SE5 screenshots ugly?

[Dizzy]

Imperator Fyron said:
Dizzy, please maintain the general level of civility of these forums. Thank you.

Rgr, rgr. Not meant as a personal insult to anyone, although was a sure kneejerk heated reaction to the thought some want to keep the game in the stone ages and think it will still be commercially successful. My bad, I actually thought everyone wanted it to be successful.

And while $15k is sure a chink of change, its NOTHING, NOTHING but a drop in the bucket to where it needs to be. If that's all it makles we wont ever see SEVI.

Like I said, w/o a good 3D front, it's just an ancient game that wont see the light of day on game shelves... er mb it will if those 300 peeps buy it preorder so MM can buy an endcap at Best Buy when it rolls out.

How can I say this nicely for those w/o higher brain functions... As fans of SE, it is your duty to see the game prosper so others will buy it. You spreadsheet jumkies need to see beyond your noses. Your appeal is in the minority. If you sent MM an email complaining about advanced graphics and higher CPU requirements cuz ur too cheap to penny up replacing your obsolete 5 yr old comp, then you arnt needed in the SEV ccommunity, thanks, pack your bags dont let the door slam on your arse on the way out. Bye Bye.

For everyone else, Im glad you realize that graphics sell. And SEV needs big numbers. Hell, I want to see Peter Jackson direct the Space Empires Movie. Is anyone working on a script?

[Atrocities]

If I Could as for one thing to make SEIV better, it would simply be to have the top down images rendered in 3d so that when they are facing in any direction, they are clear and not distored as BMP's are. Hell you probably could achieve this without 3d, have multiple angle views for the mini's. Past that, spinning gif plants would be cool. The rest are modding and bug fixes.

[Dizzy]

Suicide Junkie said:
3D graphics are nice and all, but they mean Diddly-Squat for the gameplay that we are all here for.
Maybe someday you will learn that lesson.

I know it's sad, but graphics sell, gameplay is 2nd. And while yes, we are all here because the gameplay rocks, money is what makes the world go round. Not good will. So take your snazzy gameplay and throw in some mediocre graphics and you have just another has been. Polish the graphics and stick a half naked babe on the cover and yeah, it'd sell. Big time. And money it'd make. A lot.

Do abbidon females look hot in mating season?

Seriously, tho, SJ. I know what you fear. When anyone else gets involved in a cult classic game and try and make money on it in doing so they change the game to appeal to the masses so they make more $$$... and that means dumbing down the gameplay and sticking in some stupid graphics... yeah yeah... Seen it many times. But know what? It works. Sad aint it?

I'm not endorsing that. As long as gameplay stays the same... inject all the hollywood collagen and botox you can... Hell, some breast implants wont hurt either. If SEV looks like Janice Dickenson when it hits the store shelves, all the better... But oh, please no dated ugly half assed graphics. It wont sell. Fact.

[Suicide Junkie]

It won't sell, IN RETAIL, maybe.

SE4 made a Aaron and Shrapnel a lot of money (even more in comparison to its development costs and when you consider there is only one employee, Aaron himself)
Heck, according to the Admins at shrapnel they were still selling them like hotcakes 5 years after it came out.

PS:
You really really need to cut down on the cursing and insults.

PPS:
You should read this:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/blo...mes-dont-work/

PPPS:
You are probably the only person here who thinks that I fear that. I'm a Beta tester after all, and trying to get CBmod rewritten for SE5 by launch.

[Raapys]

I wish I knew where this fallacy first arose that a computer game cannot have both good graphics and good gameplayl

Oh, I can tell you that. It arose when market researchers found out that a very big group of game players cared *more* about graphics than gameplay. So they cut down on gameplay resources to have 'top of the line' graphics.

Anyway it's rather easy math to see how you can't have both unless you have a limitless budget:

You have 10 coins, representing both time and resources. You're to spread those among gameplay, audio, graphics and AI. As it stands, MM have given very few coins to audio and graphics, very much to gameplay, and the rest to AI. That's just how I like it in this sort of game, and obviously I'm not alone in feeling like that.

Dizzy, I have a one year old computer and can play all the latest games. Perhaps that's *exactly* the reason I really get afraid when people start talking about making Space Empires more like them.

As fans of SE, it is your duty to see the game prosper so others will buy it.

It's our duty to tell the developers what we want. Personally, I couldn't care less if the series ever got popular. In fact, it'd *much* rather it didn't, because that brings with it a ton of new issues and never anything good. Also, the bigger fanbase the bigger variety of people to please and the bigger chance some of us would be unhappy with gameplay decisions. Not to mention dumbing downs, etc., etc.

What I care about is that we continue to get games with improved gameplay, and that MM makes enough cash to be allowed to continue making them. Since he's still in business, he must be doing alright with his current fanbase.

[Dizzy]

SJ, yeah I know. You already know about the package. I'm speaking in general. I already know the guts are there. I just dont see, from what Ive heard and seen, that the graphics are all that good. If they arnt, then I fear the game wont do so well on the shelf.

I hope its wildly successful. I just dont see that happening if the eye candy appeal is lacking... Sucks so many peeps are hung up on that crap, but the better the eye candy the more it makes.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
Oh, I can tell you that. It arose when market researchers found out that a very big group of game players cared *more* about graphics than gameplay. So they cut down on gameplay resources to have 'top of the line' graphics.

Can you name a single game where you can conclusively state that the gameplay suffered because the graphics had too much effort spent on them. Not ethat this has to be a game where you that would have had good gameplay in the first place, so you'll need written documentation from the developers in all likelihood.

You have 10 coins, representing both time and resources. You're to spread those among gameplay, audio, graphics and AI.

Well, your analogy is fatally flawed simply because the graphics are orders of magnitude more expensive to create than the gameplay itself.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the series ever got popular. In fact, it'd *much* rather it didn't, because that brings with it a ton of new issues and never anything good.

This is otherwise known as being a fanboy.

[Captain Kwok]

I think it was a good move to go to the 3D graphics for SE:V. I also think it's a good idea that the models were hedged a bit to allow for the large battles that we've been accustomed to in the series - without requiring too much computer power. You'll note other similar games often hedge the number of elements instead. Yes, the graphics are not going to be cutting edge, but that doesn't mean they can't be a gameplay enhancement.

For this particular genre, I will say that gameplay is the primary factor for most purchasers and in particular the core players that will work to extend the game life via mods etc. SE:V will not need to sell gobs of copies in order to be successful and make money for MM/SFI.

[Raapys]

Can you name a single game

You really don't seem to get it. If you have a hundred thousand to spend on a game, then how you decide to use those again decides if the gameplay will suffer because of too much of the total resources was spent on graphics. It's simple logic. I don't need written documentation. If you use 90k on graphics and 10k on gameplay, then the gameplay will be worse than if you spend 80k on gameplay and 20k on graphics. What's so hard to get?

Well, your analogy is fatally flawed simply because the graphics are orders of magnitude more expensive to create than the gameplay itself.

How, exactly, does this make the analogy flawed? That it's more expensive just means you need to spend more coins to actually reach an acceptable graphic quality level.

This is otherwise known as being a fanboy.

Hardly. Fanboy's are the ones that always go up and support the developers whatever decisions they make, and appear to nearly be worshipping them and never complain about anything. Trust me, if MM do something with SEV that I don't like I'll be among the first to complain.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
You really don't seem to get it. If you have a hundred thousand to spend on a game, then how you decide to use those again decides if the gameplay will suffer because of too much of the total resources was spent on graphics.

Why don't you explain to us all how gameplay suffers if you can't pay the salaries of multiple designers? You only need one for anything but the largest projects. Programmers don't tend to make gameplay design decisions, and neither do artists.

It's simple logic. I don't need written documentation.

Of course you need written documentation, or else you're just making the argument because it's popular to complain about graphics on internet gaming forums.

If you use 90k on graphics and 10k on gameplay, then the gameplay will be worse than if you spend 80k on gameplay and 20k on graphics. What's so hard to get?

The problem, of course, is that gameplay reaches the point of diminishing returns on your monetary investment long before graphics reaches the same level. You won't get better gameplay by throwing money at a developer, as gameplay is essentially the result of one or two people's work. Once you've paid their salaries, giving them extra money wouldn't make any difference other than to make the design more muddled by adding other opinions. What that extra money can be used for is to pay the salaries of the dozens of artists and media producing people that can actually stack their efforts to produce something useful.

How, exactly, does this make the analogy flawed? That it's more expensive just means you need to spend more coins to actually reach an acceptable graphic quality level.

It's fatally flawed because the relative costs are completely different orders of magnitude, and you've not included anywhere near the proper level of granularity. The only way to make your analogy work would be to point out that gameplay costs about one hundredth to one thousandth of a "coin", so it doesn't really matter how much you spend on graphics. If your game has a development budget of $50,000, then you spend $45,000 of that on the gameplay, and only $5,000 on graphics. If your game has a budget of $10 million, then you spend $100,000 of that on gameplay, and the rest on the graphics. There's no point in spending greater and greater amounts of money on gameplay because of diminishing returns on your investment.

Hardly. Fanboy's are the ones that always go up and support the developers whatever decisions they make, and appear to nearly be worshipping them and never complain about anything.

You're not a Malfador fanboy, you're a gameplay over graphics fanboy. I suppose I could use the forum rat term, but that's less well understood.