Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Are older games really any better? I remember enjoying some pretty terrible games when I was younger.

Like many other things, it only seems so to people because they/we mostly only remember the golden games of the time.

[Sordid]

Yeah, it's mostly rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. I find it puts things in proper perspective to go back once in a while and play some of the old hectors. Let's look at Turbo Esprit, for example. It's basically an 8-bit GTA 3, you drive around a 3D city with the camera positioned behind your car, there are AI cars that obey the rules of the road, use their indicators, wait at the lights, and so on. You even have a fuel gauge and have to stop for fuel once in a while. Heck, it even has pedestrians that you can run over, which is something many similar games don't manage even today (I'm looking at you, Test Drive Unlimited 1 & 2). I have huge respect for this game, its concept was more than a decade ahead of its time, its visuals were mindblowing considering the hardware it ran on, and I used to have hours upon hours of fun with it. But would I want to play it today? Nope.

[LoSboccacc]

The horrible graphics allow pretty complex gameplay

I was expecting more open mindedness on the dwarf fortress forums.

Neither dwarf fortress nor minecraft nor master of magic could be done with the ultra high modern graphics you say. It's not a case of older is better bit of technical limitations and budget.

It's the case of content versus complexity. And if you have your basic mail shirt and then you need to model it for every race,  every size, every age... being current 3d model so limited regarding parametrization the combined complexity of each race adedd pretty much goes up exponentially.

That's why most of the enemyes of any game are your basic human scaled and morphed a bit.

And this is not like asserting that older is better. Old game graphics are a pain in the arse. But old concepts are being watered down instead of built upon due the combinatorial complexity of complex interaction within a system.

[PTTG??]

It is possible to do some things with 3D models that you can't with pictures. Consider that a piece of armor can be dynamically streched and deformed to match a torso, can get added to animations intelligently, and can get different textures applied to scorch, slash, or enchant it, while a 2D armor set has to be re-drawn again and again with each possible version.

[LoSboccacc]

It is possible to do some things with 3D models that you can't with pictures. Consider that a piece of armor can be dynamically streched and deformed to match a torso, can get added to animations intelligently, and can get different textures applied to scorch, slash, or enchant it, while a 2D armor set has to be re-drawn again and again with each possible version.

meanwhile argonians gets foots and boobs. guess why?

consider the variations that @ could express in dwarf fortress. no way the current tech level could express that. or the variations in random creatures. the current technology simply can't do that, so random creature and demons, as a concept, are simply preclued to becoming part of any game that tries to go the 'high graphics' mode. as it is impossible to make a minecraft stile game with proper terrain and scenery.

but it is not simply cosmetic visualization that is affected: just look at how magical effect in oblivion all looks the same. it's not just the cosmetic of having each fire arrow, acid blob, frozen missles and such all shown as a diversely colored blob. it's the impossibility of having persistent wall of flames, of having acid pools running down hills and forming ponds on lower terrains, of having frozen walls of ices... diggable, even.

[Omegastick]

Acid rivers and terrain deformation still entirely possible in 3d, it's just as hard to make such a thing in 2d if not harder. You're saying that because it's hard to make something look good in 3d it shouldn't be included in the first place, but in 2d it isn't possible to make it look good at all so it's okay to have it look crappy.

[Virtz]

It is possible to do some things with 3D models that you can't with pictures. Consider that a piece of armor can be dynamically streched and deformed to match a torso, can get added to animations intelligently, and can get different textures applied to scorch, slash, or enchant it, while a 2D armor set has to be re-drawn again and again with each possible version.

You can resize a 2d image. You can apply decals to it like any other layered 2d image, although you need a version of this decal for every frame of animation.

It is true that one skeleton animation can be applied to many models, though. But sometimes the results are sort of crap for sufficiently varied models. This encourages laziness like removing digitgrade legs to give everyone the same skeleton and thus the same animations.

[Duke 2.0]

meanwhile argonians gets foots and boobs. guess why?

Because the producers want to make a game that appeals to demographics. It really doesn't have anything to do with ease of graphics, it's just executive decisions.

 There was a trailer for a god game that was being developed that had real-time water effects eroding ground that could deform in real-time. We can totally do all of the things you describe and our systems can handle it, they are just not features required in making an RPG, so bigtime developers of RPGs don't need to add them to make the game sell well.

[Draignean]

It is possible to do some things with 3D models that you can't with pictures. Consider that a piece of armor can be dynamically streched and deformed to match a torso, can get added to animations intelligently, and can get different textures applied to scorch, slash, or enchant it, while a 2D armor set has to be re-drawn again and again with each possible version.

To I say, Nu uh.

Except for the stretching it is possible to add burns, dents, scrapes, happy friendly enchantment or whatever to a 2D item. Transparent overlays were used to do this for a while, it doesn't look as good most of the time, and it is way more awesome when they re-draw instead of adding vanilla burn overlay #212441 but it can be done, and has been done before. It just looks terrible 98% of the time.

The main thrill of 3D graphics (For me) is that it is possible with the right hideously expensive hardware to make them appear truly 3D,  not just the some vanilla 3D we've had for ages to varying degrees.

It is possible to do some things with 3D models that you can't with pictures. Consider that a piece of armor can be dynamically streched and deformed to match a torso, can get added to animations intelligently, and can get different textures applied to scorch, slash, or enchant it, while a 2D armor set has to be re-drawn again and again with each possible version.

meanwhile argonians gets foots and boobs. guess why?

consider the variations that @ could express in dwarf fortress. no way the current tech level could express that. or the variations in random creatures. the current technology simply can't do that, so random creature and demons, as a concept, are simply preclued to becoming part of any game that tries to go the 'high graphics' mode. as it is impossible to make a minecraft stile game with proper terrain and scenery.

but it is not simply cosmetic visualization that is affected: just look at how magical effect in oblivion all looks the same. it's not just the cosmetic of having each fire arrow, acid blob, frozen missles and such all shown as a diversely colored blob. it's the impossibility of having persistent wall of flames, of having acid pools running down hills and forming ponds on lower terrains, of having frozen walls of ices... diggable, even.

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview
 
This will get get easier when a developer decides to try something different and move away from the beauty-is-skin-deep philosophy. The current primary graphic style makes awesome stuff like real water a pain in the ass, when we get particle based graphics there will be diggable walls, fully destructive environments,  etc, etc...

(Loses self in a dream of games to come)

[jmancube]

I don't know, sometimes a beautiful game is amazing for me. Sometimes a game with great graphics can draw you in.  Don't get me wrong, I will always choose complexity and interesting game play mechanics over pretty graphics. Once the novelty of a pretty game wears out, the only thing that keeps me playing is if there is good game play accompanying it. But sometimes, dazzling views are nice too.

[Cecilff2]

There's an official trailer now on the main site.  You'll probably have trouble accessing it, the site crashed a few minutes after it was posted due to traffic.

Nord fighting a dragon, cities/ruins, other combat, a wolf strafing when a bow was drawn on it, kill animation played from first person perspective, as well as other things.

[Rose]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbmBYT8Dwf4

[Cheese]

That looks beautiful. Dragon fights look good too. The landscape looks quite interesting as well. This may well redeem Bethesda.
In before the huge wave of criticism.

[Silfurdreki]

Well, the landscape looks infinitely more stylish than the one in Oblivion at least. Also the magic effects look really nice and combat looks heavy and visceral, which looks good. This is assuming this is actually footage of gameplay, though. I mean, the dragon fight is obviously not gameplay footage, but the parts in between seem to be.

Is it just me or is that dragon-fighting guy woefully under dressed for the climate? I know Nords are supposed to be resistant to cold, but still, it looks awkward to me...

Also; weaksauce dragon, it needs to learn about momentum and just push the puny human over the cliff. 

[Cheese]

Yes, magic looks sexy. I think the dragon fights might end up being cinematics by the looks of it or a cinematic with button mashing.