The day has come where your common citizen shows more sympathy to a corporation than an individual.
TRT, I think maybe you are missing my point. They don't make it very clear that you are tying the credit card to your player profile rather than to that individual purchase. Again, did not PSN require you to enter your card information for every final purchase? I know for certain Steam used to work that way.
I'm not saying this to exonerate the woman of all blame. She messed up. But everyone makes mistakes, and there are a lot of safeguards in place for financial matters to help prevent people from ruining their lives over stupid mistakes. If you accidentally leave your credit card at a shop counter, well duh, that was a dumb thing to do. But there are lots of safeguards in place to help you ensure that one mistake doesn't drive you to homelessness.
I'm not saying this to exonerate the woman of all blame. She messed up. But everyone makes mistakes, and there are a lot of safeguards in place for financial matters to help prevent people from ruining their lives over stupid mistakes. If you accidentally leave your credit card at a shop counter, well duh, that was a dumb thing to do. But there are lots of safeguards in place to help you ensure that one mistake doesn't drive you to homelessness.
All the discussion of parental and cardholder responsibility aside, you have to admit it would be a bit less shady for Microsoft to emphasize to people that using your card to buy your first thing on XBL is like opening a tab at a bar rather than using it to buy lunch.
As far as I recall, they don't exactly shout from the rooftops that once you've entered your card information, anyone logged into your online profile can use it to buy as much as they like. You can insult the woman as much as you like, but it isn't really all that unreasonable to expect that the store on XBL would ask for your credit info on a per-purchase rather than per-account basis. Didn't (or doesn't) PSN work that way?
As far as I recall, they don't exactly shout from the rooftops that once you've entered your card information, anyone logged into your online profile can use it to buy as much as they like. You can insult the woman as much as you like, but it isn't really all that unreasonable to expect that the store on XBL would ask for your credit info on a per-purchase rather than per-account basis. Didn't (or doesn't) PSN work that way?
The issue here is you're merging multiple ideas into supporting a statement that they don't all apply to. Making something up to the standards of the games that Gameloft targets rather than the standards of your average game is more difficult, yes. But making the actual game that they are imitating was MUCH more difficult than making the imitation they came up with.
Think about this analytically. Making a sequel to a successful game is much much easier than making the first game -- that is why we have seen so many games this generation that took around 4 years for the first title and just 2 years for the second title, with the second title often earning higher reviews than the first. And it's not just a matter of establishing a base of technology and assets; it's because after the first game you have figured out all of the most difficult time-consuming problems.
When you take an existing game and remake it, it just becomes a matter of production capacity. Visual style has been figured out for you. Game design has been figured out for you. Seriously, if what you said was even remotely true you wouldn't see multiplatform ports handled by B- and C-list developers; they would need better developers than those making the original game. You wouldn't see publishers so focused on sequels rather than fresh ideas, because sequels would be the risky move. Imitation is easier than innovation, hands down, end of story.
It is difficult to match the quality of something that is exceptionally well made by imitating it, yes. But it is far more difficult to match the quality of something that is exceptionally well made by making something different. Aiming high as an imitator instead of aiming low as an innovator doesn't mean that imitation in general is some honorably difficult undertaking.
Yes, the game industry has been focused strongly on evolutionary rather than revolutionary design changes. It's risk averse, and the more your game deviates from what is already established as successful, the more likely you are to run into problems that nobody has solved before. The system promotes familiarity, but it's worked out acceptably because people have standards and expect things to be fresh enough to be worth buying. Moving to a different platform circumvents that desire for freshness, with questionable development like this happening as a result.
Think about this analytically. Making a sequel to a successful game is much much easier than making the first game -- that is why we have seen so many games this generation that took around 4 years for the first title and just 2 years for the second title, with the second title often earning higher reviews than the first. And it's not just a matter of establishing a base of technology and assets; it's because after the first game you have figured out all of the most difficult time-consuming problems.
When you take an existing game and remake it, it just becomes a matter of production capacity. Visual style has been figured out for you. Game design has been figured out for you. Seriously, if what you said was even remotely true you wouldn't see multiplatform ports handled by B- and C-list developers; they would need better developers than those making the original game. You wouldn't see publishers so focused on sequels rather than fresh ideas, because sequels would be the risky move. Imitation is easier than innovation, hands down, end of story.
It is difficult to match the quality of something that is exceptionally well made by imitating it, yes. But it is far more difficult to match the quality of something that is exceptionally well made by making something different. Aiming high as an imitator instead of aiming low as an innovator doesn't mean that imitation in general is some honorably difficult undertaking.
Yes, the game industry has been focused strongly on evolutionary rather than revolutionary design changes. It's risk averse, and the more your game deviates from what is already established as successful, the more likely you are to run into problems that nobody has solved before. The system promotes familiarity, but it's worked out acceptably because people have standards and expect things to be fresh enough to be worth buying. Moving to a different platform circumvents that desire for freshness, with questionable development like this happening as a result.
"making a good copy is often harder that opting for something no one has done before"
I'm sorry, but that is just total horseshit. If you want to say they're giving the consumers what they want, that's at least somewhat understandable. But to say that making a direct copy of an existing game is somehow more difficult than making a new game is completely and utterly ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but that is just total horseshit. If you want to say they're giving the consumers what they want, that's at least somewhat understandable. But to say that making a direct copy of an existing game is somehow more difficult than making a new game is completely and utterly ridiculous.
@Touchstone: Yeah, I'm guessing it's something like having multiple teams at the same studio. I've been in that position myself and at some places the teams might as well be in different countries because there is so little interaction. And if someone on the not-Armored-core team noticed all that stuff I criticized, well, it might be pretty tricky in terms of office politics to speak up without offending someone.
Yeah, their cinematics are pretty slick. I think that's another clue to me that they aren't going for something very stylized, since it seems like it would be bad form to go for a stylized look in the game itself but photorealism in the cinematics. Somehow Blizzard manages to pull it off, but for most games it'd be pretty jarring.
I do have a good chunk of work online, but I prefer to keep this account anonymous, so I'll send you the link as a private message here.
Yeah, their cinematics are pretty slick. I think that's another clue to me that they aren't going for something very stylized, since it seems like it would be bad form to go for a stylized look in the game itself but photorealism in the cinematics. Somehow Blizzard manages to pull it off, but for most games it'd be pretty jarring.
I do have a good chunk of work online, but I prefer to keep this account anonymous, so I'll send you the link as a private message here.
@Touchstone: Hey, thanks for being civil with me about this. I honestly want this game to look better, but I know how people tend to just piss off fans in comment threads for the hell of it.
Well, I can't really think of any great examples within the mech genre itself, unless that new Mechwarrior trailer/teaser was in fact in-engine and realtime. But the thing is that the mech designs aren't what I have a problem with; it's the environment artwork and general systematic things like lighting that I think are most holding the visuals back. And that kind of stuff shows up in lots of games.
To be fair, considering that the game seems to be pretty open-world and fast paced, that does limit the relevance of most of the popular examples out there. I won't deny that games with as large an environmental scale as this face particular difficulty since the angle and distance at which you see something can very so greatly so quickly, so it would be really unfair to compare this against something like Killzone.
However, there absolutely are techniques available to make shadows work on the mechs themselves and on the environment in a situation like this. There are also relatively simple ways to reduce the appearance of texture repetition simply by layering multiple textures on top of each other at different scales; it's a very easy thing to put into practice and would make a world of difference for a game like this.
For a less technically-oriented response, you might consider something like Prototype. Here's a video:
[www.youtube.com]
Notice how in that game, the character's arm will cast a shadow on his own leg. That's something that From has not done for AC5, and I think it is hurting the sense of depth quite a bit. You also see in that video that the environment (buildings, small props, etc) is casting shadows as well. For these AC5 screenshots, the only shadows you see at all are from the mechs on the ground beneath them! The studio that made Prototype is not a large, famous studio either, so it seems reasonable to expect From to get their graphics tech up to that level.
Prototype is not a very stylistically interesting game, but like I told Raso, AC5 isn't stylistically interesting either. The style in this game comes from the mech design, not from overall art direction. You can tell from several of the shots that they are going for something that is stylistically somewhere along the lines of "Killzone/Crysis/etc meets Japanese mecha design" rather than having an all-encompassing style that would make even the screenshots without any mechs in them recognizable as being "Armored Core" style.
What does an "Armored Core" city look like? Pretty much like any other city. Same for its dusty roads, hangars, and so on. But a Gears of War city without any characters on-screen is still pretty recognizable. An Okami city is even more recognizable. And a Bioshock city is extremely recognizable. Those games stylize every aspect of their artwork, to varying degrees. Now, I'm not complaining that the Armored Core cities and bunkers and hangars aren't recognizably stylized. There's nothing wrong with going for fairly straightforward environments. But when you're using a combination of style and content that has been used over and over before (generic near-future city, generic near-future hangar) you should at least make sure you can do it to near the level of quality that people have come to expect for them.
I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from. Again, I do like the mechs. But most of the other aspects of the visuals have been done significantly better elsewhere, to the point where it brings the game down even despite the focus being on the mechs.
Well, I can't really think of any great examples within the mech genre itself, unless that new Mechwarrior trailer/teaser was in fact in-engine and realtime. But the thing is that the mech designs aren't what I have a problem with; it's the environment artwork and general systematic things like lighting that I think are most holding the visuals back. And that kind of stuff shows up in lots of games.
To be fair, considering that the game seems to be pretty open-world and fast paced, that does limit the relevance of most of the popular examples out there. I won't deny that games with as large an environmental scale as this face particular difficulty since the angle and distance at which you see something can very so greatly so quickly, so it would be really unfair to compare this against something like Killzone.
However, there absolutely are techniques available to make shadows work on the mechs themselves and on the environment in a situation like this. There are also relatively simple ways to reduce the appearance of texture repetition simply by layering multiple textures on top of each other at different scales; it's a very easy thing to put into practice and would make a world of difference for a game like this.
For a less technically-oriented response, you might consider something like Prototype. Here's a video:
[www.youtube.com]
Notice how in that game, the character's arm will cast a shadow on his own leg. That's something that From has not done for AC5, and I think it is hurting the sense of depth quite a bit. You also see in that video that the environment (buildings, small props, etc) is casting shadows as well. For these AC5 screenshots, the only shadows you see at all are from the mechs on the ground beneath them! The studio that made Prototype is not a large, famous studio either, so it seems reasonable to expect From to get their graphics tech up to that level.
Prototype is not a very stylistically interesting game, but like I told Raso, AC5 isn't stylistically interesting either. The style in this game comes from the mech design, not from overall art direction. You can tell from several of the shots that they are going for something that is stylistically somewhere along the lines of "Killzone/Crysis/etc meets Japanese mecha design" rather than having an all-encompassing style that would make even the screenshots without any mechs in them recognizable as being "Armored Core" style.
What does an "Armored Core" city look like? Pretty much like any other city. Same for its dusty roads, hangars, and so on. But a Gears of War city without any characters on-screen is still pretty recognizable. An Okami city is even more recognizable. And a Bioshock city is extremely recognizable. Those games stylize every aspect of their artwork, to varying degrees. Now, I'm not complaining that the Armored Core cities and bunkers and hangars aren't recognizably stylized. There's nothing wrong with going for fairly straightforward environments. But when you're using a combination of style and content that has been used over and over before (generic near-future city, generic near-future hangar) you should at least make sure you can do it to near the level of quality that people have come to expect for them.
I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from. Again, I do like the mechs. But most of the other aspects of the visuals have been done significantly better elsewhere, to the point where it brings the game down even despite the focus being on the mechs.
@UrQuan: Brilliant!
@Hunter.Wolf: That's part of my point. If the only thing holding Unitology together is the supernatural mind-controlling ability of the marker then that almost completely deflates the fiction's ability to serve as meaningful satire. It's a deus ex machina.
@Dasyat: I think there's a fundamental problem of perception that really weakens the game's portrayal of Unitology to serve as genuine, biting criticism. It's all looking at the results of fanaticism, the extremes that fanatics can go to, without paying much mind to what really brought them there in the first place, what can really put people in that frame of mind.
It's all well and good to say that in a general sense humanity in the Dead Space fiction reaches a point of desperation that the Unitologists take advantage of, but that's still a pretty vague and not-very-compelling explanation of why these desperate people would flock to Unitology instead of an established religion such as Buddhism, Christianity, or what have you.
Part of the appeal of religion is taking things that don't seem to "make sense" in the grand scheme of things and giving them a purpose. And there's not really anything shown that connects the dots of Unitology's core beliefs with people's need for the world to make sense again. What solution would Unitology provide that major world religions did not? How would it succeed so grandly where Scientology has floundered in ridicule?
Overall there just seems to be too much reliance on a shared distrust of humanity's general rationality. I think that Unitology would have been a much more frightening adversary in the series if it wasn't so ridiculous, and instead made the player think at one point, "You know, I can kind of understand why someone would want to believe that. Maybe it's not that crazy."
Now that would be scary!
It's all well and good to say that in a general sense humanity in the Dead Space fiction reaches a point of desperation that the Unitologists take advantage of, but that's still a pretty vague and not-very-compelling explanation of why these desperate people would flock to Unitology instead of an established religion such as Buddhism, Christianity, or what have you.
Part of the appeal of religion is taking things that don't seem to "make sense" in the grand scheme of things and giving them a purpose. And there's not really anything shown that connects the dots of Unitology's core beliefs with people's need for the world to make sense again. What solution would Unitology provide that major world religions did not? How would it succeed so grandly where Scientology has floundered in ridicule?
Overall there just seems to be too much reliance on a shared distrust of humanity's general rationality. I think that Unitology would have been a much more frightening adversary in the series if it wasn't so ridiculous, and instead made the player think at one point, "You know, I can kind of understand why someone would want to believe that. Maybe it's not that crazy."
Now that would be scary!
@Raso719: Speaking as someone who works in a 3D game art department as a 3D artist, your scenario is really ridiculous. The people handling the game features, stability, and design don't make the game art. Game development takes a lot of specialization these days, down to the point that some people only make shaders (not textures or models) or just do lighting all year round as their job.
It's definitely smart to put your most effort into the visual aspects that will pack the most punch, and that's part of why I spoke up here. None of the things I consider to be holding the visuals back here would take significantly more work to have gotten right. Just better work. The problems I cited are things that just about every decent 3D artist would pick up on.
In the long term it's true that you can prioritize your funding toward visuals, design, or stability (among other things) but it's generally not so much an explicit choice that gets made at a specific moment so much as thousands and thousands of small choices layered on each other over time.
I can sympathize with how sick you are of desaturated, gritty, dark games -- honestly, I feel the same way for the most part.
But come on, man. This game ain't exactly Van Gogh either. This ain't no bold, experimental stylistic venture with a fresh new palette. These aren't vibrant, lively visuals. It's the same color-crunched visual style we've been seeing in war games for a long time now... just with mechs. You won't see me dropping a laundry list of graphical techniques that could be improved on No More Heroes, but damn sure people have done this style before and done it better.
And no, a shiny coat of HD paint isn't enough to sell a game in the US. There are plenty of examples of that. The full-scale Bionic Commando reboot didn't have absolutely exceptional production values but it was a damn good looking game that sold like crap because it wasn't fun. I think that you and Touchstone should consider the possibility that game design can have as much subjective nuance as visual design and stop speaking as though it can be taken for granted that Gears and MW are badly designed games that just got popular because of high production values.
It's definitely smart to put your most effort into the visual aspects that will pack the most punch, and that's part of why I spoke up here. None of the things I consider to be holding the visuals back here would take significantly more work to have gotten right. Just better work. The problems I cited are things that just about every decent 3D artist would pick up on.
In the long term it's true that you can prioritize your funding toward visuals, design, or stability (among other things) but it's generally not so much an explicit choice that gets made at a specific moment so much as thousands and thousands of small choices layered on each other over time.
I can sympathize with how sick you are of desaturated, gritty, dark games -- honestly, I feel the same way for the most part.
But come on, man. This game ain't exactly Van Gogh either. This ain't no bold, experimental stylistic venture with a fresh new palette. These aren't vibrant, lively visuals. It's the same color-crunched visual style we've been seeing in war games for a long time now... just with mechs. You won't see me dropping a laundry list of graphical techniques that could be improved on No More Heroes, but damn sure people have done this style before and done it better.
And no, a shiny coat of HD paint isn't enough to sell a game in the US. There are plenty of examples of that. The full-scale Bionic Commando reboot didn't have absolutely exceptional production values but it was a damn good looking game that sold like crap because it wasn't fun. I think that you and Touchstone should consider the possibility that game design can have as much subjective nuance as visual design and stop speaking as though it can be taken for granted that Gears and MW are badly designed games that just got popular because of high production values.
@Touchstone: I guess I didn't explain my point well enough. Having 99% of the population agree with a statement saying "x is better looking than y" doesn't make it an objective fact that one is better designed than the other, but it does imply that there are objective factors at work that are significantly influencing the outcome. By objective factors, I mean universal principles of visual design that apply regardless of individual stylistic preferences. One might even argue that "style" is something that comes from placing higher priority on one set of principles than others. But beyond that level of generality, you start getting into heavily philosophical stuff about ideals, the nature of perception, and also quite a bit of semantic junk.
Maybe it's an ugly truth to you, but "better" and "worse" art are fairly universal things as far as visual representations are relative to themselves. Even if you do not like space marines as a concept, there are space marine designs that you will favor over others even within a certain stylistic set, be it traditional Anime, Epic Games style 'roided out dudes, photorealism, or what have you. And speaking as someone making a career out of art, it's a comfort to me, because it means there are universal ideals that I can leverage to bring my personal stylistic leanings closer to their most brilliant execution. I'm not victimized by the mysterious subjective forces of visual preference -- if I keep studying and analyzing and practicing, I will improve.
So, bottom line: even if you like the overall style of this game, I think the execution within that style according to universal principles of visual design leaves quite a bit to be desired. And considering it is on the whatevereth iteration, I think they should have something better than this by now.
Maybe it's an ugly truth to you, but "better" and "worse" art are fairly universal things as far as visual representations are relative to themselves. Even if you do not like space marines as a concept, there are space marine designs that you will favor over others even within a certain stylistic set, be it traditional Anime, Epic Games style 'roided out dudes, photorealism, or what have you. And speaking as someone making a career out of art, it's a comfort to me, because it means there are universal ideals that I can leverage to bring my personal stylistic leanings closer to their most brilliant execution. I'm not victimized by the mysterious subjective forces of visual preference -- if I keep studying and analyzing and practicing, I will improve.
So, bottom line: even if you like the overall style of this game, I think the execution within that style according to universal principles of visual design leaves quite a bit to be desired. And considering it is on the whatevereth iteration, I think they should have something better than this by now.
Eh. I found the satire (is that fitting? It seems harsher and yet less direct than satire...) presented by Unitology to be really ham-fisted and clunky. Maybe that's how overzealous religious types might look to people whose personal experience has been strictly atheist (or simply unconcerned with religion), but it really comes across as pretty silly to someone who grew up going to church every Sunday, even though I left that life behind. That said, as removed as an atheist life is from a religious life, that much more so must be a cultist life. Basically I feel like there's just too much reliance here on the idea that "Man, crazy cultists will just believe anything and do anything for it!"
Ironically enough considering its name, there doesn't really seem to be much holding Unitology together as a belief system. Just this arbitrary "people worship the marker" stuff. You won't get an organized, persistent, manipulative social structure out of throwing a few random crazies at some unusual event or object. Dead Space never hinted at any more than that, just going again and again into the "Those crazy cultists are CRAZY!" bucket of disturbing setpieces.
There are definitely crazy (or simply desperate and lonely) people out there who fall in with some pretty absurd cults, but the behavior shown by Unitologists in the Dead Space series is irrational in an exceptionally predictable and trite way. It undermines the bite of the story quite a bit in my mind. Seriously, rooms that have glowing signs marking them as indoctrination areas? The real insanity and insidiousness of cultists isn't something you can convey just by slapping a label on a group of people who happen to be conveniently violent and unstable for the purposes of your plot.
As much absurdity and goofiness as Resident Evil 4 had, I think the way that it handled the idea of an evil cult idolizing a malevolent supernatural force was far superior. The transformation of a small local church into the puppet of an evil cult is much more compelling (and frightening) than people forming a new major world religion around a weird obsidian spiral sculpture that someone randomly unearthed.
Now, all that being said, I know Dead Space isn't really striving to be much more than just a solid piece of entertainment, so I just kind of rolled my eyes at the more absurd Unitologist stuff and really enjoyed the game for what it was.
Ironically enough considering its name, there doesn't really seem to be much holding Unitology together as a belief system. Just this arbitrary "people worship the marker" stuff. You won't get an organized, persistent, manipulative social structure out of throwing a few random crazies at some unusual event or object. Dead Space never hinted at any more than that, just going again and again into the "Those crazy cultists are CRAZY!" bucket of disturbing setpieces.
There are definitely crazy (or simply desperate and lonely) people out there who fall in with some pretty absurd cults, but the behavior shown by Unitologists in the Dead Space series is irrational in an exceptionally predictable and trite way. It undermines the bite of the story quite a bit in my mind. Seriously, rooms that have glowing signs marking them as indoctrination areas? The real insanity and insidiousness of cultists isn't something you can convey just by slapping a label on a group of people who happen to be conveniently violent and unstable for the purposes of your plot.
As much absurdity and goofiness as Resident Evil 4 had, I think the way that it handled the idea of an evil cult idolizing a malevolent supernatural force was far superior. The transformation of a small local church into the puppet of an evil cult is much more compelling (and frightening) than people forming a new major world religion around a weird obsidian spiral sculpture that someone randomly unearthed.
Now, all that being said, I know Dead Space isn't really striving to be much more than just a solid piece of entertainment, so I just kind of rolled my eyes at the more absurd Unitologist stuff and really enjoyed the game for what it was.
@dowmein222: I understand the plight of the small developer, I really do. But when you are on the fifth iteration of an established franchise I feel like you really ought to have something more polished than this to offer up. I'd be more likely to keep my criticism to myself and root for the underdog if they were trying something new, but this isn't even the first time this franchise has landed on an HD console.
@Touchstone: If visual style was entirely subjective then you wouldn't be able to describe one artist as more skilled than another. There is absolutely an element of subjectivity to it, but (stylistic preferences accounted for) I have a hard time believing that you genuinely think the artwork for this is as well-executed and carefully polished as the artwork for those games.
Opinions aren't these magical things separate from all objectivity. You can be of the opinion that Roseanne Barr is more visually appealing than Kirsten Dunst, but you won't find too many people agreeing with you. And it won't just be because of personal preferences. Similarly, you can claim that Gears and MW are "hideous" but I would imagine that's more of a "I don't get it" rebellious reactionary statement than something that the general public would really get behind on careful examination.
As much variation as people's preferences may have, there is a hell of a lot of common ground that differentiates "good" from "bad" in the eyes of just about everyone. And I think that a great deal of my complaints about the visuals on display here lies in that territory.
Frankly? It's pretty obvious you're a fan of the series that my harsh critique has offended. You may want to just get over it and move on. I'm not trying to bring down any fans here, so feel free to ignore all the visual quirks that bother me and enjoy the game regardless.
Opinions aren't these magical things separate from all objectivity. You can be of the opinion that Roseanne Barr is more visually appealing than Kirsten Dunst, but you won't find too many people agreeing with you. And it won't just be because of personal preferences. Similarly, you can claim that Gears and MW are "hideous" but I would imagine that's more of a "I don't get it" rebellious reactionary statement than something that the general public would really get behind on careful examination.
As much variation as people's preferences may have, there is a hell of a lot of common ground that differentiates "good" from "bad" in the eyes of just about everyone. And I think that a great deal of my complaints about the visuals on display here lies in that territory.
Frankly? It's pretty obvious you're a fan of the series that my harsh critique has offended. You may want to just get over it and move on. I'm not trying to bring down any fans here, so feel free to ignore all the visual quirks that bother me and enjoy the game regardless.
@Touchstone: You misunderstand. I wasn't asking for realistic lighting. I was asking for either lighting that didn't clash so horribly with the rest of the visual design because of reliance on an outdated system, or art direction that was competent enough to properly compensate for said outdated system.
I kept up with the videos and screenshots for AC4 before deciding it wasn't for me. Admittedly AC4 was the first I heard of the series, but a quick Google image search for other games in the series turns up much, much more readable (and actually more attractive) images than that confusing mess on display above.
Graphics get attention. You don't necessary need to be the best looking game on the block to get the hype train rolling, but damn sure if there was a mech game with visuals of as high production values as Gears or Modern Warfare or whatever other major franchise it'd pull in a lot of people who otherwise have no exceptional interest in mechs.
Exceptional gameplay could do that too, for sure -- neither Minecraft nor Portal are ugly games, but neither is a 500lb graphics gorilla and they both shot to stardom. But to be honest, I think doing a variation on conventional shooter gameplay to a very polished degree would be enough for a mech game. Nobody seems to be doing either, and so for a long time what we've gotten is average shooty games with a mech skin on them instead of something that would really make people sit up and take notice.
I kept up with the videos and screenshots for AC4 before deciding it wasn't for me. Admittedly AC4 was the first I heard of the series, but a quick Google image search for other games in the series turns up much, much more readable (and actually more attractive) images than that confusing mess on display above.
Graphics get attention. You don't necessary need to be the best looking game on the block to get the hype train rolling, but damn sure if there was a mech game with visuals of as high production values as Gears or Modern Warfare or whatever other major franchise it'd pull in a lot of people who otherwise have no exceptional interest in mechs.
Exceptional gameplay could do that too, for sure -- neither Minecraft nor Portal are ugly games, but neither is a 500lb graphics gorilla and they both shot to stardom. But to be honest, I think doing a variation on conventional shooter gameplay to a very polished degree would be enough for a mech game. Nobody seems to be doing either, and so for a long time what we've gotten is average shooty games with a mech skin on them instead of something that would really make people sit up and take notice.
@Raso719: I disagree with you there. I certainly wouldn't go so far as saying that mech games are made to exploit fans, but no developer has yet produced a mech game half as polished as your mega-franchise FPS titles. Not that it needs to be -- Left 4 Dead had some rough edges but became something of a phenomenon. If anything I'd say the stigma is more with publishers than the general public -- publishers are just so backward-focused rather than forward-focused.
Six years ago if you tried pitching a AAA zombie game you'd have a much harder time finding a publisher than you would now, because back then there weren't as many successful zombie games to point to as examples. And, frankly, publishers are stupid. They don't have vision. They rely on spreadsheets that track existing genres and the statistics of their selling rates, not a solid grasp of the potential of the gaming medium and the gaming public's interests.
The modern military FPS is a pretty overdone genre with a lot of missteps, but one of the main reasons it got pushed to such prominence is that the Infinity Ward guys were just exceptionally devoted and skilled at making military FPS. Whether or not military FPS are your cup of tea, you have to admit they really elevated the level of polish in military FPS to a level where people who otherwise don't care about real-world military took notice of the game and passed it around. And seriously, even just the switch from WW2 to modern day was a change that Infinity Ward had to really push for because of trend-tracking publisher morons.
Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead similarly have helped push the zombie genre to prominence. But I don't think we've seen that kind of passion-driven mastery of the mech game archetype yet -- mastery to the point that people who don't normally care about that kind of game are taking notice.
Six years ago if you tried pitching a AAA zombie game you'd have a much harder time finding a publisher than you would now, because back then there weren't as many successful zombie games to point to as examples. And, frankly, publishers are stupid. They don't have vision. They rely on spreadsheets that track existing genres and the statistics of their selling rates, not a solid grasp of the potential of the gaming medium and the gaming public's interests.
The modern military FPS is a pretty overdone genre with a lot of missteps, but one of the main reasons it got pushed to such prominence is that the Infinity Ward guys were just exceptionally devoted and skilled at making military FPS. Whether or not military FPS are your cup of tea, you have to admit they really elevated the level of polish in military FPS to a level where people who otherwise don't care about real-world military took notice of the game and passed it around. And seriously, even just the switch from WW2 to modern day was a change that Infinity Ward had to really push for because of trend-tracking publisher morons.
Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead similarly have helped push the zombie genre to prominence. But I don't think we've seen that kind of passion-driven mastery of the mech game archetype yet -- mastery to the point that people who don't normally care about that kind of game are taking notice.
@PajamaSam: I heard about that mod a while back, but didn't realize it had reached a playable state. I'll check it out, thanks.
Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic about the new Mechwarrior. They have some of the core oldschool Battletech guys giving direction on it and they're using a bloody modern game engine (hint, hint) so it has a chance of being pretty awesome. The developer is a bit unproven though so I'm hesitant to get too super excited about it just yet for fear of a letdown. Fingers crossed!
Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic about the new Mechwarrior. They have some of the core oldschool Battletech guys giving direction on it and they're using a bloody modern game engine (hint, hint) so it has a chance of being pretty awesome. The developer is a bit unproven though so I'm hesitant to get too super excited about it just yet for fear of a letdown. Fingers crossed!
@Raso719: What about it? You can't see gameplay in screenshots. It may end up being a fun game, but as a mech enthusiast I am pretty disappointed by the visuals, and visuals are a big part of why I love mechs in general. I understand not everyone has the same priorities; more power to 'em. Even so, I would love to see mech games catch on the way zombie games have, and that just isn't going to happen when they still look like this.
Besides, I didn't even mention bloom, which they seem to be using properly anyway. :P
Besides, I didn't even mention bloom, which they seem to be using properly anyway. :P
Yeesh, color me unimpressed. Painfully obvious tiling environment textures (is that Houndstooth on the rooftops?), no environment shadows or dynamic self-shadowing (hello Oblivion circa 2006), a distinct lack of ambient lighting which leads to excessive contrast and visual confusion, noisy textures with inconsistent styles, and generic color-crunching postprocess. It's like they didn't have an art director or graphics engineer.
Some of the mech designs are pretty rocking individually, but when so many of your screenshots are nigh unreadable as thumbnails you may want to rethink how your overall style is working.
Compositionally, 15, 19 and 16 are probably working the best. 4, 10, 12, 24, 25 are just so much visual noise. If your engine is (almost inexcusably, at this point) hard locked to not allow dynamic self-shadowing, then you need to tailor your art direction to still yield readability when you can't rely on self-shadowing to add natural depth to the complex forms. That would mean taking your designs in a more minimalistic Syd Mead direction, instead of jamming Bayformers levels of surface complexity into such a contrast-exaggerating lighting system.
I know a lot of this 3D art jargon is a bit much for most people, but man I had to get that off my chest. Just... yikes. I so badly want an awesome mech game that it makes this that much more frustrating to see. :(
Some of the mech designs are pretty rocking individually, but when so many of your screenshots are nigh unreadable as thumbnails you may want to rethink how your overall style is working.
Compositionally, 15, 19 and 16 are probably working the best. 4, 10, 12, 24, 25 are just so much visual noise. If your engine is (almost inexcusably, at this point) hard locked to not allow dynamic self-shadowing, then you need to tailor your art direction to still yield readability when you can't rely on self-shadowing to add natural depth to the complex forms. That would mean taking your designs in a more minimalistic Syd Mead direction, instead of jamming Bayformers levels of surface complexity into such a contrast-exaggerating lighting system.
I know a lot of this 3D art jargon is a bit much for most people, but man I had to get that off my chest. Just... yikes. I so badly want an awesome mech game that it makes this that much more frustrating to see. :(
