Dust and Footprints and Swirls (layers)

Re: Dust and Footprints

While not being the style of the overall game, they definitely set apart the beach/jungle biome.

And again, why do you INSIST these things have an effect on gameplay?

I like the idea of tracking units by their footprints, I always wished I could do that ever since they started appearing in games but they disappeared too quickly to be anything more than a visual feature. With server side tracking and permanent decals that is totally possible! I hope to see it implemented!

Also, I do like the swirls in the kickstarters video but I agree that the whole decal system they are using to create unique textures sets a great art style. The direction they are taking impresses me so far and I can't wait to see where it goes. I would like having an option for swirls on the maps but I won't be heart broken without it. The textures have them, and that is pretty cool in my book too. Especially once they actually add post-processing I imagine this game will look amazing!

Hm, this made me think of something cool. Imagine a system in which the battle didn't reach colossal destruction levels. Could the generated level be reused, with the moons and asteroids still having the footprints and tracks?

Re: Dust and Footprints

I don't think the models and textures in the kickstarter video are simplified at all. To me they seemed to be in a state which would appear like this in the final game.
Also, the environmental detail was already pretty good in said video (especially looking at the trees and rock formations).

Trust me, indirect illumination in a raytracer is anything but free. Actually - depending on the algorithm - it is the most expensive effect you can get. However, looking closely at the video I don't see anything that couldn't be faked using secondary global light sources or ambient lighting. The only thing that comes close is when the robots start shooting at each other and the explosions light up the scenery. And Uber already implemented that as shown in the last livestream.

As for the swirls - I don't think they should impact the gameplay too much, neither should every planet solely consist of them, but I don't think the idea of big swirls should be ditched entirely.

Also, i always thought that at least the unit models would pretty much be 1:1, as they look JUST SO COOL, they have that brick aesthetic that sacrifices texture detail for perfect readability. I liked the lack of detail. It just looked ridiculously good in all of its minimalistic glory.

Yeah this is what I'm talking about. People harp on and on about realism as if it's the devil but never actually justify it with much more than a few >muh bloom buzzwords.

I think there's far more visual difference between say BF3, Crysis 3, Half-Life 2, Killzone and Halo 3 than there is between any of these numerous TF2-styled games that as I said, all become a blur to me. Yet TF2 clones are readily praised for their uniqueness because they're different from >muh bloom. Which really doesn't apply to that many games outside of a few UE3 selections like Gears, Hawken and Bulletstorm. It doesn't even really apply to hategame #1 Cowadoody since that game is more easily characterized by its somewhat drab palette which is probably more typical of its low tech roots than anything.

I haven't ragged on realistic games.

I do find it kind of silly that you talk about recognizing the subtle differences in realism, but lump all non-realistic games as tf2 copies.

I don't though. There's cartoony games that don't use that style, but the majority do. It's the new fad, like hipster-retro pixelation.

Aside from tf2 and MNC, the styles in that list you gave earlier were pretty varied.

The only other example I gave was supcom2 which also tends toward the blocky flat style. There seems to be a lot of it but I honestly can't distinctly remember every example exactly because they blur to me. I just gave the ones that were most distinctive to me.

What I can say is most of them I've seen on TB's show. DOTA clones tend to use it happily probably because of the Warcraft 3 association. TD's presumably for the same reason. iPhone style casual games obviously because the limited hardware and so on.

Even so there's lots of art styles outside of cartoony and realistic. LIMBO for example I would not group in with either.
And perhaps slightly ironically one of my favorite games visually, Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet, is a cartoony game but in a completely different way.
It's actually one of my favorite games in general now that I think of it....

But on the whole I tend to prefer realism because I think you need a good reason to misrepresent what it is you're trying to show. If say a car in a racing game looks like a real car then you've accomplished your artistic goal right then and there. But if you make a cartoony style to evoke a sense of a car thats a lot more complicated, visually, for no real reason. Limbo, Ni No Kuni and ITSP all use their distinct art styles for effect. Heck, the good realistic games tend to use their distinct art styles for effect.

And reality just looks good to me. Flat blocky surfaces not so much.
There's a great deal of overlap between what looks good, what is realistic, what is technically excellent, and what is technically accurate.

No, realism is not bad in itself. In fact i love realistic mechanics in shooters. I do not however love that they don't go for realistic in the actual color pallettes. It's like if a movie only used ONE color filter for its entire duration. People need several kinds of contrast in order to feel that it is an appropriate representation of reality. BF3 just looks blue, MW3 just looks grey, Blops 2 just looks OOH LENSFLARES. If they put so much into texture realism, why not also work on making the colors more similar to real life?

In fact, how come BF3 doesn't have as realistic shooting mechanics as Red Orchestra 1 and BFBC2? Why are planes ridiculously unrealistic? Why does every machine gun in Cowadoody feel the same and have barely any recoil? If you're going for graphical realism endeavor to make the game mechanics realistic as well. Combine the realism of ArmA and Red Orchestra 2 with the visuals from Crysis 3 and you've got me sold on realistic. I really admire "vehicle simulators" like Euro Truck 2 because they go freakin' all out and have retarded levels of realism. Why does every first person shooter outside of RO2 have the same old regenerating hitpoints unnaffected by hit location? It's not that ridiculously taxing to simulate at least the major bloodvessels and nerves throughout the body. I'm not asking for people to go to Dwarf Fortress levels of damage modeling, but at least acknowledge that people aren't thick-skinned bags of blood that knit themselves back in seconds.

Sorry for the awful rant but it strikes me as ridiculously lazy or greedy of developers to not improve the stuff that's stayed the same for years when there's barely any more polish to be added to the actual shooting and moving and the GRAFIXXX!!1

I liked the style from "Mirrors Edge" - for example.
It not cartoony, it's stylized. And that is very rare.

But all of this doesn't matter.
The question is not: What is better?
Because this is a matter of your taste.

The first question is: What do you expect?
The second question is: What do you want?

First: I expect the style from the concept trailer.
Second: I want the style from the concept trailer.
That is my vote. Nothing to add.

I leave this here, because this is very off-topic at the moment.
-> Poll - Graphics style
-> bgolus wrote
-> Final Release Graphics

And because it is a very important thing:
Penny-Arcade.com - graphics-vs.-aesthetics

rorschach you may be the only soul with a bit of decency left in you. And yes i am insulting myself above all.

OnT, maybe dust will be a big warning sign that the player needs to turn the camera, since it'll show up on the horizon well before any units do even if they were already out of fog of war. I hope you an see dust from a unit if you have vision to the area they were at even if you can't see the units themselves right now.

So if you can track units by there footprints we - we need a new unit to clear them up afterwards.

Well, maybe there could be footprints only on the lightest sand areas. Are there any hovering vehicles confirmed? That would become a form of stealth , since they leave no footprints, and they could have the effect of erasing footprints they hover over.

If you see enemy army movement by tracks instead of radar, you are to late and probably already fucked.

could be amusing to come upon the scene of a battle minutes later in FFA

That's a pretty bleak outlook, it's just as possible it's NOT too late as well, and if you think about it, it's easier to scout along left over tracks compared to the entire area between the 2 bases.

Mike

I can also see it useful for laying out ambushes.

Exactly! There are so many implications of being able to track footprints. I think it would be an awesome mechanic to add to the genre! Ambushes, misinformation, tracking, and hell, it's just kinda cool looking! You would slowly develop well worn roads out of your base!