View Full Version : New preview up @ Wargamer
Click me! (http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/paraworld_preview/)
Enjoy :)
hmmm, yes I really hope you are able to zoom out far in the game, I can't stand not being able to see all my units at once, it really annoys me.
Nice... Demo, anyone?
You mean, a demo has already been released ?
Nope, that would be news to us. ;)
No, I just meant that the thing we need next is a demo. The rest of the information is pretty useless and along the same line.
Okay , I agree with you :go:
Reborn_terror
20-11-2005, 22:59
true..i have grasped the jist of the game so any reviews,unless showing a feature previously unheard of, are just old news. a demo or a ingame vid would probably be the most desired things
Not mentioned here yet: there's also a preview available over at CVG (http://tinyurl.com/8os27).
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/openpic.php?name=..%2Fscreenshots_library%2Fdir_30 1%2Fvortal_pic_150674.jpg
So, when was the last time such horible textures were created... I knew that previous screens were prerendered. Here we have it. A texture that is sad to look at. Maybe that is a good thing. You won't fuss with graphics too much. Well, I lost all the desire to look at my units closely...
I knew that previous screens were prerendered.
Conspiracy theories, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
So, when was the last time such horible textures were created...
I mean, you do realize that we're talking about an RTS here? You're aware of the fact that this genre cannot compete with shooters in terms of character and texture details solely due to the point that you have to display 20, 30, 50 or 100+ units at the same time?
Also, Sherlock, the character detail doesn't differ from what can be seen in other screenshots, e.g. this one (http://paraworld-universe.com/images/screens/shots_1600x1200/10.jpg) or this one (http://paraworld-universe.com/images/screens/shots_1600x1200/08.jpg).
first of all... no screenshot was prerendered, believe it or not, no one was... come over here and see it :wink:
now to the picture that you are showing... this one was made by computer- and videogames connecting two pictures we made, one screenshot and a unit rendering, you can see this here (http://www.gamershell.com/screenpop.php?id=171463) and here (http://www.gamershell.com/screenpop.php?id=176559)
coming to the textures... as Julian said we are talking here about a RTSgame, a game where you are almost 99% of the played time pretty high in the air, compared to "age of empires 3" we've got 16 times more texturespace for one single unit (i.e. the warrior of the norse with a 256² texturemap, in age a normal character has 64²).
You don't want to see those Age units as close as you can go onto Paraworld units(oh Age is a good game, and has good graphics, don't get me wrong, i like it)
Another point is, that you're not supposed to go that close onto the units, remember the pig is a pretty small unit, it will be right below the camera if you're zooming in, not like the brachiosaur... so why shall we use more texturespace for a unit that won't be that close to the cam? We made this rendering for the print magazines, it was never supposed to be shown that big in online mags, but it is... that's the problem with presskits, they are all the same, no matter if it is supposed to be for the online or the print press (there you obviously need a bigger resolution)
Please next time look on the pictures you see and think before posting such things, because they are just wrong... we never rendered any screenshots and we're not going to do that, we never needed to touchup any screenshots and we're not going to do that, that's why such things can happen:
http://www.gamershell.com/screenpop.php?id=161705 as you may see, the harbour isn't finished, because the level wasn't finished at this time, i would have never given out that screenshot but it came out, unfinished and untouched
If you know those screens don't look right, why screenshot that pig so close? If a normal distance is far enough, show it from that distance...
3D, why all RTS developers run to 3D? What does it offer, but texture limit? In 2D all depends on the skill, and 3D - computer power and optimizarion. Since when RTS needed 3D, can some one tell me? Is there any strategic use for it?
Is there any strategic use for it?
I dunno, I certainly prefer being able to rotate the camera the way I want rather than being stuck with one fixed perspective. We design the levels in such a way that the player isn't really required to do it, but he's free to do whatever he wants depending on his preference. 3D also enables us to do other things, like in-game cinematics, which would be clearly a lot less impressive if you were to do them in 2D. Just to name one example.
In 2D all depends on the skill, and 3D - computer power and optimizarion.
Not, not really. Ever played Starcraft on a P75? If you play against someone with a P200 you'll experience a notable disadvantage in multiplayer matches as the framerate drops quickly once the screen gets crowded a bit. Let's not even talk about 8-player matches. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the game - but it's not like 2D automatically means you get the same performance on every machine and the rest is just skill.
Also, graphics simply are a selling point. When someone invests $1000+ into a new PC, he'd like to take the games he gets to take advantage of his machine. It's just the way gaming evolves, and it's not just the RTS genre. Seen RPGs lately?
If you know those screens don't look right, why screenshot that pig so close? If a normal distance is far enough, show it from that distance...
because there is just one presskit, for the print and the online press, i remember me telling you this before...
a picture with 800x600 pixels would work fine on the internet, having to print it at 300 dpi would make a 2.6 by 2 inch big image, isn't quite a lot, right? That is why we are giving all the pictures away in highe resolutions, we just can't constrict the print press by giving only supporting the online press... how could we know how big a online mag will show our pictures?
oh did i mentioned that this rendering was done back in 2004, there have been quite some changes since then...
2D cinematics are better... Compare Warcraft III cinematics with 3D ingame ones. I like ingame 3D cinematics, but I can live without them - AoE II still presented normal story scenes.
There is nothing bad about turning the camera, but how much problems does it create in return.
RPG's - Morrowind, Gothic are FP-TP. Sacred only got uglier. Dungeon Siege is OK. But I never zoom in there, so it can as well be 2D. Also, DS doesn't work on certain PC's.
Starcraft also has a 200 limit. And you have a 52 limit. Is everything going to be all that crowded? Also, I never heard any complains from people about any RTS played in multiplayer.
I don't know what P75 and P200 means.
I suppose the main reason of games going out ot 3D when there is no big need is because of a portion of, softly speaking, not-smart-gamers, who only look at graphics, and don't give a damn about the strategical level. But I suppose you will have to make a better strategy level because your graphics are lower then AoE III in terms of visual.
P. S. AoE II doesn't slow down on my PC with gigantic armies. But it slowed down on my former PC. So there is a sense in improving your processor. But if a person buy games only to see how powerful his PC is - why doesn't he go play some FPS?
P. S. P. S.: I hate AoE III. And one of the main reasons they got worse, is because they ran after graphics too much. They made OK 3D graphics, and ended up with 10 units per nation, 9 nations, and mass effect.
So only FPS Players should get better looking games?
When PC's reach the point when RTS can have nice textures, free to go over to 3D. That time is not that far, IMO. But this all is just theory.
What is a good texture for you? :wink: :rolleyes:
2D cinematics are better... Compare Warcraft III cinematics with 3D ingame ones.
Apples'n oranges. Also, there's another advantage of being able to render cutscenes right out of the engine - it guarantees a stylistic flow. In terms of visuals it's the very same world you're seeing. It does add a lot of immersion. One of the reasons Metal Gear Solid was received well was the point that there's no difference between the interactive and the non-interactive parts. Same for Half-Life. Stylistic switches can hurt the immersion and the credibility of a world.
Sacred only got uglier.
And you did play Titan Quest? I did. (And so did Neox, btw.) It's a 3D game, but so incredibly detailed that it leaves nothing to be desired. It basically looks as good as Diablo II did years ago, but features many things 2D wouldn't be able to do. This ranges from really atmospheric aspects such as lighting to the point that it communicates a believable impression of depth. If you cross a bridge that connects two sides of a canyon then you can look below and see all the tiny details down there.
I don't know what P75 and P200 means.
Pentium running at 75 and 200 MHz.
not-smart-gamers, who only look at graphics, and don't give a damn about the strategical level.
Just because someone is caring about the visuals, that doesn't mean he's a stupid graphics whore. Seriously, the "oldschool equals more depth" argument is a bit overused by now.
But if a person buy games only to see how powerful his PC is - why doesn't he go play some FPS?
And why would FPS be the only genre to evolve technologically?
3D is the simple and logical trend the industry is following and complaining about that makes as much sense as complaining about the weather. Even indie developers are going that route as indicated by titles like Spartan, Legion: Arena or Trash.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.