Lower Graphics for Bigger Game?

[Malau]

Still thinks BG magic missiles were the most pretty thing I've ever seen. Not like that crappy NWN stuff :/

[PsychoBlonde]

This is kind of a silly poll, but I just wanted to say that art direction is way, way, WAY more important than "graphics" in a game like this. I really don't care if the graphics have all the bells and whistles if the game is beautiful.

[Jarmo]

If this means backdrops of lesser resolution, that wouldn't really help at all.

 

If it means adding the 3d elements to a 2d backdrop, those can no doubt be recycled to some extent.

Probably would speed up things a little to just do without them, but no, wouldn't like that.

 

OP probably didn't mean Obsidian should have a bunch of amateurs quickly doodle up the required scenes,

but that's the one option that might actually help to speed things along.

And even then only if the 2d backdrops end up being a bottleneck, which I don't believe they will.

 

If this means the 3d characters, then no. I'd rather see fewer well made actors, than more made in a hurry.

[LadyCrimson]

All I care about is that the game doesn't look dot-pixelated and grainy on higher resolution monitors. Anything after that is gravy.

[ButchinMelancholy]

I guess the game will be technologically superior to any of those other examples anyway, so I will simply acquiesce PsychoBlonde's opinion in that I am mainly concerned by the quality of the art direction.

[ilhdr]

I really don't get this forum graphic-phobia. Graphics are the vetor which the developer expresses their visions nd told their histories.

[Monte Carlo]

I voted no. Mainly because (a) the engine is determined, (b) I want the game to look great and (c ) it is a cold light-of-day fact that a better-looking game will increase sales.

 

I am also totally confident that the developers will squeeze every last drop of potential from Unity to make a cool-looking game, something that references the past but still looks fit for purpose in the present.

[teknoman2]

no it should be text only with written commands... no graphics or use of mouse at all :trollface:

seriously people its 2012 and the game will come out in 2014, we cant expect it to look like a 1999 game and the devs have nothing to gain by doing so. to make a 1900x1080 2D background and scale it to 800x600 takes as much time as to make a 800x600 background and scale it to 1900x1080.

lowering the quality WILL NOT free up time for other things. besides the guys making the graphics are not the same guys who make the combat rules or write the dialogs or invent the quests etc.

Edited October 1, 2012 by teknoman2

[Haerski]

I want all the aspects of this game to be good. Don't cut anything to make something else "bigger". That would be just stupid.

 

Also how could this be achieved? Should they re-assign their artists to do programming and graphic designers to write story? Are you even serious? That would probably end up half of key personnel leaving from Obsidian in middle of the project. Just another useless half-thought suggestion.

[Gyges]

Im no gfx-wh**e, but i would like to see something better than the BG character sprites. Also, if people other than backers are to play the game it has to be presentable.

[norolim]

Why just use simplified graphics? Let's ask Obsidian to get rid of the graphical layer completely and give us code only. That would be so hardcore and would guarantee a huge game, right?

 

No. I would like (not to be mistaken with "I request") the game to be big, but I'd also enjoy it more, if it looked beautiful. The fact thet graphics are not too important for me in RPGs doesn't make me think that this aspect of games should be neglected. I like sophisticated things, but I also like them elegant. In my life I've played some of the ugliest RPGs there are and I enjoyed them for what they were. They were deep, sophisticated games that offered tactical challenge and numerous options. And it is the complexity of those games that should be valued and brought back. Not their looks.

 

I fear it all results from a false befief shared by many experienced gamers, that ugly RPGs equals good RPGs. That's not how it works. Most modern RPGs are not simplistic, because they have shiny graphics. They are simplistic because this is required to broaden the appeal. And selling the game to as many players as possible is much more important to publishers than giving a bunch of hardcore fans the big, complex game they want. And those hardcore fans end up hating the shiny graphics of the new games, because during development the visual aspect takes precedence over gameplay. It's undersandable: graphics are important to casual gamers -> most new RPGs are aimed at casual gamers.

 

In case of Project Eternity, however, we already know that casual gamers are not the game's target audience. The devs know what we want and expect...therefore there is no need to fear nice graphics. It really is possible to develop great RPGs that also look nice:

 

 

I also don't want Obsidian to waste resources on super visuals, but I know it's not going to happen. If I could have a wish about the PE development process, I would like the devs to look at all the aspects of the game, weigh them and decide how good those elements can be within the constrains of the budget. And then do all they can to make them just a little better.

Edited October 1, 2012 by norolim

[ilhdr]

People forget that the IE engine was 2D because it was what it could be done in the time, if it could be look better, it would. No one comes from the sky to declare that to be the ultimate RPG design

[Adhin]

I like the approach there going with, pre-rendered 2D backgrounds, 3D stuff for monsters, objects, maybe soe other bits in game. It'll be a blend, generally speaking that should fun pretty solid on even older systems. That and once you start mixing it, going balls out on the crazy effects that usually make 3D games look crazy good will have less of an effect considering half the games 2D based stuff.

 

That said I would like it to be a good sized game at least in terms of overall stuff to do and time spent. PST/BG length that kinda thing. Don't think art direction will have to big of an impact on that considering its an isometric game. No reason to go insane on each individual monster graphic since your not seeing any of it super-close up. I mean, think DAO, but with a fixed perspective and 2D backgrounds instead of 3D. That could look awesome (with a bit better art direction) and run smooth.

[Sarevok]

I voted for Baldur's Gate 2, but I think we should expect more.

[Vampero]

No way there is no reason to have lower graphics .

[Umberlin]

I'd even play an old school text based game if it were intriguing enough.

[Elerond]

I voted no, as I understand it. The bottleneck is write story, characters and etc. for the bigger world not to generate bigger world. For example Fable 3 and Skyrim both had infinite number of quest but they were random generated and so I lost very soon any drive to do them. So bigger is not mean better and therefore I take nearly always quality over quantity.

[zombo]

I expect graphics not to look cutting edge due to the type of game it is. I expect it will still look far superior to anything put out during the 1998-2002 time frame this game is planned to be roughly based on.

[Tychoxi]

I don't think this is necessary at all. Obsidian already knows the direction and level they are aiming for in the GRAPHX!!1! department.

[Jandor]

Is the poll supposed to be in order? I always thought Baldurs Gate 2 looked better than Arcanum.

 

Anyway, I hope for a Baldurs Gate 2 style with a modern shine and fancy effects.

[Bloodbathe]

Isn't art separate from code?

[edrst10]

Graphics are often kind of...scoffed at by the hardcore cRPG crowd...but they are important. You know, for immersion and stuff.

 

It is also important if Obsidian wants to sell Eternity to people other than its Kickstarter backers.

 

PS. I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this...

 

I know you were expecting hate, but actually I'm agreeing with you. One of the reasons some people haven't been able to get into some classics like Fallout is because of the outdated graphics. As stupid as some of us may think this is, it is still a reality, and sustaining the genre by having some appealing graphics is not a bad thing. As long as the core old school combat mechanics, and depth of story, quest and world are not affected, I don't see why outdated graphics should be the norm for old school cred's sake.

[salty]

There's no right option on that poll. They have to make modern graphics for modern resolutions. It's not possible or practical to make something at the level of any of those old games. Yes, I would sacrifice graphics for gameplay and story. No, I don't want a 640x480 pixel hunt.

[Hornet85]

Its 2012, I can't believe I'm still seeing ASCII being thrown around.

 

ASCII was used due to the hardware limitation at that time. Dev didn't go out of their way to force the players to stare at a wall of characters for artistic purposes.

 

There's no reason why any game should have primitive graphics just for the sake of having that that feel of using a DOS machine.

[Elerond]

ASCII is very good choice for those games that I can play over terminal and keep them running on screen session for months and months .