Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
DF Lee

Art Update #6: Creating Characters

Recommended Posts

Okay, I think everyone is freaking out a bit too much here. This is an unused character model, that is clearly not being used, and is a general example of how the animation mechanics will work int he game. Don't sweat it so much. Questions and constructive criticism is great, but not just words for the sake of being harsh.

That aside, I do enjoy the way that they're choosing to animate this game. Looks cool :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm actually curious as to what the reds team is more focused on:

Size of game in terms of space

OR

Use of resources while running

If physical size is the main concern, I would actually convert all the paintings into a vector format and use point movement keyframes to animate. The physical download/storage size would be minimal, and with the right algorithms, it would retain its painted look, while adding a bit of depth. For example, a tree that is vector has shadow and highlight layers done with semi-transparent darker and lighter layers, as the player moves, the shadows and highlights subtly move as well in relation to the camera.

This of course would be many layers at work at the same time and would be more work on the animators and artists unless of course you pre-define scripts that automate the movement of every item then call that function on the particular object, thus recreating the same transform or animation on any object. IE a script for lighting that applies to ever shadow and highlight layer via class label.

Alternatively, you could use PNG layers making for a large download, but small amount of resources.

Either way, lighting and environmental effects and filters can be incredibly simple if you use vector layers, perhaps using auto-defined shapes based off of the alpha edges split in half by whatever lies at 90 degrees of the light source, each object is given a shadow/highlight intensity number (based off of the texture, controlling opacity and brightness) and then overlayed on top of the objects in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding some Z Depth to the heads (and maybe other parts) is a brilliant idea that I simply never considered. Could we therefore say that this game is neither 2D or 3D, but "2-and-a-bit D"?

Same here - I've never heard of anyone doing things this way before. (And by "this way", I'm referring not only to the tilting, but your whole approach to the animating.) Is this something you've come up with yourselves, or where did that come from?

Well, there's some people doing it even in After Effects (not so well animated though, I love that test they posted)

I put that reference in the "Animating the jack" thread.

Oh, and BTW... to the man that animated this... I absolutely adore the look of snappy animation on that painterly style, looks stellar. I agree the proportions could be closer to the original art... but who cares for a pre-production animation sample.

Also, to the person who criticised the head of the character... that's not the ORIGINAL head in the painting, that's the version with the phonemes, for the full head conversation sample with the dialogue tree... they didn't want to re-draw all the mouth poses again and who could blame them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with anything there tends to be silent majority who, at least appear to be, watching with interest at how the game evolves with a smaller number of very vocal people who either think every new revision is the Greatest Thing Ever or an Affront To All Mankind because they want the next evolution to be closer to their idea of perfection. Most people understand the concept of iterative design, more so in the case of the demographic who are likely to have found themselves in the position to back this game.

Personally I find the art posts interesting particularly in seeing the steps between taking hand painted concept art and translating it into an asset which can be animated within the constraints of the technology. I'd be more shocked if there wasn't stages where things looked a little janky on the way from initial concept to the finished product. It is often that jankiness which is most interesting because it leads to some interesting discussion on why and then how it is fixed.

Anyway... I've been largely impressed by documentary and level of access Double Fine have given so far and subjectively like the art style of the game and think the approaches taken to implement it have lots of potential so keep it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As with anything there tends to be silent majority who, at least appear to be, watching with interest at how the game evolves with a smaller number of very vocal people who either think every new revision is the Greatest Thing Ever or an Affront To All Mankind because they want the next evolution to be closer to their idea of perfection. Most people understand the concept of iterative design, more so in the case of the demographic who are likely to have found themselves in the position to back this game.

Demographic? Way to be Pretentios! What was the name of that film? How to lose friends and alienate people?

The content on display so far has been epic. ONE coment to the contrary and people get super defensive!

Can't we all just get along?

:cheese:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I'm actually curious as to what the reds team is more focused on:

Size of game in terms of space

OR

Use of resources while running

If physical size is the main concern, I would actually convert all the paintings into a vector format and use point movement keyframes to animate. The physical download/storage size would be minimal, and with the right algorithms, it would retain its painted look, while adding a bit of depth. For example, a tree that is vector has shadow and highlight layers done with semi-transparent darker and lighter layers, as the player moves, the shadows and highlights subtly move as well in relation to the camera.

This of course would be many layers at work at the same time and would be more work on the animators and artists unless of course you pre-define scripts that automate the movement of every item then call that function on the particular object, thus recreating the same transform or animation on any object. IE a script for lighting that applies to ever shadow and highlight layer via class label.

Alternatively, you could use PNG layers making for a large download, but small amount of resources.

Either way, lighting and environmental effects and filters can be incredibly simple if you use vector layers, perhaps using auto-defined shapes based off of the alpha edges split in half by whatever lies at 90 degrees of the light source, each object is given a shadow/highlight intensity number (based off of the texture, controlling opacity and brightness) and then overlayed on top of the objects in the game.

That is a good question Brent.

Both is true for us. We want to keep the size of the download as small as possible while assuring a high quality look. We do have to be aware of the runtime memory footprint too especially for low-end mobile devices. Of course we won't compromise the quality of the game for more powerful machines. So there are many constraints and satisfying them all is a difficult job.

We do compress all of our textures. For desktop computers we convert images into the DXT format, whereas we use PVR for iOS devices. For Android we'll support ECT texture compression. Interestingly enough this helps us both on three fronts: the download and the memory footprint get smaller and the rendering speed increases (because modern GPU's like block-based texture formats - mostly because of cache locality).

Animations are 'naturally' compressed because we simply store the offset transformation (translation, rotation and scale) of each joint. This saves a lot of memory and you can check out how much in my 'Animating the Jack' post.

The same is true for other asset types like for example audio files.

It would be great if we could employ vectorization as type of image compression, but it won't be an option for us because the visual style of the game has a lot of color variance which is difficult to capture with vector formats. Also since the GPU doesn't 'understand' vector formats we would need to convert the images during load time which would increase the loading times for scenes, which want to minimize of course.

Did this reply answer all of your questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's great inprovement over that freakish hellspawn concept lumberjack shown earlier. This is like his nicer brother, I just hope he doesn't put that sole-less grin on again. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the animation choices and think it's among the best things I've seen from 2.5D-ish style in animation.

I love the snappy moves because it reduces the need of uniquely drawn in-betweens and really takes advantage of the medium it's presented in.

To me this post seems to be about showcasing the animation rig, and it did a great job in that.

I guess criticism ins't very valuable until something that intentionally is going into the game is on the chopping block, but I still think there is room for feedback; if one thing is a good idea, suggestions for a way to achieve the same result visually, but in a better more efficient way etc. In short; contribute with tools and ideas, (like a lot of you already have) :)

Showing stuff of very early in the process is hard enough as it is without people instantly being negative about it. It's totally OK not to like something, but it won't ever change into something you like more by just saying "I don't like it." Believing in this logic would pretty much mean that if somebody were to just write "I like it!" would also just lead to the creator stopping the production ("the person liked it, my work here is done") it's not criticism either way it's either a smile or a frown, but we get these every day and somebody is always bound to dislike something. A smile can be encouraging and telling people that they are headed the right direction, but a frown usually either will be ignored or seem disapproving to the current path, but nothing good comes out of stopping someone on their path unless you guide them in the right direction.

So looking forward to see more of the development, also wonder if there are any intentions of making a playable version of the lumberjack scene so DFAFers can test how they respond to the gameplay, interactions and all that good stuff? cheers :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I'm actually curious as to what the reds team is more focused on:

Size of game in terms of space

OR

Use of resources while running

If physical size is the main concern, I would actually convert all the paintings into a vector format and use point movement keyframes to animate. The physical download/storage size would be minimal, and with the right algorithms, it would retain its painted look, while adding a bit of depth. For example, a tree that is vector has shadow and highlight layers done with semi-transparent darker and lighter layers, as the player moves, the shadows and highlights subtly move as well in relation to the camera.

This of course would be many layers at work at the same time and would be more work on the animators and artists unless of course you pre-define scripts that automate the movement of every item then call that function on the particular object, thus recreating the same transform or animation on any object. IE a script for lighting that applies to ever shadow and highlight layer via class label.

Alternatively, you could use PNG layers making for a large download, but small amount of resources.

Either way, lighting and environmental effects and filters can be incredibly simple if you use vector layers, perhaps using auto-defined shapes based off of the alpha edges split in half by whatever lies at 90 degrees of the light source, each object is given a shadow/highlight intensity number (based off of the texture, controlling opacity and brightness) and then overlayed on top of the objects in the game.

That is a good question Brent.

Both is true for us. We want to keep the size of the download as small as possible while assuring a high quality look. We do have to be aware of the runtime memory footprint too especially for low-end mobile devices. Of course we won't compromise the quality of the game for more powerful machines. So there are many constraints and satisfying them all is a difficult job.

We do compress all of our textures. For desktop computers we convert images into the DXT format, whereas we use PVR for iOS devices. For Android we'll support ECT texture compression. Interestingly enough this helps us both on three fronts: the download and the memory footprint get smaller and the rendering speed increases (because modern GPU's like block-based texture formats - mostly because of cache locality).

Animations are 'naturally' compressed because we simply store the offset transformation (translation, rotation and scale) of each joint. This saves a lot of memory and you can check out how much in my 'Animating the Jack' post.

The same is true for other asset types like for example audio files.

It would be great if we could employ vectorization as type of image compression, but it won't be an option for us because the visual style of the game has a lot of color variance which is difficult to capture with vector formats. Also since the GPU doesn't 'understand' vector formats we would need to convert the images during load time which would increase the loading times for scenes, which want to minimize of course.

Did this reply answer all of your questions?

Yes. It makes me think, though, why is there no program or scrip that can automate this? Imagine, if you will, a script/simple program capable of taking frames of a video and turning that into a vector animation? What is nice about vector animation for those of you unfamiliar with the term is that you have shapes that are defined by points and closed loops made of points can have a color value. This allows an animation to occur with only location data; IE: in frame 1, point a is at 768, 423, 15 (x,y,z coord) then in frame 53 it's at 690, 501, 18. With one line of code, an animation has occured while being both small and quick (referring to space and memory.) these are called keyframes and the frames in between will automatically fill in the necessary movements in between.

Furthermore, with vector art in general, because they are but simple points of data on a graph with mathematical curves and a visual style, they can be any size, the size of a dime to the size of a field, and they will retain all quality.

If somehow, a simple animation done in Maya (or Blender, my personal favorite) can be cell shaded then converted to vector animation. That would be incredible. If only I knew a software engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somehow, a simple animation done in Maya (or Blender, my personal favorite) can be cell shaded then converted to vector animation. That would be incredible. If only I knew a software engineer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't almost everything in a 3D package already pretty much vector based, as long as it's a 3D element and not a texture?

Have NURBS been considered as a option for these 3D planes? Just wondering if the choice landing on standard polys have more to do with simplicity rather than the ability to scale. NURBS would probably also require all textures to be perfectly square as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somehow, a simple animation done in Maya (or Blender, my personal favorite) can be cell shaded then converted to vector animation. That would be incredible. If only I knew a software engineer.

I'm kind of confused by your posts... What benefit do you imagine there might be - converting to "vector animation?" The concept just might be going over my head, but I'm not getting it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somehow, a simple animation done in Maya (or Blender, my personal favorite) can be cell shaded then converted to vector animation. That would be incredible. If only I knew a software engineer.

I'm kind of confused by your posts... What benefit do you imagine there might be - converting to "vector animation?" The concept just might be going over my head, but I'm not getting it...

It is possible to export cell shaded 3d to vector images. I have working on a project that has done it from 3ds Max. I can't remember the name of the plugin we used but I'm sure if you search around you will find the equivalent for Maya.

The reason you would want to convert to vector would most likely be for the file sized restrictions of web base flash type games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somehow, a simple animation done in Maya (or Blender, my personal favorite) can be cell shaded then converted to vector animation. That would be incredible. If only I knew a software engineer.

I'm kind of confused by your posts... What benefit do you imagine there might be - converting to "vector animation?" The concept just might be going over my head, but I'm not getting it...

It is possible to export cell shaded 3d to vector images. I have working on a project that has done it from 3ds Max. I can't remember the name of the plugin we used but I'm sure if you search around you will find the equivalent for Maya.

The reason you would want to convert to vector would most likely be for the file sized restrictions of web base flash type games.

There are 3 benefits to vector that apply to the technical limitations to a game like this.

1. Download size.

Vector is merely simple text.

2. Speed.

When done right (and where possible), vector does not need to decompress like JPEG textures.

3. Quality/Scalability.

There are no artifacts or aliased transparency borders; solid lines and colors remain crisp at any resolution and the same image and it's subsequent animation frames can be any size at any ratio on the fly. With the various screen sizes and resolutions, this is a major advantage wherein the size of the screen/window can automatically determine where the points need to be in relation to the canvas size. Therefore, there needs little to no different texture files for different devices, hardware configurations or television setups. Take a 360 for example: whether the output is 480, 720, 1080, or even 5K and Cineon screens on a PC will all use the exact same files with the exact same level of detail with no change to the image itself when drawn by the system. It retains the same level of quality and can even change with the resizing of a window.

When implementing bit mapped images, the sizes are huge and every single texture in the game must be rendered by the team, then packaged individually for each device and each configuration of that device in order to maintain quality. When JPEG compression is thrown on top of it, it adds artifacts, the renders become much more complicated, and it requires more processing power to compress and decompress the image. Also, when working with these static images, each frame is drawn by the system playing the game individually. Aka, 30 frames per second per texture per object. Vector animating only moves one point at a time leaving the remainder of the texture and object and picture alone, thus requiring no additional render. Because 3D objects are already vector (x,y,z coordinates) it makes adds an entire additional layer of processing ON TOP of the vector to display the textures on top.

But I understand that with the way the game is being made, vector might have too many lines and curves to be displayed without issue. It WOULD, however, make complete sense if the game retained a clean, solid line, solid color, cartoon-like appearance. Think Adventure Time style where the lines are clearly defined, the various objects are solid in color and the animation is fluid without the need for frame blending (basically a cross-fade that happens between each frame to smoother out the differences from frame to frame of animation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they get enough extra income for the game through paypal with the late backers.

I was also too late with the kickstarter. I only learned about it recently, pretty awesome though.

I love those vids updates, they're priceless, can't wait for the next one. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hard edges aren't what makes it look terrible, ignore those, and just look at it. The ugly proportions, the dead eyes, the fact that his skull looks like it was inflated with a bicycle pump. It's just an overall worse drawing than the one on the left.

Does anyone know if the hard edges could be softened using a pixel shader or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hard edges aren't what makes it look terrible, ignore those, and just look at it. The ugly proportions, the dead eyes, the fact that his skull looks like it was inflated with a bicycle pump. It's just an overall worse drawing than the one on the left.

Does anyone know if the hard edges could be softened using a pixel shader or something?

I think it's simply a matter of feathering the edges of the alpha maps. Or simply adding a filter to the textures themselves. That's how I would do it... but they might have (absolutely do have) much more sophistimacated ways - unknown to me... I think any kind of shader based solution would fail though - since all of the geometry is forward facing (more or less) and is made up of separate elements...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

That was pretty much what I ment. 8bit/16bit like does not mean programers have to avoid now a days technollogy. And yes, today's resolution is amazing, and so is animation. I don't know if exactly you have backed this project for a diffenrent reason, but this game was funded mostly by peole who knew MI, DOTT, MM... programmers where funding a game of the likes of thesse. Also there's been a huge posting about this and most of the people made clear that MI like graphics was what they wanted. What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Actually I'm a little bit worried, but actually they said we would not see anything from the game or it's likes before the game is out or done wich makes it clear this images and character styles have nothing to do withe the actual game, they are just some drawings to show the techniques they use. Though, I'm sure they will bring lumberjack and the coat in the game in a funny way, maybe a picture... you guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Discovering something new and exciting, perchance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

That was pretty much what I ment. 8bit/16bit like does not mean programers have to avoid now a days technollogy. And yes, today's resolution is amazing, and so is animation. I don't know if exactly you have backed this project for a diffenrent reason, but this game was funded mostly by peole who knew MI, DOTT, MM... programmers where funding a game of the likes of thesse. Also there's been a huge posting about this and most of the people made clear that MI like graphics was what they wanted. What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Actually I'm a little bit worried, but actually they said we would not see anything from the game or it's likes before the game is out or done wich makes it clear this images and character styles have nothing to do withe the actual game, they are just some drawings to show the techniques they use. Though, I'm sure they will bring lumberjack and the coat in the game in a funny way, maybe a picture... you guess.

They don't want the game to be a museum piece. They want to create a modern adventure game and move the genre forward. Sticking with the old style of graphics for no other reason than nostalgia would keep the genre stuck in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff - especially the discussions going on in the comments. I did notice that the nose looked somewhat more stuck on in the second, 2-and-a-bit D rendering, which I figure is because Stapley's drawing already have such a high level of space and volume even in 2D that making it moreso would exaggerate that.

Another thing I realized, though, is that this was only apparent to me in the still frame, with no background. Even when it was just the lumberjack moving his head without a background, I didn't notice the nose at all, I was too busy being entranced by his expressions and how awesome they were. So I think that the only place the team might need to be careful is with the close-ups for dialogue trees, since otherwise our attention will be towards the animation and the character's interactions with the backgrounds, both of which are shaping up to be fantastic.

I don't agree with DOUGLAS's blunt way of approaching things, but I do feel that some of the original drawing's distinctive silhouette was lost in the translation. That's a part I found particularly interesting in the character design phase, and I really like seeing how the hipsterjack evolved. I think it might pay to be careful with how the shapes translate into 2-and-a-bit D (I am calling it that and you can't stop me), so none of the original's amazingitude is lost.

And if anyone bother's to read this far, I present this, which is a guide to how to politely critique things. The way I see it, certain people have a right to be blunt about what they feel about the game, and we, the backers, offered glimpses into the process and the chance to have our feedback heard, are not those people. Because we're - or at least, I'm, sorry to presume - trying at the heart to make a better game, the chances are more likely that I or anyone will be listened to if I'm polite, as I think this thread has shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

That was pretty much what I ment. 8bit/16bit like does not mean programers have to avoid now a days technollogy. And yes, today's resolution is amazing, and so is animation. I don't know if exactly you have backed this project for a diffenrent reason, but this game was funded mostly by peole who knew MI, DOTT, MM... programmers where funding a game of the likes of thesse. Also there's been a huge posting about this and most of the people made clear that MI like graphics was what they wanted. What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Actually I'm a little bit worried, but actually they said we would not see anything from the game or it's likes before the game is out or done wich makes it clear this images and character styles have nothing to do withe the actual game, they are just some drawings to show the techniques they use. Though, I'm sure they will bring lumberjack and the coat in the game in a funny way, maybe a picture... you guess.

They don't want the game to be a museum piece. They want to create a modern adventure game and move the genre forward. Sticking with the old style of graphics for no other reason than nostalgia would keep the genre stuck in the past.

What is that coment all about? Museum? Definetly, by the number of your posts, you simply post like if you where doing a sudoku, just to skip bored time wich in the case is a lot. If it went to a museum stright away would simply mean a masterpiece, it would be historical, and if you think a museum is a warehouse of old and ugly stuff covered on dust then you have to ask a frend or your mother beacause you're totally wrong. Then if you have a real opinion, against/in favour, then try to use the apropiate words that match your thoughts. "you are totally welcome to criticise me or who/what ever" :smirk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

That was pretty much what I ment. 8bit/16bit like does not mean programers have to avoid now a days technollogy. And yes, today's resolution is amazing, and so is animation. I don't know if exactly you have backed this project for a diffenrent reason, but this game was funded mostly by peole who knew MI, DOTT, MM... programmers where funding a game of the likes of thesse. Also there's been a huge posting about this and most of the people made clear that MI like graphics was what they wanted. What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Actually I'm a little bit worried, but actually they said we would not see anything from the game or it's likes before the game is out or done wich makes it clear this images and character styles have nothing to do withe the actual game, they are just some drawings to show the techniques they use. Though, I'm sure they will bring lumberjack and the coat in the game in a funny way, maybe a picture... you guess.

They don't want the game to be a museum piece. They want to create a modern adventure game and move the genre forward. Sticking with the old style of graphics for no other reason than nostalgia would keep the genre stuck in the past.

What is that coment all about? Museum? Definetly, by the number of your posts, you simply post like if you where doing a sudoku, just to skip bored time wich in the case is a lot. If it went to a museum stright away would simply mean a masterpiece, it would be historical, and if you think a museum is a warehouse of old and ugly stuff covered on dust then you have to ask a frend or your mother beacause you're totally wrong. Then if you have a real opinion, against/in favour, then try to use the apropiate words that match your thoughts. "you are totally welcome to criticise me or who/what ever" :smirk:

Entirely missed the guys point there, don't think he meant there were would be a physical exhibit in a museum! lol As good as the old games' graphics were, sticking with the old style would root the game back in the old days and as Syd said we want to move the genre forward, not to keep it in the same place it was 10 or 20 years ago. Why not make use of the higher resolution we have available today? Why not make use of the new technology we have to create these worlds and characters to make something new? If people had access to higher resolution back in the 80-90s, the developers would have used it to more accurately evoke the look and feel they desired.

Besides at the end of the day, its all about Tim's creative vision: if he wants a painterly style with the animation style seen here, so be it. As someone said (think it was Tim in one of the documentaries), every thing he does gonna piss someone off, somewhere and its gonna be impossible to please everyone as has been made evident :P Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, just thought I'd share my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah,

The reason why we associate pixels so strongly with these games is only because the genre largely stopped being funded before the current age of technology. Any game looked that way back then, not just these.

This needs to not just be an homage to the games of yore that we've loved so much. It needs to be a reestablishing of the genre as a modern game and a viable player in the market. To do that, we need new players and new market share to have any hope of that and making the game ugly/poorly defined on purpose is really damaging to the future of the genre because it is only our nostalgia that would make a pixel-based game not a negative. For this reason, I found sword and sorcery incredibly hard to play despite enjoying the way the story was told.

As I said earlier, I am extremely excited about the direction it's taking. Great job people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

That was pretty much what I ment. 8bit/16bit like does not mean programers have to avoid now a days technollogy. And yes, today's resolution is amazing, and so is animation. I don't know if exactly you have backed this project for a diffenrent reason, but this game was funded mostly by peole who knew MI, DOTT, MM... programmers where funding a game of the likes of thesse. Also there's been a huge posting about this and most of the people made clear that MI like graphics was what they wanted. What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Actually I'm a little bit worried, but actually they said we would not see anything from the game or it's likes before the game is out or done wich makes it clear this images and character styles have nothing to do withe the actual game, they are just some drawings to show the techniques they use. Though, I'm sure they will bring lumberjack and the coat in the game in a funny way, maybe a picture... you guess.

They don't want the game to be a museum piece. They want to create a modern adventure game and move the genre forward. Sticking with the old style of graphics for no other reason than nostalgia would keep the genre stuck in the past.

What is that coment all about? Museum? Definetly, by the number of your posts, you simply post like if you where doing a sudoku, just to skip bored time wich in the case is a lot. If it went to a museum stright away would simply mean a masterpiece, it would be historical, and if you think a museum is a warehouse of old and ugly stuff covered on dust then you have to ask a frend or your mother beacause you're totally wrong. Then if you have a real opinion, against/in favour, then try to use the apropiate words that match your thoughts. "you are totally welcome to criticise me or who/what ever" :smirk:

Insulting me based on my post count? Really? Anyway, ChrisMacDee and LightKnight77 expanded on what I meant nicely. The "museum piece" thing was almost directly lifted from a quote Double Fine had made before when asked about the kind of game they were wanting to make. Making a carbon-copy of those 90's adventure games, down to the graphics and gameplay, would be sending out the message that the genre is no longer relevant in today's market and the only reason anyone cares is because of nostalgia.

It'd also probably look like a pretty big waste of that $2m+ budget the game has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really hope they don't use this style of characters in the real game, pleassssse. They are so artificial and so far away from the stylish pixeled characters we all know and love from the past.

We all don't love pixelated graphics from the past. You may have that preference, and that's fine, but I love the direction this is going in and I would have been disappointed with a low resolution thing.

Yeah, they were pixelated in the past because that's what computers could do. As soon as they could, they increased the resolution. If high res animation were possible back then, they would have used it. The only game that looked a little dated when it came out was The Dig, and that was pretty much because that iteration of SCUMM was in need of an upgrade by that point (and then CMI came out). It seems weird that at the time, we expected LucasArts to make the best looking game they could possibly make, but now some of us are happy to restrict them to 20 year old graphics technology.

Don't get me wrong, I love pixel art (I use it in my games because I can make pixel art that looks consistent and good and stylish without too much trouble, but I'm not really technically proficient enough to animate convincingly in higher resolution), but the Tim Schafer I know from the 90s was always forcing me to revisit my expectations of what an adventure game could look like.

That was pretty much what I ment. 8bit/16bit like does not mean programers have to avoid now a days technollogy. And yes, today's resolution is amazing, and so is animation. I don't know if exactly you have backed this project for a diffenrent reason, but this game was funded mostly by peole who knew MI, DOTT, MM... programmers where funding a game of the likes of thesse. Also there's been a huge posting about this and most of the people made clear that MI like graphics was what they wanted. What's the point on jumping on a boat which destination is unknown for you.

Actually I'm a little bit worried, but actually they said we would not see anything from the game or it's likes before the game is out or done wich makes it clear this images and character styles have nothing to do withe the actual game, they are just some drawings to show the techniques they use. Though, I'm sure they will bring lumberjack and the coat in the game in a funny way, maybe a picture... you guess.

They don't want the game to be a museum piece. They want to create a modern adventure game and move the genre forward. Sticking with the old style of graphics for no other reason than nostalgia would keep the genre stuck in the past.

What is that coment all about? Museum? Definetly, by the number of your posts, you simply post like if you where doing a sudoku, just to skip bored time wich in the case is a lot. If it went to a museum stright away would simply mean a masterpiece, it would be historical, and if you think a museum is a warehouse of old and ugly stuff covered on dust then you have to ask a frend or your mother beacause you're totally wrong. Then if you have a real opinion, against/in favour, then try to use the apropiate words that match your thoughts. "you are totally welcome to criticise me or who/what ever" :smirk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

Prepare to have your mind blown.

Metaphorically, of course.

P.S. "We don't want it to be a museum piece" are pretty much Tim Schafer's exact words during an interview, so you might want to take your bizarre complaint up with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrisMacDee

Have you really read the whole discussion, beacause you just repeated what I've said, technollogy wise, like if I sayed the opposite. Read again and you'll see you've missed important data. We where discussing the art style here, not the technollogy, and no one said anything about sticking on the old graphics programming.

A wise man once said, you will miss the plot if you dont hear the whole speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...