What has the best graphics?

For me, when I play a game I'd say 80% - 90% of the enjoyment comes from two key components; Graphics & Story.

A strongly written Storyline is key because it's what pulls us the players into it even farther and make us get attached to a certain character or item or companion, but how that character, item, or companion is represented graphically is just as important if not more so to me. The reason why is because it's a big part of what "allows" you to become attached to your game.

I mean, you can have a game with a great storyline, but if everything is just colored blocks sliding around, the player won't have that connection and affection to the game that is needed for replay value.

I like worlds and characters with a lot of subtle detail because it's what makes that environment feel plausible and real.

So my question is, is what is the BEST graphics you've ever seen using A8 and HOW was it done?

Mine personally, is a video I just came across on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVE8lUoaMzw&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I can't speak German though so I don't know what was used to get the results he got, but they seem to be above most of the other stuff I've seen.

I know about LoD and what it does (higher detail, close; lower detail, far) but I figured it's just a technique to keep Framerate high while giving lower end processors a break when in wide open areas of the game world.
Does LoD really make a DRASTIC difference in graphic quality??

Please excuse the noobishness, I'm just trying to get back into the swing of 3DGS and make some quality games!

I see the viedo and I think that is in the moment the best quality for Games made

with G Studio A8. But I think the next Gamestudio Version is much better than

this.So we wait for the A9.

I don't think, that soon there will be a A9 version.. Cause there is a huge gap between A7 and future A9 (which maybe even won't ever come out).

I think A9 will come out eventually it's just you have to realize, think about how hard it is to create a quality game....NOW think about how much harder it is to create a quality game development system to design quality games. I don't know if Atari or Conitec is directly responsible for 3DGS, but either way I can't imagine the dev team for 3DGS being very big so what they've already accomplished is extremely impressive it just takes awhile for patches and updates.

So, uh, what do you want to talk about?

Because you open with this:



Which is a statement worthy of discussion. It's always difficult to boil down experiences like that - saying "x % of my enjoyment of this game come from y", since it's all connected. But even so, is it graphics, art style, animation?
So discussing that would be a worthy topic.


Or is it something else you wish to talk about? You're also asking technical questions - should this topic be about techniques to achieve a certain level of graphical fidelity, effects and - of course - how to do all this fast?


Finally, your topic subject asks "What has the best graphics", which, combined with your YouTube-link makes this seem like you want to know which Acknex project looks the best.



All of these can make for good topics, but we should probably focus. So, what's the one you're most interested in?




...

Also...




So this is two statements in one. The first being, a certain minimum level of graphics is needed for the player to feel empathy. While this is obviously hugely subjective, may I guide your attention to Thomas Was Alone? It's literally just colored blocks, but there's a whole lot of heart involved. It may just be an example that this can be enough to empathize. And why shouldn't it? Books don't use any pictures, and we can feel for the characters. Imagination is a funny beast.

Also, is a "connection" and "affection" really what increases the Replay value? I'm really not sure about that. I've only played 999 once, and there was a really strong connection to the characters! (It's an amazing game. If you have the chance, play it.)

Sorry, I'm actually curious about all those things, but I'll try to refine my question.

The storyline & graphics debate is hugely subjective which is why i said in the first line "For me," because the post reflects my views on what pulls ME into a game.
Also, there's a big difference between a book and a game. Books are intended to be purely storyline driven. Like you said there are no graphics, Where as a game is intended to have graphics these days. My stance is if theirs going to be graphics, they might as well be as good as I can get them.

Now in regards to my initial question, I guess I technically had two questions.
The first being, in your own opinion (subjective), what was the best graphics you've ever seen in an A8 game (native or 3rd party).

The second question being more along the lines of what you said,


That's exactly what I'm looking for. Things such as, how do you get subtle chips and cracks in the rock walls, realistic sun reflections off of rock, realistic looking water that moves, cloth (ex: shirt and pants) that looks and acts real on a player, etc. and what is the best way to go about duplicating these results.


Once again, these are things that really pull a game together and make it enjoyable FOR ME.

While things like gameplay mechanics, animation, and the storyline really drive how the game is played and turns out, the world the game is in and how it looks is what gives the player a sense of urge or leisure or panic or comfort.

I mean seriously, nothing says move your ass like the ground crumbling into nothingness behind you.

I hope I clarified what I was asking.

Thanks for claryfing!

And yeah, you're right, these are hugely subjective issues.




The reason I brought up books is because they're at a unique point for this discussion: They feature both no graphics, and no gameplay (or any interactivity*), yet allow us to get attached to characters. So they're examples of how this can be achieved without graphics. The thought experiment then goes: Well, if it worked for that, how many "game elements" would I have to add until the attachment doesn't work that way without adding graphics?
Going from that, I s'ppose the next step towards games would be text adventuers or Interactive Fiction. If those are not game-y enough for you, I guess the next step would be Visual Novels.
At some point, we'd end up at Telltale's "The Walking Dead" series - much acclaimed for it's story and athmosphere, and there's definitely a sense of attachment. The graphics, however, are far from realistic, and feature Telltale's normal engine.

Have you played that game? You'll find dozens of people on the internet arguing how it's "not a game"; but don't listen to them. Setting aside the issue that there is no real definition for "game" anyhow, it clearly reacts and requires player input and decisions. Good enough for me. (And speaking of that - the inherent difficulty of marrying story and interactivity would also be a good topic for a thread)



As far as Acknex games go, going throw our very own Showcase-forum should give you some idea of what level of graphical fidelity is realistic. Yes, you can achieve more, but this has been discussed hundreds of times. The short version is: You'll need talented artists for good graphics. If you don't have that, shoot for something stylized. That can still be very effective!

I really like how you actually put the character-attachment into the first post. Are there graphical styles more suited to conveying realistic characters, expressions and emotions (an important part of making characters likeable)? If I don't wish to shoot for realistic style (since it's not doable for me), what others are there?
Are Wind Waker's characters more likeable than, say, To The Moon's sprite characters?



Which means I disagree with this. I think a fitting style is more important than pure technical aspects.

Personally, I think a lot - and I do mean A LOT - is in the animations and movement of characters. Get that right, the rest almost doesn't matter much. Technically, you probably don't have to worry much about those, then - with the exception that Bones animation with weighted bones is a com-and-higher feature.




Sure, that's a good way to put some pressure on the player. But here's the thing: Once you're suspension of disbelief kicks in, I think the crumbling is equally as effective with worse graphics (within reason) than it is with today's top-notch graphics. If you manage to pull the player into your world, then you can get away with "worse" graphics (as long as it's somewhat consistent).

* - I am aware of "choose your own adventure"-books. I also hate all of them. ALL OF THEM

I have to say, you make some interesting and valid points that I definitely hadn't really put much thought into such as your point on technicality vs stylized.
I'm glad you used Telltale's The Walking Dead as an example for two reasons. One, I'm a huge, HUGE fan of the walking dead show and game. The second is because, as much as i love walking dead, I was a fan of Telltale long before they did walking dead (The Back To The Future series they did was awesome!) and they are definitely a good example of style over technicality. However, their's a key reason that style worked. One word; comics.

As I'm sure you know The Walking Dead started as a comic by Robert Kirkman so while the style the game was done was awesome, they really emphasized & "cashed out" on (if you will) that "comic-y" feel because it would only make sense looking back on the brands origins.

Also, my example of getting the player to "move their ass" was kind of a joke and yeah the same feeling and effect could be achieved with lower graphics, but let me explain why I feel quality graphics is a good thing.

The reason I've been so curious about graphics and detail is because I have an idea for a Space game.

I know, I know, I know, doesn't sound too original, but the way I wanna go about it is a little different.

When I think of space I think of bright vivid colors, technicality, edginess, futuristic.

Your HUB (where you can buy, sell, upgrade, etc.) is one big Star Freighter or "Mothership", that you can walk around in 3rd person, explore, meet people.
You're an "ace" pilot among many and you will be deployed to many different planets to do missions and solve internal conflicts in order to gain ranks and such. Think along the lines of Halo 4 a bit. INFINITY (the starship) houses the TROJANS (fighters). same concept except instead of constant ground deployment, you will be a pilot.

Obviously being a pilot, you can choose to also go out and freely explore your current region and fight mercenary and enemy ships and this will also be how you get to your "target planet" when you're on a mission.but I don't want their to be a loading screen when coming into a planets atmosphere, i want the user to be able to fly down to the planets surface and the details get cleaner and cleaner as they come into the world (obviously would be controlled by LoD) and fly around and explore the world or go straight to their mission.

I don't want to continue rambling on about my idea because it only gets crazier and I know this may seem a bit over ambitious, but i don't expect this to be finished anytime soon. I'm thinking long term which is why I'm so worried about how the games textures and terrain(s) will come out on the other side.

Another thing I'm worried about is would A8 even be able to handle something like this even with the help of 3rd party programs and plugins?

Btw, I really appreciate the feedback and help Error!

I've read your idea and I'm sorry to say it or maybe even disappoint you but that sounds like a project for a 25+ people full-time working team of professionals for at least 2 years, especially considering that you want to have top-notch visuals.
I know that you've said you try to think in the long-run but I try to save you a lot of time (that you will never get back) and frustration. Additionally, after some time, maybe even only weeks, you will probably get an idea for an even better game. What I find a little surprising is that you only talk about the gameplay, I would have expected that you write about the story first.

While I really appreciate your concern Superku, I believe I may have said that wrong. I want the game to eventually span into that.

From the start, the first PLAYABLE version will most likely be only one region, which will consist of 2 - 4 (mostly barren) planets with a couple of "villages" here and there to do various collection or assassination missions. I believe I'm making sound more difficult than I think it will be especially because I plan on assembling some sort of development team after I work all the details out.

The key things I believe that needs to be worked out first is things like:

Storyline - No "real" storyline is intended. Basically you're a mercenary ship, you help different people on different planets. One person may ask you for a soil sample of a different planet. Another person may ask you to deal with a bounty hunter that's been harassing them. So i guess the storyline is planet dependent. Different things are going on in different worlds. WHAT goes on on those planets and the missions available will change with time as the game develops.

Star Freighter - The Star Freighter is definitely one of the top priorities because it's one of, if not, the only place the player will really get to explore and look at up close. While you're in space most of what you'll be seeing will be the obviously, well, space.

There definitely needs to be more thought and organization put into this, but that's why I'm asking these questions. i want to gain as much resources and knowledge as I can before setting anything in stone. Than start working out the gameplay and story. Finally, bring in others for development and direction of the game itself.

Maybe I am getting in over my head, but I'm used to it. Who knows, i might come out of all this with a zombie game (like we need another one ).

Ok, I understand, but please tell me one thing (this is in no way intended to be mean): Did you create a game before and if so, can you show a screenshot of it, or do you have any experience in game creation?

I have experience with programming and a little modeling, but no I've never made a full game. And I know what you're already getting at and like I said above I'm WELL aware of how overly ambitious this may sound, but that's why I said, their will be many, many updates to the game. The first of which will be very simple and may only consist of the star freighters interior and doing missions around the ship for co-pilots and workers around the ship.

After the ship is where i'm comfortable with it, next comes outside the ship (space). as far as space goes, couldn't I just use a skybox that looks like space for most of the environment with a few spheres (planets) and obviously the players ship model? The way I'm planning to do it is in each region their's only a few planets on screen each time. Only the star freighter can bring you to other regions where the planets in that region will be generated during the loading screen between regions. To me, that's really all I can think of needing for the space aspect aside from the rogue mercenary and enemy ship models and other obvious things like the animation and stuff although I'm sure there's more.

Overall, I definitely expect a challenge, a big one, but one that can be achieved with enough time and dedication.

I'd like to make it clear, that i don't plan on diving straight into this guns blazing. I want to do some (ALOT) of personal testing, using different techniques for various aspects of the games look and feel and get WAY better with programming as well.

Which speaking of programming brings me to my next question, seeing as how this is an ambitious game I can imagine it will probably be pretty heavy for some users as well. Is their a way to make an "options" menu on the title screen so the player can turn on and off different aspects to make the game run better? Like turning off certain shaders, changing texture quality, things of that nature.

Lots of new stuff to reply to! I'll probably forget half of what I want to say. Anyway, here goes...




Yeah, I'm aware of that, though I haven't seen the show, nor have I read any of the comics. So for me, the game is the entire experience. And it still worked for me!
Because, well, it may be true that the comic was there first, but that doesn't undermine my point, does it? You're still able to feel attachment to the characters, despite the graphics being far from being technically impressive.




You, uh, did you do that? You go on to talk about your game - also interesting, but, err, it's not an explanation.
Anyhow, here's my question to that:

What does quality graphics mean?

Rating graphics on a singular scale seems to be a bad idea. Game magazines like to do it, to reduce the elements of a game to single numbers (you know those ratings, right? "Sound: 82%, Graphics: 91%, Final Score: 88%"), but we should be aware that there's more to that. And graphics are, of course, influenced by story, setting, athmosphere, level design, model design, and so much more! Depending on the game, even sound (which usually feels more disjointed from graphics than other aspects) can be a huge influence - and that's disregarding how music can inspire.

So, I'm rambling. The point is, Game development isn't a science, it's an art. There's no hard rules - there's things that usually tend to work, but some games may require you to ignore them and do the opposite (those games tend to be more interesting to people like us! ... or maybe it's just me)



But what criteria are there to rate "Graphics" on? Animation, Art style (can that even be "rated"?), Technical prowess?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's no point to arguing. There is a lot to learn here. I'm just saying that, err, it's complicated!


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, let's talk your game idea, then.


Contrary to Superku, I don't think it's that crazy outlandish impossible to create. I'm thinking with the right compromises made, it's a good project to work on, because it scales really well. Start small (smaller than what you said you want to start with - how about making space combat wirk for a start?), then go from there.

The thing though is - if you don't bother about story, and in extension characters - then of course it doesn't matter how you achieve the player feeling attachement, as there is nothing for the player to feel attached to (unless you count their progress and spaceship, but I'd argue that's a different kind of attachment).
But isn't that a missed opportunity?

On your HQ-spaceship, you'll likely want to provide some exposition, and a way to do that is to have characters tell you about the world (though there are more elegant ways to achieve this - show, don't tell). But sure, okay, there's value in that, a place that is constant and provides a safe haven to return back to. It serves little gameplay purpose (a menu would be more efficient if it was about upgrading and buying stuff), some would say, but I disagree. Building the world, creating an athmosphere, that is part of the game, and it's, possibly, what seperates good mechanics from great experiences.
And, likely for similar reasons (even if not articulated that way), you probably want to avoid loading screens (they threw the player out of the game, they stop him/her dead in their tracks, they make the player realize it's not real - it shatters the illusion you built!). However, as this is more of a technical detail, I wouldn't worry so much about it NOW - a cleverly disguised loading screen (perhaps the ship's displays need to switch when entering the athmosphere?) could work well for a while.

Perhaps this is motivating to you:
The Evochron series is a space game series that features what you're trying to achieve - freeform landing on planets, for instance. And they're all developed (mainly) by a single person.


But, and here Superku's right, you need to figure out a way to do this. You may have to scale down your expectations on the visuals. This must not mean a compromise in the "feel" your game will ultimately have - only that it must be something you can achieve in a realistic timeframe.



Also, yeah, you will get other ideas during development. That's normal, though, happens to everybody, and you'll probably wish to start work on a new idea sometime during development. Also normal.
. . . . . Right, guys?



Yeah, there is. From AI to movement, to physics, to interface design, to sound and music to everything. The key rule is, you'll always forget stuff that you'll find yourself having to create at some point. There's no avoiding that, but how much stuff you forget, that you can control (up to a point), by carefully planning. Sit down and imagine playing your game. Then, for every aspect of whats on the screen, think about how to achieve this. How do you code something like that happening? What do you need? This is a part where experience really helps.
But how are you gonna get experience? At some point, you'll have to start, and at some point, you'll have to make mistakes, or else you're never gonna learn.

What I'm saying is, if this is a project that motivates you, then who am I to judge if that's how you learn about game development? Yeah, if you make a Pong-game, the chances are infinitely higher for you to finish it, but you're doing this for fun, aren't you? So do whatever makes you the happiest. If you need help, we're here - you seem patient & humble (... as humble as possible with game-developer-typical game-creation wishes ;)) and that's a very good combination.





Yes. It's not even difficult - it's just lots of ifs





No problem, you're welcome. It's a good discussion, too.
And, err... sorry for the typos and mistakes in my other reply. ... Guess it was a bit late when I posted.

Haha yeah, I'm sorry I tend to talk in circles sometimes...

Anyways, You've made me realize something which I think has happened to most developers in their early stages at one point or another which is, my taste is too commercial. What I mean by that is, OF COURSE, everyone wants clean textures and smooth edges and great quality, but some things are only realistic on a commercial level of production....

Also, I do intend to write a back story as to why you and the rest of your team is there and so on. What I meant by theirs going to be no "true" storyline is, I'd like it to be planet and level dependent. So you may go to one planet multiple times for different missions, but each missions gives you some insight to the way that world works and what's going on in it. However, when you go to other planets their stories don't have much to do with outside their own world.



I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a bit confused by one thing you said though. What did you mean when you said,
How could I disguise a loading screen while the player is still playing?

One thing I will agree with you and Superku on is I'll definitely need to lower my expectations graphically speaking..(for now )



You're absolutely right and I appreciate the tips man.

Now, back to the "video settings" topic:

If it really is possible, couldn't I make the game as "heavy" as I want? Since the users can choose to turn AA on and off, LoD, Resolution, texture quality, shaders, etc. they could run the game at "pristine" settings or however they needed to to get it to run smoothly on their computer. I'm not saying straight out of the gate with all this, but obviously starting small with low graphics, couldn't I just go back in or make an update for players to be able to completely control the graphics settings? Realistically, anyone could still play it as long as the video setting were set properly. I'm sure this probably a lot more complex than it sounds or everyone would be doing it, but ya know what they say, curiosity killed the cat (or overly ambitious developer....take your pick).



I really appreciate this statement given the fact that most others on other sites and forums will tell you how badly and horribly wrong you're going about things yet, never bother to explain why or help out. This already seems like an awesome community based on the people I've talked to so thanks guys!

No worries!
In return, you'll have to suffer an exceptionally high-and-mighty-tone. Sorry! Don't hate me.



Is that so?
It might well be. I do remember that the games I wanted to create at first were all very similar to existing games. And it is very common to hear people shout that they want to create a game "just like X". Does that change with time? And if so, is it just your tastes changing, or is it realizing that you want to express yourself more clearly, which is impossible when sticking too close to which has been there before?
(Which is unfair to say. I'm exaggerating to make the point more clear. There might still be some truth there?)



(EDIT: Reading this again, I think I misunderstood your point. But "great quality" is a bit unclear - it's all subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Yet, I don't think the below adds anything at this point. For completeness' sake, it's still there.)

Does everyone want this?
Let's disregard some "obvious" points (like everyone wants a screen resolution high enough to work), and talk about certain art styles.

Like cartoon - cel-shading. There's millions of fans of anime out there. And a lot of them enjoy the distinctively japanese artstyle, with clear faces and lots of expressions of characters, and the (usually) somewhat more plain textures.
And I don't have to hide behind a "Many like it!"-statement here; I do think that this kind of artstyle can make for very compelling visuals (and it not being so close to realism may give you more options, too).

Yeah, it's the same point as before.
Just, you know, next time, before you put the sad smiley there, think about the limiations you have for a minute.
Yes, they're often annoying, but they do serve as very important limiters. They limit what you can do - which sounds like it's a bad thing, but it isn't. Most people, when given the opportunity to do (or create) anything simply draw a blank. They don't know what to do or make.
But as soon as you limit the possible options, you have a starting point - if only in knowing what it is you can't do. From there, you can figure out what it is that's important to your vision, and end up creating something amazing with the limitations.

I believe that this may be part of the reason that those who do their Game Jams with certain themes they have to stick to end up creating more than those who don't.

All this and I didn't even point to Minecraft, or any of the other successful games with "Retro visuals" out there to make my point!




Well - a loading screen can be many things. Look, a black screen with the text "Loading" at the bottom is very obviously telling me that the game is loading content (or in other words, that it isn't real).

A game that does the same thing, but at the same time shows a picture of me descending onto a planet is doing a better job. I'm probably not fooled, but it's not outright telling me that there's a technical reason for the pause. So the suspension of disbelief is shattered a little less - cracked only, maybe.

A game that instead keeps going and silently pretends I'm flying through clouds (with me controlling it, even), while streaming everything in the background does the best job (think Metroid Prime's doors). Here, I have no reason to assume that I'm out of the world for a second.
This is not so easy to accomplish with Acknex, but it's still doable.





Alright, let's think this through. So you have your game, and it runs amazingly on your computer. But there's a problem when you run it on your grandma's computer - it's not running fast enough!
"Oh", you say, "guess we render too much on the screen here". So you decrease the distance you can see, and thus, less polygons are rendered. It now runs on your grandma's computer (if she manages to configure the settings right), good job!

But what's that? Your great uncle calls and says the game isn't running fluidly!
"Blast", you say, "I cannot reduce the distance any further, or it's unplayable" (since you need to see a certain distance). "Guess I'll have to use models with a lower polycount".

So now you have to model every object in the game again with half the polygons, and it works on the computer of your great uncle.

... Until, of course, he's in the mission with the great space dogfight. What now?
"Well...", you say. You can tune down the effects, of course - use less particles, smaller graphics - but maybe that won't cut it. This is difficult - your AI routines simply take too long! Your alternative is to make them simpler, but now the game suffers, as the ships are suddenly much easier (or harder (superintelligent AI can be - depending on the task - simple to create)). You may allow that, but now someone is playing thorugh a different game (an anecdote: on some old FPS games, one of the tips for increasing the framerate was to lower the difficulty of AI opponents)


Do you see where this is going? Yeah, you can go some way with that, but at some point, you cannot reduce things or the game itself suffers. You can't make textures as small as you wish if you NEED the player to read something written on it. You can't simply remove explosions, since they're needed for the player to see that the opponent was defeated (and is no longer a threat).
And that's disregarding all the extra effort it takes - if you have to model everything in the game ten times for your detail levels*, your game will take so much longer to produce - and for what? So that 0.0000001% more people can play it?
It sucks to cut someone out of the experience, but it sucks even more if all you could ever do was work on one game and never finish as you try to make sure it works for everyone.



All that being said, yeah, if you're willing to produce more content after you're done with the game, sure, there's nothing stopping you from putting an update out.
Sidenote: You won't WANT to do that, though. Yeah, it's your dream project, yes, it's very exciting, I believe that! I know that feeling.
But also know this, after two, or three, or even more years of working on a game, you may want to work on something else. There surely is more than one game idea in you! It's always a balance act.




That's nice of you to say - you're welcome!


* - Look, you know about LOD. If you use that, you already have three versions, so simply not using the highest level would be an option. The above is a very simplified example.