Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the graphics are poor. Changing to a different engine is not going to change that. What would make it better is spending a lot of time working on better animations, higher detail models, better effects, reflections, shadows, lighting. Now UE 4 will do this better, but Unity can look reasonable too. The issue is that graphics are not the priority as Goblinworks does now have the people power to do this.
You can use Cryengine in and you will get the same result as you need a very large team to make a beautiful realistic looking game. When it comes to it, looks help to sell a game, but it is very possible to have av average or worse looking game but still be hugely popular. See games such as minecraft, dwarf fortress as examples of this.
Changing from Unity to Unreal simply cannot be done through a conversion script/software. The way that the code talks to the engine is just way too different. The way they have the be structured is also completely different too. Converting C# to c++ may work for small projects where you have access to all the source code but will not work to convert the code from one engine to another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the graphics are poor.
I personally am not a fan of games that look like cut scenes from a movie I like games to look gamelike - but I am well aware not everyone thinks that way and commercial realities need to come into play.
I do suspect yet ANOTHER game engine change will not be a good plan. As we all know - the last change to the PFO engine wasted a lot of invested resources and set the game back. Moving over to what would be the third engine in two years is a big decision and not to be taken lightly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pyronous Rath and Thannon Forsworn
I think both of you get lost in detail and you miscommunicate because you argue different issues.
Changing the game engine is a major untertaking and would have a major effect on the game. I think so far both of you agree.
The next step is were likely the disagreement stems from. Here is how I see both sides - correct me if I misinterpret you.
For Pyronous Rath the current game is doomed because of the quality of graphics and he places the issue on the game engine. Provided this is true and that the alternate game engine can improve the graphics there can only be an upsite. Any risk or downsite associated with a change can be neglected because the alternatives are too dire anyway.
For Thannon the current choice of game engine produces a viable product and all further development can only improve it. As such any risk or delay would be a negative.
There might be more disagreement how severe (or not) a change at this stage of the process would be - but even if you agree on this part - you will never agree if you start from a different premise where the project is right now.
I thought I point this out as an observer - even if there might only be a small chance it actually helps.
It's not just the graphics though simply using the same assets in UE4 would look better. The other graphics factor is how easy/time consuming is it to make them look better. For instance UE4 has advanced IK that makes animating multiple bipeds and quadrepeds a snap it also makes collision/interaction with the environment much more realistic https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Animation/Overview/index.ht ml . With UE4 adding the dungeons many want would not be an obstacle as it is described by GW. I agree that it would take time and effort to change engines but you are right I see the alternative as a dying product. I don't think my 6 month figure for conversion is unreasonable but obviously GW would know better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the graphics are poor.
I personally am not a fan of games that look like cut scenes from a movie I like games to look gamelike - but I am well aware not everyone thinks that way and commercial realities need to come into play.
I do suspect yet ANOTHER game engine change will not be a good plan. As we all know - the last change to the PFO engine wasted a lot of invested resources and set the game back. Moving over to what would be the third engine in two years is a big decision and not to be taken lightly.
The main advantage I have heard toted is that unity has an asset store so GW would not need as many art assets made in house. Unfortunately I have also heard GW say that most of the assets in the store are incompatible with PFO... The big world demo looked a hell of a lot better than what we have now with unity. I think GW was pretty much forced to switch because bigworld was bought by wargaming. So unity was defaulted to as the best affordable engine at the time. Making a logical choice for a better engine is a different thing altogether. At the end of the day PFO switching to UE4 would be a very big positive news item that would put PFO in the spotlight. Tell the gaming community that your game runs off unity and they will say meh. Tell them it's running on UE4 and you will peak their interest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
UE4 is not the only good option to could convert to.
They could also go with;
Source2(100% FREE, no royalites, no Licence, but steam has to be a distribution channel and seems to be better than UE4),
Unity5 (Pay Royalties, like UE4. Also max compatibility with current code and assets),
Leadwerks 3 (No Royalties, just $100(Lua) or $200(Lua C++) per developer/user developing with the engine),
MyRPG ($40 + ??, Currently in Alpha State),
etc.
I could name many engines they could go and switch to, each with a Pros and Cons about them.
When I was using the Unreal editor it crashed a number of times forcing me to restart from where I saved last.
I did not have that problem with Leadwerks, Source, or Unity level editors.
Source's Hammer Editor can also find holes in your Map, the rest of the level editors, that and Source comes with a whole suite of tools.
Source2 has been leaked to be even better than it's predecessor and UE4, and a much better EULA.
Unity5 has a slightly better EULA, and had its graphics updated along with some of the other parts of the engine.
Leadwerks is the most user friendly game engine of the whole bunch, and took roads the other engines have not tread.
That and it's EULA is the best one of all the engine EULAs I've read.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
UE4 is not the only good option to could convert to.
They could also go with;
Source2(100% FREE, no royalites, no Licence, but steam has to be a distribution channel and seems to be better than UE4),
Unity5 (Pay Royalties, like UE4. Also max compatibility with current code and assets),
Leadwerks 3 (No Royalties, just $100(Lua) or $200(Lua C++) per developer/user developing with the engine),
MyRPG ($40 + ??, Currently in Alpha State),
etc.I could name many engines they could go and switch to, each with a Pros and Cons about them.
When I was using the Unreal editor it crashed a number of times forcing me to restart from where I saved last.
I did not have that problem with Leadwerks, Source, or Unity level editors.Source's Hammer Editor can also find holes in your Map, the rest of the level editors, that and Source comes with a whole suite of tools.
Source2 has been leaked to be even better than it's predecessor and UE4, and a much better EULA.Unity5 has a slightly better EULA, and had its graphics updated along with some of the other parts of the engine.
Leadwerks is the most user friendly game engine of the whole bunch, and took roads the other engines have not tread.
That and it's EULA is the best one of all the engine EULAs I've read.
Thats reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the graphics are poor. Changing to a different engine is not going to change that. What would make it better is spending a lot of time working on better animations, higher detail models, better effects, reflections, shadows, lighting. Now UE 4 will do this better, but Unity can look reasonable too. The issue is that graphics are not the priority as Goblinworks does now have the people power to do this.
You can use Cryengine in and you will get the same result as you need a very large team to make a beautiful realistic looking game. When it comes to it, looks help to sell a game, but it is very possible to have av average or worse looking game but still be hugely popular. See games such as minecraft, dwarf fortress as examples of this.
Changing from Unity to Unreal simply cannot be done through a conversion script/software. The way that the code talks to the engine is just way too different. The way they have the be structured is also completely different too. Converting C# to c++ may work for small projects where you have access to all the source code but will not work to convert the code from one engine to another.
This was good reading. My thoughts and I'm going to have to hijack this thread with this suggestion which requires some c&p:-
1. SCALE of Aesthetics/Graphics and unity with systems/mechanics
Here's what is troubling me with MMOs: They all go for the WOW/EQ look of the 3D model with over-the-shoulder-camera. It seems to me with PFO, it is an MMO on the EPIC Scale. This reminds me of the Games Workshop game called Epic with tiny troops and gigantic Titans. It also reminds me of two other things. First, Tolkien writes as much about the land of Middle Earth being alive and a character as the story itself. Secondly it reminds me of the successful simulation at various levels Dward Fortress. The scale is amenable to complexity.
I think PFO's current big challenge is the format of the scale of all the models. If they were smaller, the land larger and more "sweeping" we would gain that sense of THe Game Of Trones sweep of Armies in Battle (ie more RTS) as well as our little characters being small but perhaps nonetheless still mighty interesting denizens populating the enormous world. Making a journey would be EPIC, Dragons in size on the screen would be EPIC as would enormous castles and valleys and armies.
To turn the coin over: The combat and graphics using the EQ/WOW aesthetic I think is going to doom PFO: As aussiedwarf points out: More and more work needed on graphics to even start running let alone out-run the competition while PFO is learning atm how to walk. The aesthetic imho is not in unity with the premise The Kingmaker of PFO.
2. MVP and Core Game Loop and getting fun/addiction to players on release
But I think PFO's PREMISE if it is pulled off is to add layers of consequences at lots of scales as I said above: Player PvP and economic and diplomatic and providing the in-game experience niche that new players might want as competition to grow etc eg giving adventure to parties, running services to others (ie peaceful players) and giving blood and glory to yet others.
I just think this might be more do-able with a smaller scale of the characters and hence a larger scale/feeling of the world and quicker dev time in producing the necessary visuals and networking for the actual underlying game systems? This larger world / slower game time seems to be where EVE gets it's Truly Massive Game Feel right - in space.
This focus on the systems and hence direct fun of the players and faster I think is probably an upgrade on Ryan's own MVP development plan for launching an mmorpg aka the Eve way of doing it. Eve had space, we have to deal with the land and that is huge task as well as the avatar human avatars it's many-fold task: Too ambitious I am thinking. Go simpler.
I fear atm only extremely passionate and hardcore players want in, and more casual players are not impressed enough. I look at the vids and feel as if I cannot even begin to start my own "do-dar-ing" fun on playing and immediate feeling of being a part of another world and community with a concentric ripple of interactions from my character to other characters to settlements.
3. Early Focus of PFO
I think the combat in mmorpgs that do PvP is not that great and perhaps a lot of the potential market end up thinking that too? So PvP to mostly PvP is although more exciting than PvE (imo) because it's more varied and feels like it makes a difference eg vendettas and chivalry et al. is still limited.
There's a game in dev atm by Søren Johnson who did work on Civ and it's called Offworld Trading Company. It's about market warfare on mars in a Civ style presentation
I feel the combat is taking too much dev resource as well as the graphics and this is diluting the focus it's impairing the game imho. Even if the devs spend tons like ArenaNet the combat will still be "mmorpg-quality". Look at the above game's focus getting to the market fun very quickly and beautifully.
4. Monetization Success
I don't see any other mmorpg with this and people would take to it like ducks to water. I know Ryan went with the EQ/WOW style according to Market Research reasons when we had the old conversation about it in the Paizo forums, but it always struck me as "not quite right" (I was angling the isometric at the time) but it need not as per above. People would immediately grasp the scale of the game here and setting itself apart - hence. Those visual in besiege imo are "gorgeous" for example. You can fit characters into unit formations and introduce this more immediately. You can introduce food for travel taking a long time between hexes at this smaller scale with a larger world that can be created more rapidly - when needed (density vs activity). I guess modifying the landscape (Seasons) would be easier too (that was a feather in Crowfall's cap).
I was quickly googling Clash Of Clans success: It is astonishingly successful and the graphics are serviceable for it's core game-loop. You could get people into PFO and paying with the above I believe. This is no criticism of the good work of the artists and the coders for combat above, it's simply that PFO has great designs and these need to technologically delivered to a development time-scale that also aligns with the paying players uptake as well as opening it's own niche in the market and thereby by-passing the opposition such as Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Shards Online, EQN and perhaps Rust, Life Is Feudal.
All those use the big avatar thing. EVE shows the simplicity is beautiful approach as does other games that could evolve such as Patrician IV, Besieged and so on.
With this aesthetic and scale the game could come alive: LESS IS MORE.
=
TL;DR: Coming back to this thread: The Engine is not the problem: The Scale of the Aesthetic to match PFO's design to create unity is the problem imho.
I never got my head around the graphical choice when it was discussed but did not know better, but believe now I have found an answer that matches, unfortunately the suggestion is late.
But if the above sounds like balderdash:
Clash of Clans Revenue: http://appdata.com/ios_apps/apps/5144501/global
Game monetization design: Analysis of Clash of Clans http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeteKoistila/20140415/215503/Game_monetizati on_design_Analysis_of_Clash_of_Clans.php
If you merge the above sim games eg Dwarf Fortress aesthetic with using the processing-power of many people's brains to drive the simulation... I think it would be huge. And PFO a world is born and believed (immersed).
Certainly the vast size of the world was one of the things I loved in EQ, back at the beginning. Making a journey from one side of a continent to the other or across an ocean was a serious undertaking... when you would sail for 40 minutes of RL time, then run for another hour and a half to get where you were going, it did add a sense of the majestic to the game, of being in a World, not just a game. I'd like to see that again.
They ruined it in EQ by giving too many classes fast-running powers, and adding too many short-cut teleports and portals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Certainly the vast size of the world was one of the things I loved in EQ, back at the beginning. Making a journey from one side of a continent to the other or across an ocean was a serious undertaking... when you would sail for 40 minutes of RL time, then run for another hour and a half to get where you were going, it did add a sense of the majestic to the game, of being in a World, not just a game. I'd like to see that again.
They ruined it in EQ by giving too many classes fast-running powers, and adding too many short-cut teleports and portals.
I strongly agree; in the sense that the player is made to feel small; this is the attraction of the cinema's large screen when you are immersed (sorry it's quick description word to use to convey straightforward experience) in the story.
And commercially, computer games we're seeing this attractive quality in "No Man's Sky" and "Outer Wilds". I think Crowfall has the pitch/premise draw of destructable worlds renewing this sense of fresh worlds to explore to add.
It's imho very important that PFO captures this quality. I think this is the part of game along with the systems; ie the beauty and grandeur of the Golarion Fantasy World and it's teeming denizens that appeals. The dungeons for parties could equally at this dwarf fortress scale (better graphics by far!) again could cater very strongly to players and quickly... so you have the small intense experience and the sweeping epic in the game. Idk if interiors could work better as well eg Inns and Pubs and other buildings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for those with curiosity rather than mindless ridicule Created a link for you
Fixed this for you