches. The Vahnatai lands seem alien etc.
If AoD graphics will help to create a unique atmosphere (as, I think, was also a feature of Arcanum, even if many people dismissed the gfx as shitty), don't change them. It's more important than proper lighting. (Although I too prefer Ladonna's edit.) Of course, until there's a demo, the developers are the only people to judge that.
 

suibhne

Erudite
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,951
Location
Chicago
Again, the question is animation, but I'm guessing these graphics will be much better than anything Vogel has turned out. His stuff may be serviceable in an old-school, 2-D sense, but almost nothing is animated; that alone will add a lot to AoD if it's even average quality.

I think I disagree with you about Avernum's gfx, Elwro. To me, Vogel's sound fx, tho simple, are more effective than his gfx.
 

POOPERSCOOPER

Prophet
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,721
Location
California
The graphics are pretty bad but I have seen worse. For an independent game I guess they are pretty good but I wouldn't put it equal to any real RPG in the last 9 years. Fallout and arcanum still look a ton better, most likely because they have style and AOD just looks a bit too bland. I think you have too much brown, if the game is set in egypt or something? If you make the interface more fancy it will improve the game a lot. I also wouldn't allow that large of space dedicated to whats happening in the game becuase the more you can see at once the more ugly it will be.


I don't know if what i'm seeing are clipping problems when the guy rests his hammer on the shoulder but if it is that will become very distracting to me especially because the characters are already pretty blocky looking.

To tell you the truth, VD. I expected the graphics for the game to be a LOT worse than they are now, so you should be proud or something. Don't expect me to give you a break when I give my opinion about the game though.
 

ddmagnan

Novice
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
5
Location
St Paul Park, MN
I think the graphics are adequate. They are not going to win any awards but they will not keep me from buying the game. I agree with some of the other posters that I would like the style to fit the setting a little more and to busy up the environment a little. I think that would go a long way towards making the game look good. That said, I am interested in AoD for the gameplay. As long as the graphics are decent I am content to buy the game. If I wanted a braindead gorgeous bimbo of a game, there are plenty to choose from already. :P
 

Jim Kata

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
2,602
Location
Nonsexual dungeon
Actually fallout's graphics are amazing, and it would be moronic to say otherwise. They just are not very high resolution. I think a LOT of the reason so many codexers like fallout over say ultima is tha the graphics are so much better. The graphics were good for ultima, too, but fallout had an unique style that almost no game ever made could be compared to.
 

Rina

Scholar
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
151
I think that best way would have been doing 2D/3D hybrid like Temple of Elemental Evil was, but the graphics are good enough for me as they are. If I can enjoy ADOM, I can enjoy this. :)
But I have to admit that Immortality's photoshop edit was a step to better direction.
 

Sisyphus

Novice
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
13
Location
The Frozen Wastelands of Canada
Long-time lurker here.

I find the graphics perfectly OK. The structures, NPC's, etc. are more than detailed enough to satisfy my needs as long as the gameplay is absorbing. If I were to raise one issue, it would be that the world seems too "bright," at least from the limited screenshots I have seen. It's hard to describe, but Fallout, for example, had a certain "darkness" to it that fit so well thematically with the story and the setting. I don't see the same kind of post-apocolyptic dark "edge" in the AoD graphics I have seen.

That being said, I have never had the pleasure of playing the game and the "brightness" of the graphics may fit in perfectly with the overall theme/feel of the game. Ultimately, it is an artistic decision for the designers.

From what I have read and seen about the game, it promises everything I could possibly hope for in a CRPG and I am really looking forward to playing it.

Back to lurking... :)
 

Severian Silk

Guest
I think that a more subtle lighting scheme would improve things a great deal. Also, I think the interface could be cleaned up a bit. Maybe you should go for a layered look for the interface instead of a segmented look? I think it's organized well--it just looks kind of meh. Overlapping swaths of cloth might look better than the sort of honeycomb/bubble thing you have going on now.

If you can track down some cloth textures I might have a go at it in Paint Shop Pro.
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
I voted ok, as they are not so bad that they will stop me buying the game if the codex reaction is good. I'm the other codex graphics whore, and honestly the combat system has me more worried. Making turn based single character combat interesting seems impossible, and adding silly spin around attacks only makes it worse. Is it possible to get through the game without much combat? Pressing quickload until my character rolls a headshot isn't much fun.

As for the graphics, I'd say you should darken the textures and more importantly have a good look at the interface. I haven't really got any suggestions yet, but if dialogue is going to be a major part of the game you should make the dialogue screen look really good. Fallout did have a pretty interface after all.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
I've been wondering: are you alone throughout the whole game or can you hire people for whatever? Or can you manufacture companions in some way? Are there scenarios where you serve as part of a group, say as a merchant guard?
 

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