Final Release Graphics

The Graphic is good.

Recommended watching:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/gr ... aesthetics

I was actually think of making my second PSA thread about GvsA with that vid as the center piece, god I wish I had that vid back during the early(prerelease) SupCom2 days....

Mike

^THIS

You sir, deserve a medal.
And I totally agree, and I thought someone of uberent allready said it; KISS method (Keep it simple, stupid)

Oh, I'm pasting it in my sig, if you are ok with that

yes! yes I am

Matching the pre-release teaser graphics would be the best option in my humble opinion. The mechs kind of reminded me of those warhammer 20k space marine mechs, and the blocky-ness was not a deterrent (in fact, I love the aesthetic). If they have to tone down graphics a bit to get it to run better, then I'm all for it.

On that note, what would be a neat feature to me would be some software that could decrease the graphics on-the-fly in those long drawn out multiplayer games where (at least some of) the computers involved start dragging over time due to lack of memory and whatnot. The server structure might help this more than I think, and it should really help a lot with AI mitigation (why must my compy chug all 8 computer guys all by itself!).

Anyways, I'm for a smooth running game. Hell, I have the most powerful compy of the group but still crank everything down all the way on our supcom games to ensure we can actually finish the game. Also, there are more than just units involved people! I liked the little stuff, like the rock outcrops and tiny tiny tree bundles (tiny to big mechs at least). The ore veins in the planets are a nice touch, too.

Lets hope for a 2mil stretch goal for a different race with a whole new cool aesthetic (the evil forces of ROUND vs the good forces of SQUARE)!!!

I'm also in favor of graphics more similar to the pre-render than shooting for realism. One of the few things I think SupCom 2 did better than SupCom/Forged Alliance was have more visibly distinguished units. I like knowing which units are which at a glance and which units belong to who (what color). In addition, the cartoony scale (planets too close and planet features/units too big) is more fitting for the cartoony aesthetic.

If the explosions are half as cool as the ones in the pre-renders, I'll be happy.

I'll ask for one thing. Even if it's silly with all the cartoon style and such, please make airless nukes look like real airless nukes would do. We're all used to big yellow mushrooms, but an expanding crater looks surprisingly cool, and for the moment, awesome both for its originality and for its realism.
The only example I can think of is in Planetes (the page should be more or less spoiler-safe)

Apart from that, aesthetics are perfect here. The "fun" style is just what is needed to make the potentially jarring and ridiculous planetary scales/wangsty backstory/over-the-top music/endless and mindless war/planet destroyers plunge head first into the over-the-top awesome instead. This is not a small feat, and it seems to fit perfectly so far.
That, and it will help unit differentiation.

If they do that, I rescind my pledge. Unless they add the terrible forces of TRIANGLE to the mix. One faction is nice, three are ok, more are fine.
But two factions are the worst, most boring possible number of factions.
Ok, I wouldn't really rescind my pledge. But it would still be a shame to have two factions instead of one (or three. Though one would still be better.)

You are dead wrong, my friend; for example, I think the Metroid Prime series on Gamecube/Wii are some of the best looking games ever created, and they certainly don't have the "COD ULTRA REALISTIC" graphics you refer to. I know you are joking there, but Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 pretty much set the bar for "realistic graphics." I'm not expecting that for PA, but something a little nicer...

I get your point though, and I do want a nice, artistic style as stated. But, as said by someone else in this post earlier: There is a difference between good art and basic shapes. TA units had more detail... I put more money for this game than any I ever have in the past because I like the staff - spare this claim that the game needs to not focus on great visuals when the concept of "smashing planets" will not be all that appealing if it has terrible effects. I want a death star explosion when this happens and if it's "not possible with all these units" then what's the point? The ability to do something is cool and I like the idea of "awesome," but it won't last if it's not rewarding to see it happen again and again and again. When I played TA I yearned for that amazing nuke explosion that wiped out everything and made pieces fly all over the place.... how could you possibly not want that out of this game?

For those of you that "had trouble distinguishing units" from a zoomed out view, I'm willing to bet money you weren't very highly ranked at the game and didn't know what you were doing. I never had a problem getting my groups together for large-scale, formation attacks.

Just because you are not good at something doesn't mean it's a bad feature in a game.

Suck it up.... you sound like a bunch of children demanding everything be simple while an RTS should be very complicated and push one to the limits.

IF you think I'm being a major jerk saying this (well, I actually enjoy that I am because I have a complete lack of respect for gamers including myself - I hate people) you should read this article:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/08/15/plane ... interview/

“That’s who this game is being made for. The people who really do want to deal with the complexity of bajillions of units across multiple playfields and smashing planets together.”


You are all going to cry like little babies a whole bunch more when the game is released and you don't get your "simplicity" where you can distinguish everything easily. You are going to find yourself getting your *** handed to you by people who have prepared for this statement wisely and are veterans of true RTS that aren't dumbed down for children these days.

Once again, I hate you all and can't wait to see how much you hate me back so it's that much sweeter watching you get owned over and over.

And one last note to "thedbp:" Nice art portfolio on deviant. I suppose you like second-rate graphics with "art" because you clearly are quite talented yourself. Do you hang up those nice pictures on mommy and daddy's refrigerator?

Enjoy all - take your best shot at my morale with follow-up posts. I look forward to a good old-fashioned message board dork fight as nothing you say is going to do anything but make me laugh.

My impression was that nukes in vacuum result in most of the energy being turned into gamma and x-rays. The result of that would be a crater(push enough photons at the ground it will vaporize) and a bright flash(maybe?). So you'd get a much less interesting show, unless you slow it down and watch the photons vaporize everything.

I would expect the image in the link would be more the result of a high V kinetic strike, assuming the object is moon/planet sized.

If someone knows better please correct me.

I've more-or-less given up on trying to convince anyone that SupCom 2 was fine, though it still grates that people constantly beat on it. =/

@btustorm: wrong community for bad words

Anyway: I like the graphics also.
First I was a bit sceptical. I needed time to get used to it. But now, if the game looks like in the video, I will be happy.
It doesn't even have necessarily to do with the graphics, but with the design. I prefer a game with simple graphics but great design instead a game with great graphics but lame design.
And don't forget the performance: If a game runs very smoothly, it looks much better.

Edit: Maybe a little bit more realistic and dirty and a little bit less cartoonish (Explosions, Dust, Fire, Rocks, etc.)

I like the graphics of the video, but I think the final explosion could be far better. (I don't mean more realistic.)

Don't get the wrong idea, I still detest SupCom2 for a myriad of reasons, just people were blaming graphics when they should have been complaining about the Aesthetics like I was.

Mike

So supcom 2 wasnt good eh?

I'm up for any kind of explosion that doesn't involve horrendous amounts of bloom. SupCom had 3 different nuke effects but they were barely visible behind the "realistic" bright glare. Fiery mushroom clouds are great, planetes explosion plumes are great, abstract dimension-shift reality-failures are great, so long as everything is actually visible.

Hi. I didn't liked the gameplay. But the design was great.
Experimental Transport
Mastadon Cruiser
Experimental Assault Plane
UEF Transport
Megalith
Mega Fortress
Dragonfly
Atlantis
etc.

Design was not the problem of SC2. :mrgreen:

That's your opinion, not mine, for me the design of the units and structures was several steps back from what we had in FA.

Mike

Really? What do you like the most?
In my opinion the design in SC2 where more structured. I also like the bright colours.
In FA the units where more detailed and dirty.

I liked the buildings in SupCom 2 better, but the units in FA were superior in design.

Also, I quite like the "cartoony" design of the units for PA. As said before, they allow for a comfortable view regardless of your height above the map and if you look "closely" enough you will see that they are still very detailed and enjoyable to look at.