Printable View
So if graphics make a good game, then why is Minecraft doing so well? Maybe its not the graphics. Hint. Hint. The main people who say graphics = good game are Halo, CoD, etc players. Why do you think they rereleased Halo 1 again, but with better graphics?
What? Alan Wake? That's about the only thing even remotely close. Very few games aer developed for close to a decade, and even fewer actually have advanced engines. Alan Wake is one of the very, very few exceptions. The crucial difference, however, is that Alan Wake's engine only became so advanced a few years before release (about 2005) and was done by the very people who laid down the foundations for all current-gen graphics engines.. A game like Alan Wake can change its engine many times with relatively few problems. A game like StarCraft, however, needs a constant engine for the sake of the almost infinite amount of iteration they go through.Quote:
Games with longer development times and less funding have had better graphics
Either way, its the exception to the rule.
It's all the same. I was using StarEdit as an umbrella term for SCBW tools. My point is that, you say that no self respecting person would use such out-dated tools, yet you use one of the most outdated. Hypocritical.Quote:
here did you see me use StarEdit?
Anniversary edition, optimized to run on the Xbox 360.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotcan
They didn't do a very good job. :(
Graphics do not make a game, but they should not be ignored. SCII ignored and eschewed quality graphics when they had ample time and funding to make them, use a quality engine, and still make it compatible (or more compatible than their current engine, even) with older systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotcan
So you cut out part of my post and responded to the one that didn't address your actual claim. Good job! Maybe I should start doing that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Would still like an example of when a game in development as long as StarCraft II has had great graphics.
Just off the top of my head: Duke Nukem Forever had way better graphics than SCII, and took more than twice the developmental time (15 years to SCII's 7). I can't speak for the gameplay of the game (other than, it sucks), but if you'd rather an all-around better-quality game that took longer, consider Team Fortress 2's 9-year developmental cycle*, or L.A. Noire's 7 (which matches SCII's time in the "studio" and still vastly surpasses it elsewhere). Fuck, even that 360 launch title Prey was better-looking than SCII, and that was released in 2006 (after 11 years). I almost feel like talking about Too Human but that game played worse than Dante's fucking Inferno.
*at this point I've started looking shit up
I would really have preferred to just skip to here instead of being smartasses to one another (which I'm as guilty of as you are), so maybe in the future you can just tell me what you want me to respond to rather than trying to get me to post even less intelligently than I do already, and we'll have a better time. You hinted at it with Alan Wake but I was evidently still at a loss, else I would have just responded with this post earlier.
1) None of those games had true development cycles of that length. They were rebooted NUMEROUS times with almost nothing from the previous incarnations used. You would know that if you had researched instead of Google listed. Since this is about graphics, the point is even more clear. These games received their graphics engine updates a year or two before release (i.e. Prey, I followed its development.) Besides, Duke Nukem Forever was universally panned for its out-dated graphics while StarCraft II was almost universally praised for its art design (by critics).
2) Notice that you named almost all FPS. FPS naturally have better graphics because they arent as demanding. Comparing the two is like comparing tiny-space shooters like F.E.A.R. or Gears Of War to Arma II. I remember when WarCraft III came out I was surprised that my old POS computer couldn't played it despite being able to play Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena past 60 FPS. Likewise, I had an old 7800GS computer that could play all of the games you mentioned max with no problems, yet stuttered like fucking crazy in StarCraft II. Not because StarCraft II is unoptimized, but because YOU CANNOT COMPARAE FPS TO RTS.
3) Prey, Duke Nukem Forever, Too Human, Team Fortress 2 all used premade engines, knocking years and years off their development cycle. Horrible examples. The first three existed only as basic outlines for most of the development process then, got rebooted and quickly pushed out in a couple of years with premade engines. Plus, Too Human played like shit.
4) Again, StarCraft 2 takes an iterative process. Don't feel like rehashing this.
5) If StarCraft II had gone the Dawn of War II route (OMFG! TEH GRAPHICS!) it would've failed. I don't know if you were here in the beginning but people used to bitch that there was too much visual information in StarCraft 2 for competitive play. If you had been the lead designer, StarCraft II would have been the bust of the century.
6) Blizzard tries to reach as large an audience as possible. This is good for eSports. Having it your way, the audience probably would've been cut down considerably.
Basically, you have no argument; just emotional outbursts. Regardless of how you feel about the graphics, as you'v shown yourself, examples of games with long development cycles that have graphics that stand up are the exception, not the rule. In fact, I can count the number of them on one hand with several fingers to spare.
good grief
To say that all my examples are invalidated because they did not have "TRVE DEVELOPMENT CYCLES" is retarded. SCII didn't have a true developmental cycle of seven years, either. Most of your so-called argument can be applied to StarCraft II; I don't even have to respond to most of your post because I could just edit half of the nouns and it'd be applicable to the game you're supporting.
Dawn of War II didn't have stellar graphics. Don't know where you saw that. Warhammer 40k is niche in nature, which is why I didn't even bring it up. For all your talk of not being able to compare RTS titles to any other titles, you ignore that Dawn of War II wasn't even a real-time strategy, and that you can use the several fingers you still have to count the other RTS titles released in the past decade that weren't by Blizzard. Armies of Exigo? Okay. Command & Conquer? Sure. Anything else? Nope.
StarCraft II uses a number of premade graphics components (Havok physics, for example, which is also why the physics are horrid). Invalidating my arguments because some use premade engines is bullshit because StarCraft II uses tonnes of premade stuff - hell, half of its gameplay is just ported from the original StarCraft, a good amount of the rest is ported from WarCraft III, and whatever's left was probably ported from elsewhere. The only things StarCraft II didn't have premade were its graphics engine and its horrible plot, neither of which leave me thinking, 'oh yeah that took a while'.
StarCraft II isn't actually optimised, believe it or not. Its optimisation is pretty thin and that's why most computers can run way more demanding games with better framerates. This also means the audience that can play StarCraft II without performance issues is very limited - cutting into both eSports and sales. Many eSports players continue to play the predecessor; the only reason organisations like KeSPA still run with SCII is because of flash and logo - the same reason critics gave the game high scores and the same reason so many people bought it and maintain that they enjoy playing it.
I don't think you understand the nature of StarCraft II, or the gaming industry. It used to be simple; make a good game and advertise it well. Now it's just the "advertise it well" part. Eccentrics don't make a good game, and that's all that SCII has - it doesn't even have moderate graphics to boot. Most indie titles released last year look better than this. Maybe you just need a reality check; StarCraft II is a bad title, with a piss-poor storyline, horrible attention to lore, disgusting worldbuilding, a low multiplayer skill ceiling, and boring, bland, bad graphics. This discussion is much like reason and science versus religion and blind faith; one is obviously true (in this case, reason and science), and the other is only believable to complete idiots and wishful thinkers.
Anyone else who says otherwise is simply wrong.
Pot calling the kettle black anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pr0ngo
If you want to state x vs. y engine, then that's a fact. If you want to go into semantics such as multiplayer skill, storylines and whatever else, you're getting into the realm of opinion. Heck, just looking at Wikipedia/Metacritic scores, and you'll see how different many opinions are to yours.
And of course, another difference is that I don't call people "idiots" for happening to have different opinions.
1) I clarified in my post, wtf. SC2 DID NOT switch developers and publishers multiple times like the others, so no its not a good example. The games you mentioned took so long because they went into development hell numerous times, not because the creators took their time with them. Regardless of how you feel about SC2, the developers DID, in fact, take their time.Quote:
To say that all my examples are invalidated because they did not have "TRVE DEVELOPMENT CYCLES" is retarded.
2) Not talking about the quality of graphics, derp, but the focus on eye candy versus clean reading. You clearly aren't a competitive player, of course, I already knew that from your ranking.
3) Havoks engine is nothing like an entirely prebuilt engine. Derp.
Oooooh, you mean that thing we're ACTUALLY talking about? Sigh.Quote:
The only things StarCraft II didn't have premade were its graphics engine
4) Its gotten progressively better since release but that's not the point. RTS are INHERENTLY more demanding and, therefore, cannot have the visuals an FPS can. Call of Duty is poorly optimized (one of the most in the FPS genre because of its yearly installments and old engine without starting from scratch) yet you can max it on a computer that can barely play SC2 (because its an RTS, not optimization). Unless you want to argue that SCBW, WC3, and every other RTS in existence is several times more unoptimized than the worst optimized FPSes then you are just plain wrong.
What a stupid ass exaggerated statement, lol. Most indie games have horrible graphics. If you're talking about art then that's all opinion. If you're talking about technicals, then you're just again talking out of your ass. Most indie games' graphics are 2D or shit like Minecraft. That's not even up for debate. SC2 had great RTS graphics back in 2007 when it was revealed, as evidenced by the eyegasm spam back then, that's a fact.Quote:
Most indie titles released last year look better than this.
This is why I didn't want to respond. Trying to reason with you is like banging your head against the wall because you don't even know how to be witty or entertaining. No one on this forum agrees with you, the hundreds of critics don't agree with you, and the millions of players still playing don't agree with you. The only people that I know that agree with you are the long lost polish SCL trolls.
Consider this conversation done.
I would like to point out that the graphics in Minecraft are not exactly "shit". They are stylized. The artists available to Mojang certainly could have ramped the graphics up to HD had they desired. They chose not to, even though they had the resources and plenty of time to do so. Same thing with the SC2 graphics: not crap, stylized.
This is ignoring the fact that graphics are complementary to a game, but not nessicarily crucial (in most scenarios, anyways). The game needs to be fun, graphics are secondary to that point. Obviously some games require graphics in some realistic fashion for gameplay purposes, like simulators.
StarCraft's graphics don't matter too much: it just helps the unfamiliar figure out what's what. BW had 2D graphics that makes it very easy to distinguish what's what on the battlefield, and were pretty good for it's time: but stylized.
Just wanted to emphasize that. Most of the rest of the points you made were about accurate, though.
That's took a whole lotta words to say nothing.
Indeed. But I've not much to do right now, anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pr0nogo
I believe we have an internet troll here, there are soo many things wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin. But just to touch on a few things...
I think you may be confusing graphics with aesthetics. SC2's graphics aren't the greatest, but it's aesthetics are absolutely amazing. Blizzard has never been a company to focus on their engine having the most amazing tech. What they have always done is focused on the art style. Everything works so well together in SC2, it's beautifully crafted to be instantly recognizable for game-play purposes. Everything about the unit model, textures, animations and effects help push the core concept of the unit.
As a 3D artist working in the gaming industry I have a lot of respect and admiration for their work. It's all very well designed. I can't speak for the code side of things as I only dabble in shader writing. But from talking with my co-workers it seems that a lot of games aren't very optimized no matter where you go. There's a reason why Gama sutra posts articles full of game industry slang about the crazy shit that goes on. It's because it happens everywhere. Unless you have a company full of wizards like valve does then I'll bet at least some of the game's code is a mess. Because sometimes there just isn't an elegant solution. That's the picture I get from my programmer buddies anyway... But I could be wrong.
Also...
The gaming industry has not changed as much as you think it has. It's not about advertising a game at all, a lot of people believe that is the case, which is why we see so many studios closing down. The age old "make a good game" is just as true today as it's ever been.
Ya, it's true, most games and programs aren't optimized. It's really very difficult to get it perfectly optimized, but then you have to port it to something, which makes it not so optimized anymore. I know this because I do program, and I also have played with some many editors, I've lost count. There are more reasons for updates than just new features and bug fixes.
Also Valve uses the source engine for all of their games, but how they are able to make the game so smooth and use so little amount of network when playing online is beyond me. Seriously, I've been downloading something that uses up 'all' my bandwidth, and still able to play Dota 2 with no lag. I swear Valve has a group of people with magic fingers.
Yes, the make a good game and listen to your community is still around. It gets harder has the company gets bigger. This is one of the reasons why Mojang is a small company. Notch didn't want a big group of guys because then they would never be able to listen to what the community wants. This also feeds into making a good game. This is why EA is still around, they make good quality games, but do try to drain every last dollar from your account.
Reading...posts....
Warning you now peeps.. it might be a good time to get out of the pool...
EDIT: Wall of text aborted. There's just no nice way to go about saying the points so I'll put it simply as a note to those involved.
@Pr0nogo:
You have no solid argument whatsoever. You simply say "My opinion is that it sucks" and really, that's the only platform you have...and need. I truly and honestly disagree with you and your very short-sighted and self-defeating argument. There are so many times you try to reference industry backing, when everything you say is so devoid of industry knowledge. I would recommend you just take a step back of trying to support your opinion and simply say "It's my opinion". If you do that, you will have a solid backbone to go from. You don't need to make up other factions within your mind to support you. It quickly decimates any credibility that your opinion has.@Tychus:
Oh, and btw, here's an example of the top 10 indie titles of 2011 which have "better graphics" than sc2: http://indiegames.com/2011/12/top_10...s_of_2011.html
Man, you are being too aggressive to try and change opinions. I know it's easy to try and view it as a debate.. but it's like walking up and saying "I like apples more", his reply, "Well, I like oranges more!" How will it end? In short, you got caught in the same trap again...@Zealotpowerade:
You also said some incredibly stupid things that I suspect you regret in hindsight when responding to him. I forgive you for suggesting that development cycles/hell are directly related to the graphical quality of the game in the end. ^_^ I know what you were TRYING to say, and the point you were TRYING to make is a correct one... but man it was worded poorly and the message prompted a facepalm. ^_^
Thanks for such a clear statement about the graphics and WHY they were so solid in SC2, I was going to attempt to argue that point, but you did it so beautifully that you saved these gents from a wall of text. For that, I thank you.@Cotcan:
Good job trying to be civil :) Always enjoy your posts..er.. most of the time...kinda. *cackles* All jokes aside, the optimization post is pretty true. It's almost impossible to have something optimized out of the door unless it's something that's been optimized before you worked on the project. Many times that's a fool's hope as well. That's what patches are for! It's like saying you strive for perfection.... it won't happen but it's a beautiful goal to go for. With that said, Valve can still optimize it more. There is always room for improvement.. or fixing something broken as new content comes out.@Me:
I'm happy this isn't a wall of text. I shall await responses of guile and hate. Really, I'm curious.
I.... I was just... I was just trying to show the pictures and wireframes.... what happened here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted
Godwin's LawQuote:
Originally Posted by TheProgramer
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Black+H...ef_3387389.gif
I was thinking Murphy's Law, but that works too.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Not a single mention of Nazism and you don't know about about Murphy's Law until you've been in charge of 200 different things at the same time. So, no, not relevant, but close.
This is all simply 'The Internet'.
Nah, I just finally got the urge to troll bash. I'm being aggressive against his 'tude, not his opinion which I couldn't care less about. I held off for months, very unlike me. You haven't been here in a while, so you don't know pr0nogo but he's been trolling for a while. And not the DSquid kind of satirical entertainment that I can appreciate. I'm talking the kind of assholery that only DSquid could pull, if what he said weren't sarcastic. The majority of posters I've seen have conversations with him agree but if you need someone you can trust, then ask Gradius. He's been needing someone to take the time to put him down since he came here.Quote:
Man, you are being too aggressive to try and change opinions.
And, yet, out of several foreign language speakers, you're the only one who had a problem.Quote:
but man it was worded poorly and the message prompted a facepalm.
Nope not a single thing. Then again, I could just be numb to what I say, kind of like your ramblings on the Legacy Observer. PLEASE GOD NO MORE WALLS OF REDUNDANT TEXT!!!Quote:
You also said some incredibly stupid things that I suspect you regret in hindsight when responding to him.
Fine. Entropy than. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
*facepalm*
That, has nothing to do with... uggggh, why not just call it, the law of cummulative testosterone, human nature, or, fuck it, the laws of the entire universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
It fits the second definition fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary
To my understanding, in theoretical and astrophysics it also refers to the loss of knowledge of the existence of something due to it having been caught in a black hole and is no longer detectable in any way. Essentially, a loss of information.
A good joke to tell nerdy people:
I would explain the entropy of the universe to you, but the information seems to have been lost.
:D
Where did you hear that? Because that sounds pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by topsecret221
I've been reading a lot of physics books since... well, since before high school. Let's leave it at that, because otherwise it sounds to me like bragging.
But I don't remember which book exactly that I remember reading that in. It may have been in one of Dr. Michio Kaku's books, likely Hyperspace, or maybe The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
Well, if you can figure out which one, PM me.
I usually like to go to Atomic Rockets to get a physics fix.
Anyway, this is getting horribly off-topic.
Damn, it is...
So, 'bout dem portraits... yeah.
Any chance of the OP being updated to Beta wireframes?
Ok, this digression is awesome ^_^
I missed you guys.
@Programer: Man, you did awesome sharing the pics. <3
@Tychus: I've been around, just not been posting. I don't need other's opinions to help me create my own. ^_^
I have updated the OP.
Here is the alpha pictures:
Protoss
http://i45.tinypic.com/1tnaf4.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/2qn41np.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/2hgwqk6.png
Zerg
http://i49.tinypic.com/xkrfut.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/28k39s4.png
Terran
http://i49.tinypic.com/67pod2.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/350oxds.png
The Hellion's visor lifts up, and orange screen goes down when he switches from mech to vehicle form. Pretty cool. The only other units who's portait changes is the banshee when cloaking, and the viking when transforming (all terran I see). Pretty neat.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...in/gandalf.jpg
I'm a little put-off by the lack of diversity in the Zerg portraits. I know it's a minor point but all of them look like a derivative of the Hydralisk these days.
I've read The Elegant Universe and am going through Greene's newer book The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes. (A little more accessible to the layman like me.) I'm particularly fond of the section that delves into the Holographic Principle. Anyways, black holes are areas of spacetime where it pretty much crashes. It's the universe's blue screen of death; too much information confined in too small a space such that it reaches the Bekenstein bound. At that point space collapses, and information/entropy is embodied by the event horizon at the "surface".Quote:
To my understanding, in theoretical and astrophysics it also refers to the loss of knowledge of the existence of something due to it having been caught in a black hole and is no longer detectable in any way. Essentially, a loss of information.
I don't know if information is truly lost and what role Hawking radiation plays in that role though.
As far as I know, the information isn't "lost" as in "gone forever", more like "lost" as in "we don't know that it existed, and we don't know what "it" is, but something should have existed at some point at some place that it isn't. We sort of attribute that to black holes.
Of course, if one were to actually enter the black hole, you would be able to see everything that the black hole ever sucked in as you fall into the singularity. It's lost because we just can't retrieve it.
btw, if someone can point some flaw out in my argument, please do. No one in my area cares if I'm wrong about this kind of stuff before I get into a good college.