Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

For many people, myself included, the level of immersion in a game is directly related to how realistic the graphics look. If the characters on my screen feel fake I won't have as much fun playing the game. I'll take Oblivion (agreed it's not as fun as Morrowind and clearly dumbed-down for the Xbox 360 crowd, but it's BEAUTIFUL) and KOTOR 1&2 over Kings Quest 3 and Zork any day.

As for performance issues and upgrading systems: get with the times. If you want to purchase and play new games, expect to get new hardware to run them. Fortunately SE5 is easy to mod, but I can already see the outrage when mods start coming out with beautiful, high-poly ship models that cripple the performance of the P2-300MHz 64MB RAM systems running in software mode that seem to be all the rage amongst the turn-based game grognards.

And to snip any possible counter-arguments about the gameplay in such mods probably sucking b/c the modders spent too much time on graphics: there is a HUGE wealth of easily available 3d starship MESHES for the more established sci-fi universes. A good 3d program (like 3DS Max) and a DirectX .x exporter plugin, and having quality ship models takes virtually no time at all.

I love Space Empires, I've been playing since a friend loaned me Space Empires II waaaay back in 8th or 9th grade, but I'm glad the series is finally being dragged into the modern era of gaming.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Like I've said already, it makes sense to hedge the ship models a bit to allow for the large ship battles that are a key component of the series. A large battle with ships of several thousand polys each would be unruly for even top-end systems. That said, most of the models in the game right now are quite nice even if they are poly-economical. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

On the UI side of things, David Gervais' work always seems to be hit/miss with people around here - but you'd really find that anywhere. The key here again is that this time the complete interface is moddable - so maybe some enterprising artist will put some effort into an alternative UI for those players that would like something else. (Although I think it might weigh in at 50ish Mbs!)

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Does SE5 support Dynamic LOD? That would be very helpful... ship models could start at 2000 polys for the small battles early in the game and when you zoom in, but when you zoom out in a large battle the game could switch to lower poly models, giving you the best of both worlds...

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I wouldn't get too hopeful about upping the poly counts, either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Most engines have a point where if you raise things too much performance starts to drop off all out of proportion to the actual appearence.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Well the Rome Total War is a case in point. That game has many thousands of troops and yet the graphics remain very good and gameplay is very good also. Obviously one not would expect a small independant outfit to meet RTWs standards. But amount of ships on screen meaning low standard of graphics ddoes not cut mustard with me. And there are many very old games like Frontier Elite, XCOM and Civilisation that were small games in terms of programming these days but I feel their graphics are still better than some of those shown on the screenshots page. Perhaps they will be far better when seen in the flesh I cant comment on that.

The UI IMO would look far better done in a metallic stylish hi-tech look rather than the rather uninspiring cartoony look it has.

I tend to prefer realistic graphics that pull me into the game. Im not a fan of cute or overly colourful cartoony graphics myself. Many of the ship graphics although admittedly quite fantastic still look very cartoony and 'unreal'. They need a bit of 'weight' and some rust/dirt. Has nobody here seen Star Wars?? Clean new spaceships went out with 2001 A Space Odyssey! What about some smoke effects that linger into the strategy map part from your tactical battles if your ships are damaged like GC2? What about some nice metallic finishes?

Perhaps some background nebula would help the sparseness of the space graphics as well.

And finally some of the grpahics look quite blocky and low res when close up - eg the info panels over the planets and ships. Theres no way jagged lines can be considered acceptable in this day and age!

Sorry to be so blunt but lets get real here. I'm not paying my good money for a game however good the gameplay is that looks bad. Lets face it there are millions of old games with fantastic gameplay that are resigned to the bargain bins or you can pick them up for a couple of quid - XCOM, Gunship 2000, Stealth Fighter, EF2000, HOMM, Shogun Total War, M1 Tank Platoon, Civilisation, Silent Hunter just to name a quick few!

Im one of the first people to express the importance of gameplay and gaming choice over snazzy graphics and repetitive linear missions etc. But that doesnt mean graphics are unimportant.

Nats

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Edit: cleared out by /me.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Personally, I prefer the iconic look, to the more "realistic" renderings.

The point as I see it is to know what the thing is, even just out of the corner of your eye so that you can make your strategic decisions, not to stare awestruck at various works of art until the turn deadline expires. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

If you think X-Com looks better than SE5 you haven't been looking close enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Rome can have many thousands of units on-screen because Rome cheats: there are actually at most 160 "units" on screen at a time. The thousands of little soliders don't have any actual bearing on the combat, so you don't have to worry about their position quite as much.

Still a very slick engine, though.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Well, I may work on just such a mod, to be ready when SE5 comes out if there's enough interest and if I don't feel too lazy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif
Well...rust/dirt would make no sense at all. After all, rust requires water and oxygen in order to oxidize the iron. Space has neither. Dirt is the same...there's no dirt in space. There's really no reason ships wouldn't be clean and shiny, except for battle damage, micrometeroids (though shields should stop them), accidents aboard ships that damage the hull, etc. Rusty space ships would be very unrealisitic!
Again, if it's realism you're going for, you wouldn't see nebulae from space unless you were really REALLY close to them, in interstellar terms. Oh, and there are some background nebulae in the system view.
Many people would like a game that is more original than most of the derivative games out there today, even if it meant dated graphics. Though I do agree with you, graphics are important. But I don't think gameplay should suffer due to them.

Oh, and not all of us who think graphics aren't as important as gameplay have crappy systems...my system can handle anything I throw at it, even the latest massively graphics intensive FPS games.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Unfortunately, as I have noticed, that game dosen't worry enough about their positions.

In multiplayer, me and my brother end up playing two different games as soon as the first shots are fired.
On one computer, the general dies from a catapult shot. On the other, he just got tossed on his butt and gets back up.
On one computer, the player's whole army routs, and on the other, it wipes out the enemy.

And the combat replay is a totally random third view.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Whoop, my mistake. Bethesda is offering Arena for a free download, not Daggerfall.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Ok, you all want to talk about fancy graphics vs game play, well lets look at some games that had those fancy graphics and where they are now compared to SEIV.

Armada I and II - um bargin bins at remote computer stores and garage sales around the world.

Odd I know there are more games out there that focused on graphics over game play, but I just cannot remember them to point them out. However I can point out that despite being six years old, SEIV albeit an obscure little game, is still KING OF THE HILL when it comes to true 4x games and game play.

In fact it is so much the king of the hill that NO Game developer to date has even tried to topple it. Oh sure you can mention Moo3, but we all know how that ended don't we?

Sure eye candy is very very important to any game, but as most of us know, its the game play that tells the life span of any game. SEIV, with its ugly graphics and dated looking UI, is still KOTH and even though SE V's graphics look ugly to some, the game play will tell the tale as to whether or not the game is going to be a success.

So stop the *****'en, and enjoy the fact that we have a new 4x game on the horizon. Either do that or go make your own game and see how easy the whole process is. I am sure non of us here will hold it against if you end up using dated graphics.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Well, that's your own decision to be dissappointed then.

That's good for you then, I guess. I'm not sure why innovation is necessary for computer games when it's not necessary for any other form of entertainment.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Telling you what system it's in is almost as useless as telling you nothing, unless you only happen to have a single planet colonized in each system.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

And look at the state of "other forms" of entertainment.

Inovation, as stated, is IMHO, the hallmark of great games. Disputing this fact just proves the old point about one opening ones mouth and removing all doubt as to ones intelligence. *shakes head in disbelief of statement*

Of course now if you were being facecious, than please continue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I suppose that now you're going to claim that each one of those people had equal amounts of input on every part of the game design.

You want to boost your forum cred, not make logical arguments.

Unless you happened to be on usenet around 1994, I highly doubt that you were the first one to come up with this now standard argument. It's not as though it's a new argument, since it's been used by people for more than a decade now.

Yet, if that list of features is still long enough, you are left with a good game.

I see, so you're actually just *****y that people want to make games that sell, rather than games that don't sell and lead to bankrupt companies.

50 if you move quickly. Freedom Force, on the other hand, offers perhaps 20 hours of play, yet I would not say that Freedom Force is a worse game than Baldur's Gate 2.

Somebody who thinks that would be an ignorant person with little grasp of economics.

Why don't you actually provide a list of games, rather than simply repeating this assertion.

It's nice to see that you're presenting your opinion as fact.

Are you going to claim that Oblivion is a worse game than either Morrowind or Daggerfall? Because that claim is patently absurd.

You should really like this game, since it uses controls and micromanagement much like RTS games in the early 90's.

Is the best of the series, despite what Civilization 2 fanboys would tell you.

Oh noes! A sequel isn't as good as the original. Whatever is the world coming to.

[quote]
Heroes of M&M 5,

Is it better than 4? Yep. Is it different than 3, and therefore automatically completely horrible in the minds of the fanboy? Yep.

You've yet to provide a rational argument for why these are somehow bad. Note that even were these games never made, they would have no effect on the existence of games that you claim to like playing. The games that you claim to like playing tend to be commercial failures.

Why don't you go back and read where you claimed that M&B was an innovative game, or would you rather we ignored that? I simply pointed out that except for the combat system, you're example of such a game is inferior to a product released almost 15 years ago.

The "crazy number of gameplay features", as you call it, are mostly useless unless the game is heavily modded to actually make them useful. As an example, every single direct fire, non-special damage type, weapon technology other than anti-proton beams and phased polaron beams could be completely removed from the game without changing the balance one bit. The others are strictly inferior, so there is no point in their existence.

Why are you claiming that games released in the last 15 years are oldies?

A point that is still completely unsupported by anything other than your opinion.

It's nice of you to miss the point yet again. It's also nice of you to admit that you haven't either of the games, because the gameplay advancements between Dune 2 and Rise of Legends are so blatantly obvious that only a fanboy would deny their existence.

I'm still waiting to hear how many games you play in a year.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

To be fair, no eveloper has tried to topple it because the potential market is so small that you can only make money in it as an independent.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I cannot argue you point about the market being small, but then again, its the small markets, or the nitch (sp) markets that make the games that last six years or more.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

@The first post:

I hated the ground combat in GC2, and thought it was the most glaring flaw in the game. It felt like sitting at a slot machine.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Now now, people seem to be getting a little testy and defensive with regards to their opinions. Please keep it cool! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

(Of course, not applicable to all posts, just some)

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I suppose that now you're going to claim that each one of those people had equal amounts of input on every part of the game design.

No, but whatever does that have to do with it? I was pointing out that these acknowledged great games used far more than one designer.

You want to boost your forum cred, not make logical arguments.

But how would I do that without making logical arguments?

It's not as though it's a new argument, since it's been used by people for more than a decade now.

Then perhaps you should consider if there is some truth in it.

Yet, if that list of features is still long enough, you are left with a good game.

And if it's even longer then you are left with an even better game.

I see, so you're actually just *****y that people want to make games that sell, rather than games that don't sell and lead to bankrupt companies.

What good does it do you or me if they make games that sell when it's all been done before and they don't manage to provide anything new except yet another graphics update? For all its remakes and updates, I can only play Tetris so much before getting awfully bored with it.

50 if you move quickly. Freedom Force, on the other hand, offers perhaps 20 hours of play, yet I would not say that Freedom Force is a worse game than Baldur's Gate 2.

Well of course, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. Let's say for a moment that you liked two games just as much. Would you then pick the one that take 4 hours to complete or the one that takes 10 hours? To me that choice is sort of obvious, but you seem to try disagree on principle with everything I say, so I'm sure you'll pick the 4 hour one.

Somebody who thinks that would be an ignorant person with little grasp of economics.

Or someone who compares the game market to others where you actually pay more for quality.

It's nice to see that you're presenting your opinion as fact.

You asked what I thought was wrong about Half-life 2's length, I told you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you going to claim that Oblivion is a worse game than either Morrowind or Daggerfall? Because that claim is patently absurd.

It's worse than both of them. And of course you would think it absurd, anything else and you'd be surprising me.

You should really like this game, since it uses controls and micromanagement much like RTS games in the early 90's.

No I shouldn't. It provides just about *no* improvements from AoE2, and it cuts out many gameplay features and units. In short, a 'lite' version of AoE2 with shiny graphics and water effects they had one guy working on for an entire year. It's laughable.

Is the best of the series, despite what Civilization 2 fanboys would tell you.

Yeah, I'm glad we're not trying to present our opinions as facts here. I'm also glad we're not trying to diminish the opinions of anyone who might not be agreeing with you.

Oh noes! A sequel isn't as good as the original. Whatever is the world coming to.

You're kidding? You actually agree with me that those games were inferior to the first games? Wow!

Is it better than 4? Yep. Is it different than 3, and therefore automatically completely horrible in the minds of the fanboy? Yep.

Better than 4? Nah, not really. Better than 3? No chance. It's really a remake of HoM&M3 with a few differences and additions to the combat system, of course with "omg l00k we kan have phat graphixx 2!!". At least H4 tried something different. The whole style of H5 is just annoying to me. Some games really don't need 3D graphics, that was one of them. Besides, it doesn't have the charm of the first three, as I see it.

The games that you claim to like playing tend to be commercial failures.

Some, but not all. It's hardly a big secret that most players just prefer straight-forward action games, though.

Why don't you go back and read where you claimed that M&B was an innovative game, or would you rather we ignored that?

There's nothing to ignore, as I never said it.

I simply pointed out that except for the combat system, you're example of such a game is inferior to a product released almost 15 years ago.

Yah, the 'adventure' part of the game isn't exactly advanced. But the game isn't done yet either, though.

The "crazy number of gameplay features", as you call it, are mostly useless unless the game is heavily modded to actually make them useful.

We might be thinking of different 'features'. I'm not talking about the weapons, but rather things such as design tester, stellar manipulation, detailed design editor, detailed spying assignments, ship experience, etc. In other words, smaller details. It's these that to me make SE stand over comparable games like MoO2, for instance, a game which feature far greater atmosphere and feeling, but contains not half of the possibilities that exist in SEIV.

Why are you claiming that games released in the last 15 years are oldies?

You're saying they aren't? I bought a Lucas Arts collection pack not long ago, and it was actually called "Lucas Arts Oldies Collection". Regardless of that, they are the games I grew up with, and as such they are what I consider oldies.

A point that is still completely unsupported by anything other than your opinion.

Well, as you already mentioned, I'm not the only one with that opinion. Mostly, though, I just like playing good games, and seeing that I still play tons of games from the 90's but finish off new games after only a few hours, I mostly just figure there's something wrong.

It's nice of you to miss the point yet again. It's also nice of you to admit that you haven't either of the games,

Actually, I didn't miss the point. The reason I *avoided* the point was because I haven't played the later game, and as such can't comment on it. Dune 2, obviously, is one of my favorites through all times. Biggest issue I have with Dune2 is just the little advanced interface that makes it tedious to play.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

@ the org post.

Your point is well posted, some of the images do not look all that good. The fact that you posted your thoughts shows that you have balls and I am sure there are more people than you realize who more likely than not will agree with your observations.

Its observations like yours that get people to make suggestions to improve things. Historically Aaron has listened to them with a very open ear. Unfortunetly now that he is an employee of SFI, the choice to listen openly might not always be available.

If you dislike the look of the game after you have bought it, be forward, but polite, and email Aaron suggestions for improvements. I know that that is what most of use are going to do with the things that we find we dislike.

But in all fairness, making a game like this on a shoe string budge does have its faults, and the fact that we are even getting a new game given these budget constraints is a God send. So please consider keeping that in mind when you email Aaron and if you're willing, at least offer him some thanks for what he has given us.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Well, since

You make popular arguments. The "Graphics ruins the gameplay" myth is very popular amongst a particular set of strategy game fanboys.

Perhaps you should realize that people were making exactly the same arguments about the games from the 90's that you consider to be so marvelous.

Wrong. This is where you don't understand a basic tenent of design. Less is more. Adding in extra features just for the sake of adding extra features adds nothing to the overall experience, and can actually detract from the experience, because those features either aren't worth using, or actually make the rest of the game harder or more tedious to play.

It does me the good of providing me with a new game to play, that likely has at least something of a new take on the genre. Even if it's completely derivative, which few games are, it still provides something to do once you've finished the other games in the genre.

Of course I'd pick the 4 hour one. I received the same amount of enjoyment out of the two titles per your statement, yet the 4 hour game took less of my time, and leaves me able to spend more time either playing other games, or doing something completely different.

Would you care to point out where in the book or movie industries where people pay more money for beter quality? Oh that's right, you can't, because nobody does.

You sound like a strategy gamer from the early 90's complaining about adventure games because you only get a dozen of hours out of them at most.

If you think that it's worse than both, then you must have specific points to outline why it is worse.

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3. It's amazing how the fanboys act as though game developers pissed in their cornflakes when they release a sequel to a game that doesn't exactly meet their impossible to meet demands.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2. Note that complaints about the graphics engine are indicative of you not having a good enough computer to run the game, and as such are a problem with _you_, not a problem with the game.

Then what's the problem. You continue to act as though it's immoral to make a game that's designed to make money. You act as though the mere presence of HOMM5 means that HOMM3 no longer exists, which is asinine. You also act as though good graphics are a negative factor, which is only true if you don't have the economic resources to purchase a powerful enough computer to run the game. If that's the case, then I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you.

"Developers of games like Space Empires and Mount&Blade, low-budget, 1-2 man projects, manage to create far more entertaining and featureful games than uncountable high-budget games."

I simply pointed out that this statement is laughably incorrect. Mount & Blade has fewer features than Pirates!.

Are they charging money for the game? Then it's perfectly acceptable to consider the current state as a completed game.

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

So, basically, what your actual argument is really "The games of today don't match up with my memory of the games that I first played in my youth." That's called seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses.

You really don't want to be associated with the people that hold that opinion. They tend to inhabit places like the RPGCodex.

Yes, the problem is that you are expecting the modern equivalents of the adventure game to be something other than what they are.

But, I thought that older games had better gameplay. Yet here you are now claiming that Dune 2 has interface problems. It seems that you can't even decide what side of the issue you actually stand on.

Oh! I've got a better one for you. You must think that the combat control system for swordfights in Defender of the Crown is amazing, since it's a really old game!

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

MODERATOR MOD

You know, its just that kind of negativity that prompts people to request that threads be locked. So lets please keep it civil and try and avoid trash talking or belittling sarcasim.

Irany is ok, but out right rudness just never gets us any where.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2.

This is entirely, absolutely, your opinion. Please stop deriding others for posting their opinions "as facts" when you do exactly the same, repeatedly. It does not strengthen your arguments.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

never really noticed the non-optimal wording, just what was meant by the sentence, one guy worked on water affects for a year. not surprising really, given modeling water in 3d is not simple or straight forward.

Was going say more, but I see no point, other than what interested me in this game had little to do with graphics.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Here's an idea; how about we just drop the topic?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

And so what? What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer. Did they not have enough designers to make sure that they got everything they wanted into their game? There's a small, extremely vocal group of gamers who are convinced that somehow, there would be better games if only people didn't spend money on graphics. This assertion is laughable, since game design is an artistic process. If you don't have a good designer, then no amount of money will create a good game.

Oh? It's nothing more than my opinion that Civ 3 and 4 are better because they allow you to automate away tedious micromanagement. If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments. Note that neither you, nor anyone else has presented a _single_ reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is. And yet, when I present an actual argument, you completely ignore it.

Here's some more actual arguments so that you can continue to concede defeat by ignoring them. Civ 1 was a decent game, but it was made horribly tedious by the constant need to micromanage your pioneers. I assume that Civ 2 was the same, unless it actually had some way to not force you to micromanage them. Civ 3 and 4 fixed this major issue by freeing you from having to deal with the extraordinarily tedious worker shuffle. Now, there's absolutely no possible way to claim that the ability to turn on automated workers makes the game worse, since if you actually are one of those masochists who enjoy rote micromanagement you can simply not turn it on.

I'm sure that somebody else will come back with complaints that Civ 4 doesn't allow you to use infinite city spam, or some other tactic that was present in Civ2, making it the worst game in the series yet. To that I say: If you really want that to be the best way to win the game, then go mod it. I'm sure there's at least a couple of hundred people worldwide who would like to play your mod.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

If you don't like the thread, then I have a simpler solution for you. You can stop reading it. Or you can do anything else besides trying to protect the losing side by suggesting that people leave the topic alone.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I think what some of the posters are trying to say that they don't require sophisticated graphics to enjoy a game as long as the gameplay is fun/good. If the gameplay is good, then nice graphics can only make it better. Although sometimes it might be frustrating if a game with both strong gameplay/graphics is made slightly less playable because the graphics are a little too intensive, making the game run slower etc. In most cases these days, you can get by reducing some of those in-game settings.

I'm not sure how we got off-track debating the merits of worker automation in the Civ series, but in general I think most would agree that Civ3/Civ4 would be more tolerable than the earlier entries. Of course, it is also possible that a feature that was lost in one of the earlier games sours their experience in face of other new options.

Obviously the graphics in SE:V in comparison to other games are somewhat lacking, but there's likely a couple of reasons. First, the money issue - better graphics generally means more time, which equals more money. Second, in order to keep large fleet battles workable, some "caps" were kept in mind when making the 3d models so that the game wouldn't come to a near standstill for on most people's computers.

Graeme, you don't need to be so edgy. I think merely Renegade13 was suggesting that no one was changing their position, so the thread was becoming a continuous re-hash of the earlier postings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Where did I say I didn't like the thread? The debate about SE5 was interesting, this continuous debate back and forth, over and over without anything being accomplished is what's annoying. I'm not about to stop reading a thread just because some people don't know when to stop arguing about their own pet peeves.

Also...how did my previous statment, in any way, "protect the losing side"?? I have no idea...and the lack of activity on this topic until you dragged it up after a week of dormancy suggests that others believe this topic was about ready to die anyway. If I was feeling particularly uncharitable, I'd ask you what crawled up your *** today and died...after all, this hostility had to have come from somewhere...

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Graeme Dice said:
If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

Where did I say this? How does the following lead to graphics being an insidious cancer?

"Some [companies] can devote enough [programming man-hours] to both parts, some (eg: most console developers) devote too much to graphics and not enough to gameplay, and some probably devote too much to gameplay and not enough to graphics."

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments.

Actually, you are the one that was doing that (in a couple of posts on different arguments), and I was merely pointing out that it can go both ways. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the worker automation is a good feature to have (though I do think the worker AI tends to make some poor choices sometimes), but it is still opinion either way... The issue arises when one presents numerous opinions in his arguments, then decries the same exact method taken by others.

...reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is.

Maybe this is because I have said absolutely nothing of the sort? Where have I asserted such a claim? Why would I try to support a claim I do not believe to be true, and have never even hinted at?

Of course, even if you love all of the civ games, you would still technically have to consider one of them the worst of the series. Not worst because you think it is bad, but simply by virtue of not liking it quite as much as the others. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

Really? Most of my turns around 40 are still in the 5-10 minute range. Even if I am at war, it rarely takes upwards of 20.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Heh, my PBW turns even in a massive galaxy with lots of players around turn 150 only takes me about 20 minutes. Far from unplayable indeed!

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Indeed.

Processing the massive battles involving hundreds of ships, thousands of fighters and tens of thousands of missiles does take multiple hours on an old 800Mhz PC in the corner.

But actually playing the turn dosen't take much time. Waiting for people to get home from work, wake up, or whatever to play their turn takes the most time.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

You make popular arguments. The "Graphics ruins the gameplay" myth is very popular amongst a particular set of strategy game fanboys.

I see. And what kind of fanboy were you again? Since everyone else is one, I mean.

Perhaps you should realize that people were making exactly the same arguments about the games from the 90's that you consider to be so marvelous.

I wasn't around back then, so I suppose I should just take your word for that...or not.

Wrong. This is where you don't understand a basic tenent of design. Less is more. Adding in extra features just for the sake of adding extra features adds nothing to the overall experience, and can actually detract from the experience, because those features either aren't worth using, or actually make the rest of the game harder or more tedious to play.

Less is more is just a silly catchphrase. You're also automatically assuming that games made have an 'optimal number of features' already. For you that may very well be, for me that's as far from the truth as can be. Perhaps I'm just more demanding than you. The rest of your argument also assumes that it's a badly implemented feature so as to fit your opinion about the so called 'less is more'.

It does me the good of providing me with a new game to play, that likely has at least something of a new take on the genre. Even if it's completely derivative, which few games are, it still provides something to do once you've finished the other games in the genre.

True, it does. To me, though, those games stop being much fun because of the incredible lack of innovation, new features and new approaches to the genre. I.e. something that is special for that game. In other words, it's *not* something I wanna play. Again, taste and opinions.

Of course I'd pick the 4 hour one. I received the same amount of enjoyment out of the two titles per your statement, yet the 4 hour game took less of my time, and leaves me able to spend more time either playing other games, or doing something completely different.

I don't see playing games as a chore. If I have just as much fun when I play that 10 hour game as when I play the 4 hour one( assuming that I'm actually enjoying the games), then obviously I'd like to have fun for as long as possible and would go with the 10 hour game.
I've read it's popular these days to discover how to make sex last as long as possible, too.

Would you care to point out where in the book or movie industries where people pay more money for beter quality? Oh that's right, you can't, because nobody does.

I think the word you're looking for is 'entertainment industry', as there's plenty of non-entertainment books, for instance, which you have to pay more for, even if the quality in those, too, is subjective.

If you think that it's worse than both, then you must have specific points to outline why it is worse.

Why, of course I do. I'm not gonna list them, however, as it would 1) Take more time than I'm willing to spend in this thread, and 2) Wouldn't make a difference at any rate, except giving us yet another topic to discuss and not agree on.

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

What's *really* laughable is how you managed to somehow land at that conclusion because I left out a comma in my sentence.

It's amazing how the fanboys act as though game developers pissed in their cornflakes when they release a sequel to a game that doesn't exactly meet their impossible to meet demands.

Yah, guess it was too hard for the developers to stop concentrating on the graphics long enough to figure out that the "fanboys", for some crazy reason, actually wanted gameplay improvements.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2.

That statement is also called an 'opinion', although "cleverly" disguised as both a "fact" and as an insult to anyone who might not share your opinion. And I wasn't the one that talked about Civ2.

Then what's the problem. You continue to act as though it's immoral to make a game that's designed to make money.

Actually, I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about, is that I'm not getting the games that I want; or rather, I'm not getting the games *as I want them*. There's alot of improvements I would have liked to see regarding Heroes 3 or even 4. Yet, they aren't coming. Sucks to be me.

You also act as though good graphics are a negative factor, which is only true if you don't have the economic resources to purchase a powerful enough computer to run the game.

My computer runs all games satisfactory, that's not the problem. And don't get me wrong, I don't complain about good graphics in other ways than that I believe it takes alot of attention away from the actual gameplay, which I consider a bad thing.

Anyway, 'state of the art' graphics doesn't make the gameplay good, and it doesn't make the atmosphere/feeling of the game good. Graphics plays a major factor, but not in the sense of 'technical advancement' of the graphics, but rather how it's used, the color palette, etc.

Games like Baldur's Gate 2, for instance, manage to combine all the factors: excellent gameplay( for those that like that type), pretty 2D graphics, superb soundtrack and sound effects, etc. While Neverwinter Night's graphics engine is far more advanced than BG2's, it doesn't, in my opinion, get anywhere near as practical and suitable to that game type, nor does it look half as nice as the 2D engine. It's mostly just sluggish, slow, unresponsive and annoying.

That's exactly how I judge Heroes 1-4's graphics engines vs Heroes 5's, too. They didn't make it 3D because the game needed or would be better with it, they did it because it's "in".

I simply pointed out that this statement is laughably incorrect. Mount & Blade has fewer features than Pirates!.

Pirates has tons more features than alot of new games, and old ones for that matter. Mount & Blade was actually more directed on the "entertaining" part of sentence you quoted me on, though, while SEV is unequalled, as far as I know, when it comes to features in that type of game.

Are they charging money for the game? Then it's perfectly acceptable to consider the current state as a completed game.

That's a childish conclusion. If they say it isn't done, then it isn't. It's as simple as that. Especially when it still says "beta", with big letters. They're letting us 'pre-order' the game, while also giving us the opportunity to beta test it.

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

Not true for my games, at least. What's more, though, SEIV not only offers these features as *options*, i.e. you don't have to use them, but even offers the ability to have the computer take control of any part of the game you don't want to manage. It's an excellent approach, as I see it.

And if it was up to me the game would have even more features, where you want it simpler, judging by your statements. Which shows our completely different takings on games in general, I suppose.

So, basically, what your actual argument is really "The games of today don't match up with my memory of the games that I first played in my youth."

That's a common enough assumption, but I think it's incorrect. I mean, yeah, my memory of the games probably has its influence on the whole thing; but I still play old games, many times a week, and while some of the magic is gone I still think they're great fun to play.

You really don't want to be associated with the people that hold that opinion. They tend to inhabit places like the RPGCodex.

Never been there much. On the 'people' note, though, you seem to be a great fan of lumping them into stereotypes and categories.

Yes, the problem is that you are expecting the modern equivalents of the adventure game to be something other than what they are.

I'm inclined to agree, but the game market has changed alot too, over the last years. It's like developers are now trying to make games that appeal to everyone at the same time, where before developers targeted a more specific audience with their games, which meant deciding which features to include, and making your fans happy, alot easier.

But, I thought that older games had better gameplay. Yet here you are now claiming that Dune 2 has interface problems. It seems that you can't even decide what side of the issue you actually stand on.

I don't have a problem with admitting faults of the games, nor does admitting such in any way somehow put me 'on the other side of the issue'. If anything, the games I like the most are usually the ones I critize the hardest, especially when the sequels doesn't turn out how I wanted them.

You must think that the combat control system for swordfights in Defender of the Crown is amazing, since it's a really old game!

Ah, true, controls have come a long way indeed. Don't we all just love the wasd + mouse style of the 90's?

What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer.

Who said it would go to another designer? What about simply not using that money at all, which would mean less time-pressure as there would be less money to regain? Which again would mean there could be additional time for the programmers to A) Implement features they didn't have time for otherwise, or B) Get rid of some of that laughable amount of bugs that games are released with today, since they're all rushed out. Or they could, for example, hire another programmer to do modding tools for the game. There's always something to do, and manpower and time is always at least part of the problem. Money can buy both.

Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.

True, but isn't that the whole point of discussing? I mean, how many times have you seen one side somehow 'convert' the other in a discussion? We're just doing it to waste time. Although, since the thread is actually called 'SE5 screenshots ugly??', I suppose we might be at the wrong location.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

There's always something to do, and manpower and time is always at least part of the problem. Money can buy both.

Up to a point, then it starts to harm productivity... Look for info on the mythical man-month. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

The point is that the total fun of that 10 hour game is spread out over more time.
Thus it either has a lower intensity of fun; it has 6 hours of boring mixed in.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Up to a point, then it starts to harm productivity

I'm very aware that assigning more developers on a project can have the opposite effect than desired, unless you have a really well organized project that can actually support it. Obviously, the completely unplanned "Oh, we're running late, let's throw in 10 more programmers!" idea isn't gonna do much good.

That's where the 'time' part comes in. The more money you have, the less you need to rush the game to avoid getting broke. Where you might not have a good enough organized project to support more than a couple of programmers, time is key.

Having, for instance, alot of artists hired, means you have alot more expenses, thus need to rush the game out sooner to make up for those expenses, unless you're one of those people that have unlimited amount of cash and can delay a game as long as they want. I believe they live in a fantasy world, however.

The point is that the total fun of that 10 hour game is spread out over more time.
Thus it either has a lower intensity of fun; it has 6 hours of boring mixed in.

I didn't talk about 'total fun', though. If you reread what I said, you'd notice the "If I have just as much fun when I play that 10 hour game as when I play the 4 hour one" part, indicating that, while playing the 10 hour game I have e.g. 8 points of fun 'each moment' on a 0-10 scala, while on the 4 hour one I also have 8 points of fun, but those 'moments' are far fewer. Put in a very silly way, since talking about 'fun' in such a way isn't really entirely fitting.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

There is no unless, though. Even the most well-organized project will hit the curve. It may be at a higher point than an unorganized project, but it will happen.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I'm just pointing out the way that many others read it, Raapys.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Okay, if we're gonna nit-pick then let me rephrase "unless you have a really well organized project that can actually support it." to "unless you have a well organized project that can actually support *more*". And, as I mentioned, time is just about always the biggest problem at any rate, and money can buy that too.

So I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing that part.

I'm just pointing out the way that many others read it, Raapys.

Fair enough, glad we could clarify it then.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

You want an example of a game focusing on graphics over gameplay? Fine. Call of Duty 2. This game is in fact cut gameplay options from its predecessor. They claimed to have created a new game engine for the game, but that was a load of crap. In reality what they did was port the Quake 2 engine over to XBox 360 and then port it back to PC. They did add a grenade button so you could throw a nade without changing weapons, but they removed so much more. They removed portable machine guns and vehicles. Hell, they even removed the weapon mode select key. They reduced the size of all of the maps except for the smallest ones. They removed the sprint option. Who needs it when you spawn on top of eachother anyway? But the game has better graphics. I am really angry that I wasted 50$ on the game. I still play CoD:UO way more than I play CoD2.

The problem with today's gaming market is that games are designed to look really pretty in screenshots, gameplay be damned. Then the screaming hordes all rush the stores on midnight of the release date an buy every copy available. By the time everyone realizes that they bought crap it is too late. The company has made its money and there is no real need to maintain long term sales. And since a great deal of people are lemmings and dont care about good gameplay there is still a trickle of sales that is just gravy for the developers.

Another example of cutting content exists in The Dawn of War expansion, Winter Assault. However, these cuts weren't even made to allow for graphic enhancements. They were just made so that the game would be easier for the hordes of stupid game players who don't want to be bothered to acutally play a game. I am not going to post an exhaustive list, but an example would be the Space Marine Predator tank, which started with just an autocannon and heavy bolter sponsons and could be upgraded to all lascannons, now it just starts with all lascannons.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I've been in the software business long enough to remember reading that book not long after it first came out. Coincidentally, I had occasion to quote it to my current boss about two weeks ago. Amazing what three decades of "progress" won't accomplish. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif