new graphics, etc? who wants them?

[Roshambo]

Am I missing something? Morrowind didn't have rounded objects?
http://archive.gamespy.com/previews/february01/morrowind/light-tavern.jpg
http://til.gamingsource.net/savant/big_sadrith_mora.jpg

Yes, you're missing the point where they are made from an ASSLOAD OF POLYGONS.

If people contesting the isometric/TB issue are so prevalent and insight so much animosity then I suggest posting a sticky note in this forum that links to topics where the arguments for isometrics and turn-based combat are put forth in detail. Just a suggestion.

Or, we could save ourselves the work from having to repeat and make simple every single point the developers themselves have said, on this very site (it's not just a forum, folks), because people are too ignorant to observe for themselves in regards to the rest of the industry/genre, the construction of games in a historical context that proves the viewpoint and art style weren't used for just technological or "modern" reasons, and much more. If people don't want to educate themselves before they ignore even recent topics on this forum to post something stupid, then they do so at their own risk.

 

[zioburosky13]

Out of topic but the first game comes with a 'real round thingie' IMO is Quake 3.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Out of topic but the first game comes with a 'real round thingie' IMO is Quake 3.

Incorrect. In Quake III engine curved surfaces were rendered as a large number of small polygons. That method is crude, resource-intensive and produces unsatisfactory results. Sadly, even today it is the primary way of rendering curved objects in real-time 3D graphics. Now, the best model for *truly* curved surfaces is NURBS, but I haven't seen it in any 3D games.

 

[Roshambo]

Incorrect. In Quake III engine curved surfaces were rendered as a large number of small polygons. That method is crude, resource-intensive and produces unsatisfactory results.

I'd say almost unsatisfactory, as it doesn't quite work with FPS games due to constant frame changes. For a CRPG, it would work amazingly well for rounded and unconventional shapes.

Sadly, even today it is the primary way of rendering curved objects in real-time 3D graphics.

Sadly, it isn't, as instead of trying to improve engines that use extrapolated rounding, the industry thinks that adding a shitload of polygons is the answer.

Which seems to help even less and still often manage to look like chunky ass.

 

[Bloodlust]

This is like an unwritten pact between game-production studios and Graphics cards manufacturers.
Buy the new Ultra-super-duper 800$ nvidia gtxfg7800xto pro-Extreme-overclocker's edition so that the game studios can use more polygons in their shitty games for ultra realistic characters and shadows,then pay 800$ again after 1 year for more polygons because your card has become useless,and the story goes on...

 

[Roshambo]

And there you have the biggest fraud and biggest problem for video game development to date.

Making it look good through supplemental or projected surface programming does NOT suit those graphics card companies, since when computers can fully extrapolate every visible point on screen on a FPS framerate scale, the polygon-humping graphics card companies are effectively dead.

 

[zioburosky13]

Well isn't the dream of every graphic programmer to create 'real-life-life' scenery :

 

[TheWesDude]

------------------
Making it look good through supplemental or projected surface programming does NOT suit those graphics card companies, since when computers can fully extrapolate every visible point on screen on a FPS framerate scale, the polygon-humping graphics card companies are effectively dead.
------------------

i think this is one of the best parts about dual core CPUs. plus i wish multi-cpu boards and a truely compliant windows OS would come out that doesnt require APP compatability like currently.

when that happens you will see game companies doing all the 3d rendering and texturing and lighting on a cpu, then on-the-fly capturing as a still image ( maybe even 2d sprite for the whole screen? ) and then drawing that to the video card.

all of a sudden you dont need more than an 8 - 16 meg video card to draw all the flashy graphics.

 

[Roshambo]

Well isn't the dream of every graphic programmer to create 'real-life-life' scenery :

Dream, yes.

Would it be cost-effective? No.

In fact, I could see that the graphics card manufacturers would pay to buy that technology and keep it quiet instead of it seeing the light of day. Microsoft has done this on a number of occasions.

TheWesDude: That is why I am helping develop such an engine FOR those platforms. If it works, then I think it would be a marker for the *nix gaming market to flourish, as it would render graphics drivers obsolete, which is the main problem with *nix platforms.

 

[TheWesDude]

yea what is it... you only need 2 megs of video to draw 640x400, 4 megs to do 800x600, 7 megs to do 1024x768, 12 megs to do 1280x1024, and 16 megs to do 1600x1200 for video ram?

at least thats what i remember from oh-so-long-ago for vram reqs for drawing sprite-based or pictures treated as still images.

 

[Arquebus]

One feature I, as the mastrubating chimp I am, would like to see in FO3 is a zoom, or a better scroll function that you could se further afield in combat, always found combat to close quarter in FO1 and FO2, even with sniperrifles the combatant was seldom more than 40 meters/hexes apart.

 

[Roshambo]

One feature I, as the mastrubating chimp I am, would like to see in FO3 is a zoom, or a better scroll function that you could se further afield in combat, always found combat to close quarter in FO1 and FO2, even with sniperrifles the combatant was seldom more than 40 meters/hexes apart.

Hello, welcome to the point of the Perception score and having to rely on the character's awareness than your own.

So try learning the character system before you try to make compromising design "ideas" that offer little else.

I suppose you also bitch about the enemies in Jagged Alliance 2 "popping out of nowhere and killing me!"

 

[Arquebus]

saueskalle

I always play characters with a high perception score and still the combat is limited to a relative small portion of the map. If I want to engage a enemy i have to run towardshim so that he shows up on the gamescreen even if my chanses to hit him was already nearing the 95% from where i was hiding with my sniperrifle. A zoomfunction would help me to see what my character sees. what he dont see will be indicated by the red or yellow silouette of the enemy.

off topic
JA 2 was a great game and i have no complains about popping up enemies, my tactic were to do a little popping up myself. My only complain was the lack of a flaregun, as in fallout.

 

[Roshambo]

saueskalle

I always play characters with a high perception score and still the combat is limited to a relative small portion of the map.

Yes...that's part of the point, to limit the distance you can see. It also stands to reason that a sniper rifle in the wasteland is not going to be anywhere as good as was manufactured.

If I want to engage a enemy i have to run towardshim so that he shows up on the gamescreen even if my chanses to hit him was already nearing the 95% from where i was hiding with my sniperrifle.

Perception, again. They also decided against silenced weapons for a reason, since it was deemed a bit imbalancing. Hitting someone at max range with a sniper rifle makes combat cheesy already. More than that is just for the sake of munchkinism.

A zoomfunction would help me to see what my character sees.

Because this is a CRPG, you are limited by both the character's ability, and a 10 PE still goes a fair distance. It is meant that way so that they don't have to use a shitty "fog of war" like the Inbred Engine games of BioWare, and don't allow the player to see something they shouldn't, by limiting it to what the character can see. Kills from across the map would be highly imbalacing and would make the game even easier than what it was already with a sniper rifle. Seriously, at the range of the sniper rifle, you had a distinct advantage.

You also don't have a FP view because the character's perception could reveal someone that doesn't show up to the player's observations when panning around.

Really, you need to explain this "zoomfunction" a bit better, as it doesn't sound like you understand the character and design style to begin with.

what he dont see will be indicated by the red or yellow silouette of the enemy.

Why? Why should YOU see something the character cannot? Enemies are already shown, and with a degree of fade, to show if the character is aware of their presence or not and if they can see them or not. This is a RPG, not a "kill shit" game.

 

[Kahgan]

saueskalle

it's "fåreskalle"

tsk tsk.

 

[Arquebus]

It also stands to reason that a sniper rifle in the wasteland is not going to be anywhere as good as was manufactured.

Good point, bad weapons breaking weapons and weapon/ammo scarcity are good post acopalyptic features.

They also decided against silenced weapons for a reason, since it was deemed a bit imbalancing. Hitting someone at max range with a sniper rifle makes combat cheesy already.

A good AI that gets enemy dogding behing obstacles and out of sigth would counter this

a 10 PE still goes a fair distance.

But not enough to my liking even without the sniperrifle, had this experience with pistols too

Really, you need to explain this "zoomfunction" a bit better, as it doesn't sound like you understand the character and design style to begin with.

you zoom out the same view, no changes there for my part, enemies that your character can see will be shown and you can take potshot at them, enemies your character cant see wont be shown or just hinted at, like the shadowy outlines in FO tactic, meaning cover will be importaint to the AI to defend himself from snipers/ranged attacks in general

this make it any clearer?

 

[RPGenius]

That's a great idea! Silent Scopeout! Gee, that goes up there with Fallsims.

 

[Arquebus]

Fallout sims has been made, its called chaos overlord...
it migth be good but i couldnt be bothered playing it. It was set in a "New Reno"-like city

Silent sniperifles has shitty range, making silent snipeout extrimely hard for anyone without a stealthboy and heavy sneakingskills.

For the other sniper-rifles the big bang following the one shot one kill would send your enemies ducking and cover if the AI of the game is good. Hopefully there will be, in FO2 raiders ran up to me before starting to shoot. Idiotic... I got 2 extra rounds to spray them with lead while they ran at me, and they had better ranged weapons than me.

 

[Roshambo]

Now you have to figure the place of sniper rifles in the 50's fiction styles. For one, it's not a common thing. Two, night-vision and similar were not that flourished in the 50's, and was still crude even in fiction. It simply does not really suit the hero image of 50's fiction styles, and generally were put into Fallout 2 only for munchkinism's sake.

So you want a zoom to do what now? See a longer distance? Figure out what you're aiming at because you're too stupid to look at the text in the lower left box? Still can't figure out that it's a CRPG with certain balances so the cheap kiddies can't have an easier cakewalk than JA2 sniping?

Hopefully there will be, in FO2 raiders ran up to me before starting to shoot. Idiotic... I got 2 extra rounds to spray them with lead while they ran at me, and they had better ranged weapons than me.

Raiders have weapon skill too. Thanks for forgetting that this is a CRPG and for going into munchkinism again.

AI has little to do with the issue about balance for long-range weapons, it is more about the character's ability of being able to overcome their obstacles. Longer range for crap enemies would be quite imbalancing (raiders aren't too bright and generally aren't used to fighting well-armed opponents, if you had bothered to pay attention).

There's one truth in the wasteland that applies to this - your gun is generally more valuable than your life. So, by effect, your ammo. They also want to mass in and take you down before you can use a lot of your own ammo, as that makes your guns more valuable. A raider isn't going to waste ammo unless they are sure they can benefit from it, and seem to be more inclined to fire from farther against a well-armored opponent. If you appear as a tribal, it would seem that they would run up for an easy mid-range kill. If you have a set of PA, it seems that they will shoot from farther off. This seems to apply to the Enclave Patrols, as they would take shots at me in PA from across the screen, but as a tribal, they would run up and go for a sure ammo-conserving vaporizing shot.

Silenced weapons were avoided for a reason, since it would allow cheap assassinations without imagination or effort. Which you could do in Fallout if you know how, but it takes imagination and knowledge of the setting elements.

 

[Arquebus]

I see the error of my ways ,Ro.
As a GM Im the last to promote munchkinism and agree with you in your portait of the raider\tribal attack patterns. Guess I made my FO2 gunslinger a bit too Roland. By the way, the Raiders tactic worked more often than not, than heaven for solid Armor and Lots of savegames.