Some inspiration for game graphics (Two Worlds)

[Burkin]

Hi there,

I just thought I'd share with you some inspirational screenshots of the (upcoming?) game Two Worlds. 

You can see some very nice shots here http://games.gamepressure.com/view_screen.asp?ID=82308

Most games appear to me from their screenshots feeble and uninnovative or just so-so, but this one looks rather good. What I find very nice:
- lots of foliage
- lots of detail in both terrain/buildings and characters (and absence of visible triangles)
- nice textures
- the surfaces really look plastic - in most games everything looks just like a flat surface with a texture (is that just bump-mapping or is it occlusion-mapping?)

Now this game will probably require some serious GPU which I don't have (since I'm not a serious gamer), but then, Planeshift graphics are so undemanding that you can run it on a toaster (or just about any GPU with programmable shaders, anyway) so a lot could be added while still maintaining good FPS for most people. (Afterall graphic HW has progressed much in the last few years).

Now if just the Planeshift developers took just a little inspiration from these, perhaps the Planeshift graphics would change from "very nice" to "totally awesome". 
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7144/twoworldswywd06us4.jpg

[image changed to text link to reduce load times. --Neko]

[Karyuu]

We have a ton of inspiration - sometimes what we don't have are the means. All of our developers play some commercial game, or a whole bundle, so we are very familiar with shiny graphics Our engine doesn't necessarily support some features that make games look as good as in that screenshot for now. We don't have a water shader that cool, nor can we use normal maps at the moment. I'm more than sure that it's all coming, it's just going to take some time.

We're not artists working in the dark - we know what looks good. Sometimes we just have to work with limitations.

[dying_inside]

Inspiration and means are a differant thing.

Also :
You start pulling in masses of polygons and foliage generators into an online game, then you cause a wholel lot of lag which is needless. Sure it looks good but it becomes unplayable. Thus  everybody who plays is gonna need a pretty up to date computer, not exactly easily availiable , not everybody havs the cash to go down to the local computer shops and buy themslves a new computer or computer components when they feel like it. So people leave.

Sorry to stamp all over this thread but I honestly dont think you have thought this through.

[zanzibar]

The newest computers of today will be 5 years old 5 years from now.

[drah]

In terms of the basic map itself... The polygon count shouldn't really effect the performance for an online game any more than an offline game in terms of the network-related lag.  Ultimately, it's only the stats/actions/etc that are involved in the transactions of data.

The engine, I suspect, is a bigger part of the problem. 

I did see a Crystal Space sample of water with ripples, but this was an isolated example with just the water surface.. no terrain maps or anything.

Still, if there's a stronger 3D engine in the works... I'm definetely looking forward to seeing it.

That said, I don't care too much personally...  If I want my jaw to drop at graphics of an RPG... I've always got Oblivion.

[Nikodemus]

Yeah, lag is when your opponent suddently is not there where you just saw ;P
You all know it, yet you claim that low FPS is lag. ^^
lag is a delay, you can't speak of delay when the FPS is low. The frames you didn't see, won't come later Even graphical lag isn't really good term becaue of this.

[Ennon Galita]

Mmmm...sweet graphics. This definatly isn't an online game, by all means. I agree, lag will be a serious issue with these graphics.

There are two solutions possible for Planeshift to have those kind of graphics -

1) Everybody upgrades to an OC3/T3 connection   

2) The download for the clients gets magically bigger. For those kind of graphics to be as a download along with the client, holy cow. It would probably be over 1 GB for download, which is ridiculous.

But, then again, oh well...We should still get OC3 though.......

[Karyuu]

1GB isn't that bad - the full Ryzom client takes about 6.6GB on your HD, and you can choose to download it rather than pay for a box. Many online games have clients from 2-4GB as well.

Our system requirements are really low right now.

[Ennon Galita]

Bah, think of the people with crappy internet...like me lol

Now, if everybody in the world had T3 internet (and service out in the middle of nowhere a.k.a. Wisconsin...cough), then that wouldn't be a problem!

Oh well...

[Josellis]

but, the graphics won't affect the connection. No matter how much trees there is on a map, the trees are on a map, they are not on the server. The server only receives data on what the character does on one computer and send that data to all the other computers. Also, your home computer renders the pictures, it isn't the server sending you rendered pictures because it would be then that you need T3 connection.

[Ennon Galita]

No, no. I know that. But you have to get those pictures and models somehow, now don't you?

Large files, thus a large client download. That's what I'm talking about.

[Josellis]

oh, ok. But then you can just use one of those download accelerators and use it to pause (and accelerate...) de download. Like that, you don't have to download the game in one block.

Also, most really popular games are over 1 GB to download, and as I just said, they are popular, which means many people download the game thus proving that a large filesize isn't really a problem.

[Cherppow]

Hi,

 Ah, the good old ultima5 with huge game world and size of 990kB, unpacked. Anyway, with techologies such as bittorrent, 1GB isn't that horrible. Also most of the current PS size is made by art, which mostly remains unchanged, and doesn't need to be re-downloaded in every new version.
*edit*
 What comes to the Two Worlds screenshots... very nice. *looks and becomes inspired* *opens PS* Nope, still not changed. Perhaps it takes a little more than that. The three main differences I see are: grand polygon count, huge textures, extensive use of shaders. Personally I partly agree that we should increase the detail of our art a bit. Maybe get rid of those 256x256 textures and loosen the polycount rules a bit. Computers do get more powerful every passing year, and we can add options to lower gfx details so that older machines can run it too.

[Feline Prince]

Except the updater is screwed ~.~

[Gentar]

I agree with you Cherppow. I think our limitations on ploy count and texture size are a bit low, especially looking at the game now compared to 3 years ago when i discovered it. The problem is the fact that we would have to remodel/texture a lot of our in game content, which we don't have enough of as it is. But it is true that computers are becoming insanely powerful now for lower prices since the creation of multi-core processors and soon I imagine even the lowest price dells will be able to play a more graphically advanced version of PS with ease. Certainly any new machine with a graphics card now can pull it off. Another issue however is that if we were to raise our expectations for our content, the level of expertise to produce art for the game is increased pretty drastically and the amount of qualified people to work on the game would drop significantly.

If you want to see a game with simply amazing graphics, check out Crysis. The engine it uses renders soft shadows, bumb mapping, depth of field, motion blur, and a lot more.