Games that try for realism always feel clunky and buggy.
The games that don't try for realism also tend to feel clunky and buggy, but they don't look as nice doing it.
I dislike the Crowfall artstyle, looks a lot like EQN, which i also dislike. But it seems to be the major direction games are going, I guess based on it being cheaper and less system intensive.
Still paying attention to CF though because Raph Koster is on the team now.
It actually has more to do with the fact that you accept slight flaws in movement from a stylized character but immediately pick up when something is wrong about a replica human. Nobody really knows what a dinosaur moves like... they've never seen one, but a human you see every day. You get something wrong with realistic and people notice it immediately... you get something wrong with stylized and they often fail to notice it or overlook it.
I don't think that Valley thing works quite the same when playing a long term video game. Yeah if its a robotic butler he will creep me out, but in games that we have seen since VGA graphics just make it look as real as you can and shove the cartoon shit on the phone games. I don't buy expensive video cards to watch Disney characters.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I have only seen a little bit but i have to say no on this one.The graphics imo are ok nothing that would detract me from the game.If you realize the background of these guys you would know it could have been a LOT worse.
PVP is what would detract me from the game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Dullahan I love the art choice and graphics. I don't think stylized graphics in video games have any correlation to age demographics. They're video games.
Well they DO correlate to age but is NOT the WHY that devs make quality or low quality graphics.It is ALWAYS about the cost and what they feel they can support for bandwidth.It is NEVER about ART style,only a defensive dev will use that to defend cheap game design.Example Arena net claiming art for their cheap CS's and interludes,too cheap to make full 3d videos.It really filters down even further,developers don't have voice overs because they were saving money and no other reason.
ALL of game design is based around cost not quality or passion and that is why we have ALL the games are half ass efforts trying to cut corners for bigger profits and a faster game to market.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Adjuvant1 I don't agree Disney and Looney Toons were "for adults". They were "for families", in a slapstick, generally fablistic (is that even a word?) format for the kids (or the "kid in us"), and with underlying themes and over-the-kids-heads, occasional content the adults (parents?) could enjoy, too. The main thing to remember with those is that kids watched them and moreover the resulting products were consistently marketed to children, unlike, say, Betty Boop or more modernly South Park, both of which are pretty obviously targeting adults.
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
Originally posted by Adjuvant1 I don't agree Disney and Looney Toons were "for adults". They were "for families", in a slapstick, generally fablistic (is that even a word?) format for the kids (or the "kid in us"), and with underlying themes and over-the-kids-heads, occasional content the adults (parents?) could enjoy, too. The main thing to remember with those is that kids watched them and moreover the resulting products were consistently marketed to children, unlike, say, Betty Boop or more modernly South Park, both of which are pretty obviously targeting adults.
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
The censorship came later, in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the 70s, I saw all those cartoons on TV.
edit: We're talking about material that was just societal status quo in the 30s and 40s like blackface and... other racially prejudiced depictions. It's just how it was, man.
The OP must have never seen the Heavy Metal comic book series.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Originally posted by Adjuvant1 I don't agree Disney and Looney Toons were "for adults". They were "for families", in a slapstick, generally fablistic (is that even a word?) format for the kids (or the "kid in us"), and with underlying themes and over-the-kids-heads, occasional content the adults (parents?) could enjoy, too. The main thing to remember with those is that kids watched them and moreover the resulting products were consistently marketed to children, unlike, say, Betty Boop or more modernly South Park, both of which are pretty obviously targeting adults.
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
The censorship came later, in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the 70s, I saw all those cartoons on TV.
edit: We're talking about material that was just societal status quo in the 30s and 40s like blackface and... other racially prejudiced depictions. It's just how it was, man.
I have almost their entire collection... and I can assure you, you didn't see all of them in the 70s growing up... you just think you did.
I actually got more of a feel of Witcher Crossed with Torchlight. And not at all kiddy. By saying its cartoony there for its for kids is like Saying Borderlands is for kids and from what I understand ButtStallion is not a My little Pony.
Originally posted by Adjuvant1 I don't agree Disney and Looney Toons were "for adults". They were "for families", in a slapstick, generally fablistic (is that even a word?) format for the kids (or the "kid in us"), and with underlying themes and over-the-kids-heads, occasional content the adults (parents?) could enjoy, too. The main thing to remember with those is that kids watched them and moreover the resulting products were consistently marketed to children, unlike, say, Betty Boop or more modernly South Park, both of which are pretty obviously targeting adults.
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
The censorship came later, in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the 70s, I saw all those cartoons on TV.
edit: We're talking about material that was just societal status quo in the 30s and 40s like blackface and... other racially prejudiced depictions. It's just how it was, man.
I have almost their entire collection... and I can assure you, you didn't see all of them in the 70s growing up... you just think you did.
Well, it's now going wildly off topic, but I will tell you WFLD in Chicago showed all the old Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, regardless of UA's 1968 official ban on the "censored 11", up til the point it was bought out by Fox in the mid 80s. I'm sure it makes for great advertising on the dvd's at comic-cons to say otherwise, but many uhf channels showed that kind of material, because they weren't sanctioned by networks.
TBH, i wish i loved the in-game art style as much as I loved their concept art. Their art is so fricken awesome. Very painterly...the in-game look is similar, but not quite as amazing.
Still no complaints, here. plenty of room for stylized art.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
Originally posted by Ikonis Cartoons were originally created for adults. Only angsty teens cry about things being for kids.
that. totaly agreed.
Much of the time the cartoon comparison is used as just that, a comparison. I think cartoons look like crap compared to some games, so the comparison is negative. What I cry about is people insisting that everything is fine and that being discerning is somehow a disastrous flaw. I cry because I care about those people making that fucking stupid assumption. I'm a humanist
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Originally posted by Adjuvant1 I don't agree Disney and Looney Toons were "for adults". They were "for families", in a slapstick, generally fablistic (is that even a word?) format for the kids (or the "kid in us"), and with underlying themes and over-the-kids-heads, occasional content the adults (parents?) could enjoy, too. The main thing to remember with those is that kids watched them and moreover the resulting products were consistently marketed to children, unlike, say, Betty Boop or more modernly South Park, both of which are pretty obviously targeting adults.
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
The censorship came later, in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the 70s, I saw all those cartoons on TV.
edit: We're talking about material that was just societal status quo in the 30s and 40s like blackface and... other racially prejudiced depictions. It's just how it was, man.
I have almost their entire collection... and I can assure you, you didn't see all of them in the 70s growing up... you just think you did.
Well, it's now going wildly off topic, but I will tell you WFLD in Chicago showed all the old Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, regardless of UA's 1968 official ban on the "censored 11", up til the point it was bought out by Fox in the mid 80s. I'm sure it makes for great advertising on the dvd's at comic-cons to say otherwise, but many uhf channels showed that kind of material, because they weren't sanctioned by networks.
Lest we forget, you were the one who said they were marketed for kids... and this whole thread is full of people stating that cartoon stylization has nothing to do with the target demographics. You know they weren't. I know they weren't. You can't prove the TV station showed them all and I can't prove otherwise. What we all know to be true is that they were not made for kids... originally.
Originally posted by Adjuvant1 I don't agree Disney and Looney Toons were "for adults". They were "for families", in a slapstick, generally fablistic (is that even a word?) format for the kids (or the "kid in us"), and with underlying themes and over-the-kids-heads, occasional content the adults (parents?) could enjoy, too. The main thing to remember with those is that kids watched them and moreover the resulting products were consistently marketed to children, unlike, say, Betty Boop or more modernly South Park, both of which are pretty obviously targeting adults.
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
The censorship came later, in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the 70s, I saw all those cartoons on TV.
edit: We're talking about material that was just societal status quo in the 30s and 40s like blackface and... other racially prejudiced depictions. It's just how it was, man.
I have almost their entire collection... and I can assure you, you didn't see all of them in the 70s growing up... you just think you did.
Well, it's now going wildly off topic, but I will tell you WFLD in Chicago showed all the old Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, regardless of UA's 1968 official ban on the "censored 11", up til the point it was bought out by Fox in the mid 80s. I'm sure it makes for great advertising on the dvd's at comic-cons to say otherwise, but many uhf channels showed that kind of material, because they weren't sanctioned by networks.
Lest we forget, you were the one who said they were marketed for kids... and this whole thread is full of people stating that cartoon stylization has nothing to do with the target demographics. You know they weren't. I know they weren't. You can't prove the TV station showed them all and I can't prove otherwise. What we all know to be true is that they were not made for kids... originally.
Well, now we're getting into dangerous territory of "what's considered funny by whom" and "what's completely inappropriate". I can't go there, because I'd be legitimizing alot of prejudicial hurt and other problems. I can only say this, it was a different time and yes, parents plopped their kids down to watch them during daylight hours, not like "after midnight content". It's better now, really. That kind of stuff wasn't necessary, but it's just how it was.
Art style looks pretty good imo. If they were aiming at young teens they're missing out of the mandatory huge half-covered tits on anything female. It also looks grounded and sure of itself rather than over the top.
Didn't feel like reading all the pages on this thread but also want to mention that stylized graphics age better then realism in video games. Also probably easier to upgrade down the road. For example World of Warcraft.
So.. who else feels like the theme and visuals are for players below 18
Next, on "If I really wanted to know, I would have googled it"...
So... who else thinks it's weird when guys play girl characters?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
35 years old and I think it looks stunning. Also, 'realistic' graphics do age faster because with advancing technology you can actually compare the old with the new, there is a real life standard to live up to there. Cleaner, low poly graphics also does not mean easier to create, from a technical point perhaps but from artistic point it might actually be a lot harder. I think they gave the Torchlight style a nice boost in poly count with a bit more muted colours, exactly the two things I hated about Torchlight 1 & 2, now it all needs to be animated decently or it still falls flat.
You might not like this style, I won't argue that. But disliking the graphics based on ridiculous assumptions like age and maturity? Angsty teen indeed.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It's perfectly fine to not like an art style or approach. Blanket assumption that it's 'kiddy' or some other such pronouncement -- not so perfectly reasonable.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
I think that was Schlesinger's selling point of Merrie Melodies to WB. Disney similarly had Silly Symphonies.
edit: Not all Looney Tunes was Merrie Melodies, and most Silly Symphonies didn't have the Mickey, Donald, Goofy etc crew in them.
I don't think that Valley thing works quite the same when playing a long term video game. Yeah if its a robotic butler he will creep me out, but in games that we have seen since VGA graphics just make it look as real as you can and shove the cartoon shit on the phone games. I don't buy expensive video cards to watch Disney characters.
I have only seen a little bit but i have to say no on this one.The graphics imo are ok nothing that would detract me from the game.If you realize the background of these guys you would know it could have been a LOT worse.
PVP is what would detract me from the game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well they DO correlate to age but is NOT the WHY that devs make quality or low quality graphics.It is ALWAYS about the cost and what they feel they can support for bandwidth.It is NEVER about ART style,only a defensive dev will use that to defend cheap game design.Example Arena net claiming art for their cheap CS's and interludes,too cheap to make full 3d videos.It really filters down even further,developers don't have voice overs because they were saving money and no other reason.
ALL of game design is based around cost not quality or passion and that is why we have ALL the games are half ass efforts trying to cut corners for bigger profits and a faster game to market.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
That's true, Looney Tunes were different from Merrie Melodies and I think originally one was in color and the other black and white.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You don't know your Looney Tunes then... because they were subject to a lot of censorship and controversy. Looney Tunes goes way back the 1930's. Yes, Looney Tunes were later marketed to children but not the early stuff. That was often edited or censored if shown at all.
The censorship came later, in the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in the 70s, I saw all those cartoons on TV.
edit: We're talking about material that was just societal status quo in the 30s and 40s like blackface and... other racially prejudiced depictions. It's just how it was, man.
I have almost their entire collection... and I can assure you, you didn't see all of them in the 70s growing up... you just think you did.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Well, it's now going wildly off topic, but I will tell you WFLD in Chicago showed all the old Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, regardless of UA's 1968 official ban on the "censored 11", up til the point it was bought out by Fox in the mid 80s. I'm sure it makes for great advertising on the dvd's at comic-cons to say otherwise, but many uhf channels showed that kind of material, because they weren't sanctioned by networks.
TBH, i wish i loved the in-game art style as much as I loved their concept art. Their art is so fricken awesome. Very painterly...the in-game look is similar, but not quite as amazing.
Still no complaints, here. plenty of room for stylized art.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
Much of the time the cartoon comparison is used as just that, a comparison. I think cartoons look like crap compared to some games, so the comparison is negative. What I cry about is people insisting that everything is fine and that being discerning is somehow a disastrous flaw. I cry because I care about those people making that fucking stupid assumption. I'm a humanist
Lest we forget, you were the one who said they were marketed for kids... and this whole thread is full of people stating that cartoon stylization has nothing to do with the target demographics. You know they weren't. I know they weren't. You can't prove the TV station showed them all and I can't prove otherwise. What we all know to be true is that they were not made for kids... originally.
Well, now we're getting into dangerous territory of "what's considered funny by whom" and "what's completely inappropriate". I can't go there, because I'd be legitimizing alot of prejudicial hurt and other problems. I can only say this, it was a different time and yes, parents plopped their kids down to watch them during daylight hours, not like "after midnight content". It's better now, really. That kind of stuff wasn't necessary, but it's just how it was.
Art style looks pretty good imo. If they were aiming at young teens they're missing out of the mandatory huge half-covered tits on anything female. It also looks grounded and sure of itself rather than over the top.
People still believe that stylized graphics in video games are meant for kids?
Come on.... Its 2015
The type of content determines the age demographic in video games, not the art style or graphics, IMO.
So.. who else feels like the theme and visuals are for players below 18
Next, on "If I really wanted to know, I would have googled it"...
So... who else thinks it's weird when guys play girl characters?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
35 years old and I think it looks stunning. Also, 'realistic' graphics do age faster because with advancing technology you can actually compare the old with the new, there is a real life standard to live up to there. Cleaner, low poly graphics also does not mean easier to create, from a technical point perhaps but from artistic point it might actually be a lot harder. I think they gave the Torchlight style a nice boost in poly count with a bit more muted colours, exactly the two things I hated about Torchlight 1 & 2, now it all needs to be animated decently or it still falls flat.
You might not like this style, I won't argue that. But disliking the graphics based on ridiculous assumptions like age and maturity? Angsty teen indeed.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It's perfectly fine to not like an art style or approach. Blanket assumption that it's 'kiddy' or some other such pronouncement -- not so perfectly reasonable.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Imo WIldstar is but not this game.
That sounds like something that someone under the age of 18 would say.