Friday with(out) Means - Sept. 30th, 2011: More Pictures? More Pictures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Pretty sure the public judge a graphic engine based on looks, not on technical finepoints of its alleged sophistication by a bunch of fanboi spindoctors

iow, it walks talks and squawks like a pre-Source (c.2005?) engine, whatever else you wanna say about the insides.

---

Except when you look at live footage, such as the previously mentioned youtube clip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demoder

Except when you look at live footage, such as the previously mentioned youtube clip.

---

Er, that clip looks horrible with ridiculously overexaggerated spotlighting (hello this was groundbreaking sometime around Unreal Engine 1) and a still awfully polygonal avatar. At best I'd say it was unfinished... it looks like alpha with exaggerated lighting to prototype that particular feature with everything else turned down. Edit: the best part is at 4:57 when you clearly see the shadow doesn't start at his feet but about a foot away.

Here's what the Source engine looked like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKA7JkV51Jw (2006) <-note less polygonal avatars

Here's Farcry 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwgu8-gwnzM (2004) <-note realistic water, better shadows

Won't even bother going into CryEngine's 2nd and 3rd versions.

Honestly. Say what you will about the technical merits, but on looks alone it's still being blown out of the water by a 2004/6 engine (<-note that's half a decade ago).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Er, that clip looks horrible with ridiculously overexaggerated spotlighting (hello this was groundbreaking sometime around Unreal Engine 1) and a still awfully polygonal avatar. At best I'd say it was unfinished... it looks like alpha with exaggerated lighting to prototype that particular feature with everything else turned down. Edit: the best part is at 4:57 when you clearly see the shadow doesn't start at his feet but about a foot away.

Here's what the Source engine looked like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKA7JkV51Jw (2006) <-note less polygonal avatars

Here's Farcry 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwgu8-gwnzM (2004) <-note realistic water, better shadows

Won't even bother going into CryEngine's 2nd and 3rd versions.

Honestly. Say what you will about the technical merits, but on looks alone it's still being blown out of the water by a 2004/6 engine (<-note that's half a decade ago).

---

It looks like an alpha because it is an alpha. You're comparing an alpha to a finalized release. Get over yourself already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demoder

It looks like an alpha because it is an alpha. You're comparing an alpha to a finalized release. Get over yourself already.

---

Er

Me: It still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time lol
You: No, look at the youtube
Me: Lol that's not better, here compare these examples
You: That's cause it's in alpha

lol point proven, it still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time

P.S. Alpha isn't normally displayed publicly at conventions ... but it does look awful lot like TSW and that's getting tons of flak from early reviewers for its dated looks. Let's just say you were warned FC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mastablasta

Look up the definition of internet troll, and you'll see that from your perspective I probably make quite an excellent one still :p

How I can say they look better than those old ones? Like I said, the old ones used smoke and mirrors to achieve an effect. The skies you see in those images are static backgrounds. That means they'll never change. The shadows do not line up properly with what casts them, and they're far too hard. And in general, the old screenshots are just the exact same graphics that we have now, only with shadows and reflective water, an effect you can already have if you turn on "offscreen surface technology" and suffer rendering the game at 50% the set resolution. 4:3 resolution, what does that matter? It's a superior aspect ratio to 16:9 if that's what you're getting at.
The old ones do not include high quality buildings. There's no "blur" other than what you see now, because of the low-quality textures that scale down at a distance, and surfaces that aren't under the influence of Anisotropic Filtering. Look at the old Ogre screenshots, you'll see that there's just as much, and more, blur going on there. But you have to find the ones that do not showcase it, because they were quite careful not to display surfaces at the general viewing angle that causes the blurriness.
You'll also see plenty of the hoaky oldschool distance fog, which is far more subtle in the Dreamworld engine.
And details? What details, exactly? AO geometry consists almost entirely of large square surfaces. You can see all the ones present in those areas. Could they have chosen a better location to take the shots of Tir from? Possibly. I'd have gone with an upper far corner to catch the entire city.

And you do see something new and shiny; the water reflections, which have not been featured before. If you don't like them looking like a wavy mirror, that's your preference. I personally prefer a more subtle water reflection but perhaps that comes from having always lived no more than a stone's throw from at least one large body of water.

IMO AO looks fine to me the way it is. I'm more annoyed by technical difficulties, like the problem with the lighting, where suddenly the whole scene is lit and all other light sources disappear in the glare, and then when you turn the camera 2 degrees it goes back to the proper lighting. And the fact that you can't run AO at 2560x1440 is also quite annoying. Having to run in a smaller window with 512 pixels of stuff peeking out at the sides is annoying.
My wishlist for AO graphics update is a longer view distance for everything, including ground high quality textures, ability to run at high resolutions and a constant lighting model. The rest doesn't bother me. Getting upgraded characters and stuff, that's just bonus.

---

I couldn't agree with you more. In my original post I was not bashing the new pics in anyway. I think the pictures showing off the progress in terms of the reflectiveness are great! My only issue with it was and still stands that water regardless of how cloudy it is still has a level of transparency. the pictures in FWoM didn't seem to show this or show it well.

Now it is very possible this is because this is simply a photo and not a video so we cannot fully understand or see the effect of water rolling that may be implemented. I agree the reflectiveness is accurate and looks great. Im just hoping the water doesn't look like murky gel. Tis all.

I for one am, after seeing this progress and the videos from Montreal, very excited about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Er

Me: It still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time lol
You: No, look at the youtube
Me: Lol that's not better, here compare these examples
You: That's cause it's in alpha

lol point proven, it still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time

P.S. Alpha isn't normally displayed publicly at conventions ... but it does look awful lot like TSW and that's getting tons of flak from early reviewers for its dated looks. Let's just say you were warned FC.

---

While I do agree with what you are saying, FC never really stated this was going to look like a next gen game. The purpose of this engine was never to make this game shock and awe in the sophistication of its graphics. the purpose was to make the game a bit more modern and more than anything else to perform better with more modern machines and technology. The fact is with this game using dx7 tech, the upcoming BF3 title will run better than this game currently does on a dated (4-6yr old) machine.

So yeah, the graphics aren't great now, and aren't going to be THAT much greater but they will look better and, will over all, run more effectively.

I have high hopes and, after seeing the video footage, am quite impressed with what 1/2 a dozen devs could put together. I can't wait

It is like Joan Rivers, yeah she looks horrible, shes old. She had plastic surgery and boom! Shes old and looks slightly less horrible but now is more camera prone.

AO, its old and looks extremely dated with low ql graphics, after facelift (new engine) it will look old but slightly better and run better, become slightly more popular.

Regards,

--ani

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Er

Me: It still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time lol
You: No, look at the youtube
Me: Lol that's not better, here compare these examples
You: That's cause it's in alpha

lol point proven, it still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time

P.S. Alpha isn't normally displayed publicly at conventions ... but it does look awful lot like TSW and that's getting tons of flak from early reviewers for its dated looks. Let's just say you were warned FC.

---

I think you misunderstood what I said.
Let me rephrase.

It looks like an alpha, because it is an alpha. It has glitches, bugs, whatnot.

Where did I say that it looks like the source engine?

What was your post at the top of this page disagreeing with in the post of mine you quoted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Animaly

While I do agree with what you are saying, FC never really stated this was going to look like a next gen game. <snip>

---

Yeah, except it doesn't even match up to a 7-year-old game (FarCry).

Engine makers like Unreal, Crytek, etc. are generations ahead of FC's inhouse capabilities, and it's showing very clearly, whether in TSW or here. This is how vaporware or epicfailgames result - the developers protected in their cocoon don't see what's happening around them and fail to keep up, resulting in a terribly poor game that can't get beyond the converted (aka fanboys). Did anyone try CS: Condition Zero and the horrible half-finished thing it came out with (Deleted Scenes)? This looks just like that, but a decade later. Basically, FC have had a terrible return on investment in the past 4 years.

Why do I feel like I'm in a version of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Pretty sure the public judge a graphic engine based on looks, not on technical finepoints of its alleged sophistication by a bunch of fanboi spindoctors

iow, it walks talks and squawks like a pre-Source (c.2005?) engine, whatever else you wanna say about the insides.

---

So, you'd rather have something that looked as awful as the ogre stuff, filled with static skies and other cheese effects to make things look nice here and now? And who knows how much post production was attached to that video :p

Now? I don't know how you can say that it looks like something from before 2005. Maybe in the same vein that if you look at vanilla Doom running in ZDoom saying it looks like something from 1993, except with effects from 2010.
No, the current stuff looks like a top of the line engine put on top of resources that are in many cases more than 10 years old. Or reproductions of said resources from a newer date, but with the same visual limitations. And then viewed from afar.

I don't know what games from before 2005 had atmospheric effects like the lightrays through fog, shoftshadows with multiple shadows per object, a drawdistance like this, parallax mapping, ambient occlussion and other such nice stuff. Far Cry doesn't even come close. Nor does Source, or idtech 4. All techs from that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mastablasta

So, you'd rather have something that looked as awful as the ogre stuff, filled with static skies and other cheese effects to make things look nice here and now? And who knows how much post production was attached to that video :p

---

Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying zero returns is zero returns.

Quote:

---

Now? I don't know how you can say that it looks like something from before 2005. Maybe in the same vein that if you look at vanilla Doom running in ZDoom saying it looks like something from 1993, except with effects from 2010.
No, the current stuff looks like a top of the line engine put on top of resources that are in many cases more than 10 years old. Or reproductions of said resources from a newer date, but with the same visual limitations. And then viewed from afar.

I don't know what games from before 2005 had atmospheric effects like the lightrays through fog, shoftshadows with multiple shadows per object, a drawdistance like this, parallax mapping, ambient occlussion and other such nice stuff. Far Cry doesn't even come close. Nor does Source, or idtech 4. All techs from that time.

---

Cryengine 1 could do all those things, maybe at lower resolution and less "effect-packed" than today due to hardware limitations, but they're all there.

Edit: your post is a good example of losing the wood for the trees though. the simple test is simply, does it look good. Not does it have all the latest nerdfest 3d tech that is available in theory on this engine. It fails the first test, there's not much to differentiate it on the 2nd test, and the execution from the previews looks very poor (but yea, alpha after 4 years, or after 2 years since they went back to the drawing board).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying zero returns is zero returns.

Cryengine 1 could do all those things, maybe at lower resolution and less "effect-packed" than today due to hardware limitations, but they're all there.

Edit: your post is a good example of losing the wood for the trees though. the simple test is simply, does it look good. Not does it have all the latest nerdfest 3d tech that is available in theory on this engine. It fails the first test, there's not much to differentiate it on the 2nd test, and the execution from the previews looks very poor (but yea, alpha after 4 years, or after 2 years since they went back to the drawing board).

---

Cryengine 1 couldn't do all those things :| it could do the 2004 version of trying to do them.

But it does look good. As beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, that's completely subjective. I for one think it's great, and a vast improvement over what we have, and a vast improvement over the smoke and mirrors version of the old preview.

I must say that the engine tech in itself looks very good (have a look at conan with all goodies turned on). Remember that the textures actually used to paint the picture are in most cases the same that is used today; Low-res and low-detail. The real silver lining here is that they can easily be updated and changed after the engine is fully integrated and launched, which in turn will make the game look better and better as time passes and "stuff" is brought up to par.

And new character models+heads are coming so worry not :p

Also, this is what we get. There's no point in being hating on anything when there's not going to be changes to it other than tweaking to engine parameters and texture updates.

What I'm sort of wondering is if the old client can manage the new resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenonDe

...I'm a bit disapointed in the looks but that's not because of the engine but for scene selection/building. Something that should easily be fixable to give the same "hell yeah!" feeling we saw in the old engine. ..Riight fc? Sure wouldn't mind some new pictures! :p
...

---

Lets hope hey're saving the best for the end. :)


Anyways, don't get me wrong for whining.. I like that game as it is. I enjoy playing it, even with current graphics. I tried a bunch of others, with much better graphics and I didn't like them as much as AO. It was my first and I guess the last mmorpg I played.

But you see the thing is, there's not enough players that think like that. In most cases, graphics are the main attraction to keep the people playing or even start playing it. That's why I (and other people) want it to be as perfect as possible.. with that I mean everything from shadows, lightning, reflection to game running smoothly without random crashes, bugs and glitches.

Most of "new" players give up at the beginning (tbh I did too) and that's the biggest issue. You need quite some time to adapt and get aware of all goodies this game has to offer. In that case, launch of new graphics are crucial to prevent decline of players or in other words gain as many new(old) players as possible.

Otherwise this game will have hard time to survive in near future.. which is sad, cause it could be (for me its already is) the best mmo ever, with just a little bit more attention and financial support.

I know I'm saying the obvious, but I on one hand understand all the whine(r)s..

I just have to say, posting pictures in a weird 4:3 ugly resolution, without AA on is not a way to go about it... If you are gonna post screenshots of new engine do it in 1920x1080 or some other higher resolution, that way u will have less people complaining on small things such as "flat" water edges.

2nd thing, people stop complaining already about blurry graphics, flat edges etc... any engine release is better then none as it is now, just look at that one video from 10th year anniversary party and u will see that these screenshots are far from what the end product looks like.

VIDEO >>>>> bad size/quality pictures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ornaolla

2nd thing, people stop complaining already about blurry graphics, flat edges etc... any engine release is better then none as it is now, just look at that one video from 10th year anniversary party and u will see that these screenshots are far from what the end product looks like.

---

Complainers will complain. No changing that. But criticism on the other hand is a good thing and the 'complains' about the overused blur I would consider criticism. The intensity of many of these effects is a matter of taste so they'll want to know how we like it.

dont get it anyway. its been years no real amazing progress seen so far.
empty promises of betas in q4 2010 and q1 2011.
doubt the engine is gonna release in the coming years or ever.
just gave up on this cant wait for engine!

still im here cause the game is good.
just wish funcom had as much resources as eve online to develop this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oegaboega

just wish funcom had as much resources as eve online to develop this game.

---

technically they do. funcom just chooses not to pump any more than life support funding into AO. and the Dev's currently working on AO are like ants pulling a giant plow (uphill), and actually breaking ground. such a catch 22. if Devs make lots of progress, funcom goes "hey, they're good as they are, they got this!" if Dev's don't make progress, the game dies and funcom goes "oh well, glad we didn't waste anymore money than we had to."

don't mind me though, not really directed at anyone, im just rambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrys

Er

Me: It still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time lol
You: No, look at the youtube
Me: Lol that's not better, here compare these examples
You: That's cause it's in alpha

lol point proven, it still looks like a pre-Source engine after all this time

P.S. Alpha isn't normally displayed publicly at conventions ... but it does look awful lot like TSW and that's getting tons of flak from early reviewers for its dated looks. Let's just say you were warned FC.

---

Well, while comparisons are moot, then AoC in beta looked nothing like the finished game. But then, why are we considering that? Is anyone expecting new engine ao to look like a new game? Because that is not the intention and that's always been clear.

You all realize that MMOs need to have way worse graphics then shooters due to the fact that one computer has to be able to handle like 100-200 moving objects at any given time (Imagine trying to play BF 3 with 80-100 people on each side...)..

Just saying. If you want to compare Dreamengine 2 with something then compare it to WoW or GW II, not shooters, NEVER shooters :p