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 ).