31 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 31. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 5, 2005, 07:12 |
aldo_14 |
|
|
s that guy on the left a short guy jumping, or a little bit in the distance? Even if we accept that he is farther away, we must now assume all the models are the exact same size, which may not be true. In the end, to fully understand the position and sizes of these characters, we have to assume everything, or rely on models clipping into the ground which won't be happening on flatter ground. Adding a spot blob shadow below them is not glitz, it is visual clarity when using this camera angle.
Father Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These
he points to some plastic cows on the table
Father Ted: are very small; those
pointing at some cows out of the window
Father Ted: are far away...
(I can't tell myself, either. Textures are a bit shit, as well, which might be a factor. Although you can look where they're clipping through into the ground, perhaps
EDIT; actually, now I think of it, it's pretty simple. For whatever reason, there's no sense of depth. Lighting would help that, but IMO it's probably as much down to a lack of reference points; some, I dunno, shrubbery at the very least would provide visual context)
Freespace 2: Lost Souls
http://www.sectorgame.com/aldo/
This comment was edited on Oct 5, 07:17. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 4, 2005, 11:10 |
Taulin |
|
|
Well, if blobs are shit, then they would fit right into your game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: Inflammatory Post of the Day |
Oct 4, 2005, 08:06 |
dsmart |
|
|
Using a static 2D image to describe this particular problem only shows that it IS a problem.... in a 2d static picture. In-game character movement and your ability to navigate in 3 dimensions effectively negates the "problem".
Having said that, any 3D game in 2005 should at least have basic blobs, it looks too sterile otherwise.
Basic blobs are shit. If I'm going to spent time doing something, its either done right or not done at all.
Given Derek's past history when his games go gold, I wonder how long it will take for him to sue his 'e-commerce partners'? I'm betting the lawyers get called out for combat duty in about a week. Any takers?
Thats funny. Especially when you consider that not only do I get monthly reports about sales of my games from all e-commerce partners, I also know exactly what I'm doing and we get paid regularly, instead of sitting around for a quarter+45 days only to find discrepancies, not get paid etc etc. Thats one of the things I talked about last month at an IGDA meeting.
http://www.igda.org/miami/meetings/2005-09.php
This comment was edited on Oct 4, 08:06. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Inflammatory Post of the Day |
Oct 3, 2005, 22:58 |
Camaro76 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 19:29 |
Hump |
|
|
Is that guy on the left a short guy jumping, or a little bit in the distance?
Using a static 2D image to describe this particular problem only shows that it IS a problem.... in a 2d static picture. In-game character movement and your ability to navigate in 3 dimensions effectively negates the "problem".
Having said that, any 3D game in 2005 should at least have basic blobs, it looks too sterile otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburgers
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 19:32. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. |
Oct 3, 2005, 19:12 |
trashcan |
|
|
What would Blue's be without a DS thred every so often??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 18:49 |
Bhruic |
|
|
I don't put unnecessary shit in my games in order to hide shallow gameplay or other areas that are lacking.
I guess you're right, your shallow gameplay and other areas that are lacking are right out in the open. Thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 17:57 |
Ihya |
|
|
Have you ever thought about putting nanotubes in your games? Because I know a guy who could help you out.
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 18:04. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 17:02 |
Heyou |
|
|
" If you've ever gleaned the sales of my games, you'd see just how stupid and foolish you look, right about now. puhleeze."
Thin promises and nice art on publisher's boxes has sold your games, not 3000AD. The contents of which could easily be swapped with any other game and sell just as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 17:00 |
Prez |
|
|
I like spaghetti.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 16:51 |
MMORPGHoD |
|
|
Ok, let's look at an example...
Oh I don't know, that could be an example of altitudinally challenged soldier support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 16:50 |
dsmart |
|
|
Rubbish.
Lets move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 16:39 |
Taulin |
|
|
Ok, let's look at an example...
http://www.3000ad.com/pics/ucg/07-27-05/PHOTO000.PNG
Is that guy on the left a short guy jumping, or a little bit in the distance? Even if we accept that he is farther away, we must now assume all the models are the exact same size, which may not be true. In the end, to fully understand the position and sizes of these characters, we have to assume everything, or rely on models clipping into the ground which won't be happening on flatter ground. Adding a spot blob shadow below them is not glitz, it is visual clarity when using this camera angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 16:23 |
D4rkKnight |
|
|
graphics come second, and gameplay comes first, with AI a close second.
It all makes perfect sense now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 16:05 |
dsmart |
|
|
Saying it is irrelevant to your game is one thing, and no one can argue about that. However, saying they are not needed is ignorant. Since games on a single screen are not stereoscopic, you need extra visual cues to know placement in a 3D world. Place a guy on a flat land, and you don't know if he is floating above a point close to the camera, or standing on the surface far away. In space, I agree that they are not needed. However, it seems a lot of your game is also on the surface of a planet, where that example I just gave is very important. A simple blob shadow would not eat enough processor power to make people want to turn it off. Even Street Fighter 2 had one.
Rubbish. And you're still clueless. I can't help you with that.
Sometimes, Derek, I am not at all surprised by your egotism and ineptitude. Other times I wonder how you expect to be taken seriously by anyone more than a handful of croanies who are as, if not more, unimaginative and tactless as you.
Who asked you to take me seriously? Everything you wrote is rubbish. Shadows bear NO RELEVANCE to my game - or any game where they are only used as eye candy and with no material benefits.
You cite the X games; yet - conveniently - forgot to mention that almost 90% of those who bought them - especially X2, couldn't even run it on the MINIMUM settings. The X games are big on visuals and low on gameplay - not to mention AI.
My graphics engine has enough glitz where it is NEEDED. I don't put unnecessary shit in my games in order to hide shallow gameplay or other areas that are lacking. Which is why, graphics come second, and gameplay comes first, with AI a close second.
But don't let me stop you from continuing the usual trend of posting rubbish and comparing Apples to Grapefruit. What you call a monstrosity, is what you can't even fathom, let alone play. pah!
The gaming public "gets it" and what they aren't spending their cash to "get" is your game. You are the one who doesn't "get it" and refuses to take the time to listen to the feedback of people who could be potential customers.
You're funny. No, make that hilarious. If you've ever gleaned the sales of my games, you'd see just how stupid and foolish you look, right about now. puhleeze.
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 16:07. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
No subject |
Oct 3, 2005, 15:56 |
Burrito of Peace |
|
|
Sometimes, Derek, I am not at all surprised by your egotism and ineptitude. Other times I wonder how you expect to be taken seriously by anyone more than a handful of croanies who are as, if not more, unimaginative and tactless as you.
You claim shadows are unnecessary and would drag your game's performance down. We both know that when written correctly, shadows place a minimal amount of overhead in to a frame render at their simplest shape, a single, flat circle.
At one point I tried to understand what you were attempting to create but found that Egosoft's version of the same idea, which is not at all a new one (as it was cribbed from Elite), was far better down with a lot less drama. X3 looks gorgeous and has very elaborate use of shadow and light. Far more so than your game. Now, before you go off on one of your puerile little rants, let's put it out in the public that you have not played X3, not even the first alpha build, whereas I have. I've also played your game. In comparison, X3 does the same idea better at less of a cost to hardware than what you claim is "required for the full effect" (see your own messageboards to count how many times you've said that phrase).
What you've built is a 6000 pound monstrosity that can barely be moved by the PC equivalent of a 700 horsepower engine. Instead of admitting that you need to refine your design philosophy or code, you ignorantly continue to slog forward. At one time, many people made constructive and polite criticisms and offered ways to help you improve your project. Instead of being professional and courteous, you threw tantrums like a 6 year old.
The gaming public "gets it" and what they aren't spending their cash to "get" is your game. You are the one who doesn't "get it" and refuses to take the time to listen to the feedback of people who could be potential customers.
I know your response will be blustering, full of childish attempts at insulting and denegrating in only the way people who are afraid to admit their ignorance can be. I am sure you'll click the post button full of your own ego and hubris.
Perhaps, in the future, you'll learn that a craftsman forges his art not just for art's sake but for the excellence in pursuing his craft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. |
Oct 3, 2005, 15:39 |
RegularX |
|
|
"Further, the eyes does not need shadows to decipher depth cue. OK, who came up with that mind numbling stupid shit?"
Actually, nobody.
It was just suggested that shadows are an important visual clue to register depth, not that they are a mandatory part of it.
Who invented the word numbling, anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. |
Oct 3, 2005, 15:37 |
Calabi-Yau |
|
|
Silly, the BC/UC games aren't all about eye-candy, they're all about excellent gameplay!
Oh, wait..
Er..
Never mind
This comment was edited on Oct 3, 15:42. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
31 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
