The Fall/Fallout 3 Progress Newsletter

chrisbeddoes · Post by **chrisbeddoes** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:50 am

Well that explains things perfectly.

You will want to show the demo to the investors then first as they are the ones that are going to give you the money.

As for the fans yea beautiful art will let you sell a lot more . It is like a beautiful woman .

It is me personally that i only care about the dialogues.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:07 am

EvoG wrote:*smoke and mirrors*

No dice, Steve-o, WE WANT SCREENIES!

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:13 am

Hehe, k.

Raymondo · Post by **Raymondo** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:34 pm

Spazmo wrote:
EvoG wrote:*smoke and mirrors*
No dice, Steve-o, WE WANT SCREENIES!

Xlussive D4C Pojet Fenext Icreen Sh00t

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:39 pm

EvoG wrote:...you are correct...I absolutely care about the opinions of the fans, as they are the ones that buy the game, and despite everyones claims that they don't care about graphics as much as story...they still do get impressed over beautiful art...its human nature

It's parrot nature.

Gimp Mask · Post by **Gimp Mask** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:17 pm

Fallout Junkie wrote:Xlussive D4C Pojet Fenext Icreen Sh00t

looks like Car Wars II ripoff to me

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:08 pm

Keep in mind there is a difference between Art and Graphics.

*EXAMPLE*

The Heroes of Might and Magic trilogy had graphics that were nothing special, but the artwork in the games was spectacular.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:56 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Keep in mind there is a difference between Art and Graphics.

*EXAMPLE*

The Heroes of Might and Magic trilogy had graphics that were nothing special, but the artwork in the games was spectacular.

Semantics.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:51 am

No, it's really not. At least, not for 2d games.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:16 am

No, I'm not trying to be snide or argumentative, but it is Franz. Simply, when one ( including myself ) refers graphics, I'm talking about the quality of the artwork. Being a snob ( not you necessarily ) and calling it art is silly and psuedo intellectual. Either the visuals are good or they are bad. It is what it is.

Poor graphics means poor use of proportion, color, contrast, etc. Technical mistakes such as texture smearing, texel size inconsistencies, poor edge usage in models, too many polys, too little polys; crappy animation where none of the 12 priniciples of animation are even touched upon. These are all "artisitic" elements.

If you care to explain further in detail what you mean that HOMM had graphics that were nothing special but "spectacular" art, I'd be interested in what this could possibly mean.

Cheers

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:07 pm

I've played all the HOMM games, and I can explain what he means (i think).

HOMM had a wide variety of cool characters / creatures, and those had some creative abilities they could use in combat. For the most part, the designs were pleasing to the eye. But since the game is a Turn based strategy (similar to a board game), they did the animations pretty crudely... just enough to get by... The game's battlefield was very flat also, so overall, animation of the creatures wasnt really a strong point. Basically, it was just walk cycles for when they move on the board, and simple attack animations, and thats about it. Another thing that would make you say "the graphics arent that great" would be the scale of things. Mostly, im refering to the battles, where characters would seem bigger than they should compared to buildings.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:47 am

EvoG wrote:No, I'm not trying to be snide or argumentative, but it is Franz. Simply, when one ( including myself ) refers graphics, I'm talking about the quality of the artwork. Being a snob ( not you necessarily ) and calling it art is silly and psuedo intellectual. Either the visuals are good or they are bad. It is what it is.

Poor graphics means poor use of proportion, color, contrast, etc. Technical mistakes such as texture smearing, texel size inconsistencies, poor edge usage in models, too many polys, too little polys; crappy animation where none of the 12 priniciples of animation are even touched upon. These are all "artisitic" elements.

If you care to explain further in detail what you mean that HOMM had graphics that were nothing special but "spectacular" art, I'd be interested in what this could possibly mean.

Cheers

Not so, EvoG. If someone says about a game, "these graphics blow chunks," they always mean that the actual in-game graphics are poor, with nothing to do with the artwork on the game's cover, in the manual, on the interface, in the backgrounds, etc. For example, I thought Torment's graphics sucked (it was just Infinity Engine lameness), but the graphics were nice - the interface was pretty, and the backgrounds (in Sigil, for example) were top notch.

Basically, artwork is conceptual; graphics are not.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:22 am

atoga wrote:For example, I thought Torment's graphics sucked (it was just Infinity Engine lameness), but the graphics were nice

Huh? "Graphics sucked but the graphics were nice"?

I'm talking about in-game artwork/graphics, not the fricking manual or boxart.

atoga wrote:Basically, artwork is conceptual; graphics are not.

As you say conceptual artwork, just so you know, is called "concept art", and is not the 'applied artwork' in the game.

You guys apparently know more than I do, I'm merely an artist who's been in this industry for the past 14 years. *shrugs*

Cheers

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:39 am

EvoG wrote:Huh? "Graphics sucked but the graphics were nice"?

That was just a dumb slip, I meant that conceptually, the art and general theme was nice, but the actual, functional graphics blew.

EvoG wrote:As you say conceptual artwork, just so you know, is called "concept art", and is not the 'applied artwork' in the game.

That's irrelevant; I still referred to some of the concept art that was used in the game (the backdrops, for instance).

EvoG wrote:You guys apparently know more than I do, I'm merely an artist who's been in this industry for the past 14 years. *shrugs*

Oh yeah? Then how come we can't see anything by you?

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:41 am

atoga wrote:Oh yeah? Then how come we can't see anything by you?

*ZING* Waiting for that one. Not going to repeat myself from just like 4 posts ago.

Cheers

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:47 am

And so this is Christmas
Now where's my fucking screens

Steve-O, industry experience aside, you're still grossly missing the point. Graphics are kind of like the tools an artist has while the art is what the artist does with the tools. Take, for example, The Secret of Monkey Island. It's got dated, pixellated, low-res visuals. HOWEVAR! What those visuals are showing is so neato and well-drawn that it comes out looking good. See also Homeworld. If you zoom in really close on the ships, you see they have a fairly low poly count and the textures are quite low-resolution and get blurry up close. But it still looks magnificent because it's all really neat.

Now get back to work on modelling stainless steel thongs for EA.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:53 am

Saint_Proverbius wrote:OMFG! I CAN'T WAIT!

I mean, we're talking about the guys behind Gorasul, the fabulous BG clone that no one liked! The guys who don't know what turn based is! The guys making their own Fallout clone now - without a speech skill! Making Fallout 3! Goddamn, wouldn't that be fucking DREAMY?

But wait, there's MORE! They're also going to have the exBIS guys who either weren't smart enough to leave BIS in the first place, or didn't have enough talent to get a job elsewhere! HOORAY!

It just gets better AND better!

SAINT TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH! I SHOULD HAVE MARRIED YOU SAINT!!!

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:06 am

Fine Spazmo, in that case you're right...good art is relative to the level of technology which dictates the tools and medium in which the art work is displayed and created, fine.

Still, when I say this is semantical, it is. Regardless of the intellectual masterbation, when I say good graphics, its implied that its good UP TO the capabilites of the artist and the technology. Its either pretty or its not.

Cheers

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:29 am

I'm sick of you guys busting on steve.... sorry steve... went over your head and posted these... plz don't beat me up. http://www.duckandcover.net/forums/view ... 338#156338

Sarge · Post by **Sarge** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:02 am

Hey Spasmo. Time for a....
Modern Air Travel Lesson for you.

See? They DO have the ability to fly across the Atlantic over in Germany.