Bellum Stellarum (Working Title)

[cats]

I personally think that fast is definitely best then go back and add meat for a proper version. We aren't going to do anything if it takes too long. But if that requires a change in engine after the whole thing is done, then go ahead and switch and we can make an attempt at a full pass.

[Error]

Works for me.

@Mercury please spoiler gifs or large images in your sig, we had to lecture saravanth on this a while ago.

@Vin And so it is written. Unless I can think up some plot for 'thulhu atB.

[Saravanth]

Actually, I quite like his sig. It's very kek.

[Dr. Mackeroth]

I say the fast version is the more appealing option. Not that I have any idea what I'm talking about.
Damn it, I'm a doctor, not a computer programmer!

And Mercury, you do need to spoiler that sig, ignore Saravanth

[Shadowcatbot]

*spittake*
A wild mackeroth has appeared!

[cats]

It's the same size as the last one and I had it for months.

[Saravanth]

ignore Saravanth

So that's how it stands, huh?

I won't forget this.

[cannonfodder]

So I was hunting around and I came across this really interesting post

This may sound surprising on the face of it, but actually isn't: The higher you make the graphical resolution, polygon count, colour depth and whatnot, the easier it is for your game to look terrible. The crucial component in enjoying an audio-visual artwork is the mind: Your mind knows that you are looking at a flat computer screen. You are willing to accept that and not be bothered by it, and instead construct the mental image of the world that is being portrayed in your mind.

Now, if the visuals are highly stylized, sketchy or pixelated, the mind is attuned to that, and factors that out as "background" -- it doesn't get in the way of the mental construction of the scene. That's why a game like the original Monkey Island, with its 320x200 resolution, can get away with a door animation that consists of only two frames: We already accept that the scene is a pirate tavern, and we have no problem accepting that the door just opened.

But if you have a high resolution and want to go for photo-realism, then the mental expectations go up dramatically. It's no longer obvious that we're faced with visual fiction, and the mind does a lot less of the internal reconstruction work. The more realistic the input, the less the imagination is at work filling in the details. The (possibly unintended) side effect is that you as the designer must now go and produce all the details in actual graphics and 3D modelling. You've successfully un-outsourced the imaginative work from your consumer and signed your graphics design team on to the task.

It made me think a bit, because I was chatting with fr0st a few months back and he said something similar. Shooting for realism will fall flat on its face unless you have a team to make it happen. Since I'm not exactly in a position where I have an army of AAA level graphic artists at my beck and call, I've been wondering about the alternative...it's nice to say you need a 'consistent visual style' but coming up with one is another thing entirely. Prototype is in a good spot with his since he keeps with the Minecraft low fidelity theme, but here I am with a lot less constrictions and thus more graphic potential but no idea how much of it to exercise. Once I make game art I really have no imminent desire to go back just to make things consistent, so I was wondering if anyone might have thoughts on this.

Spoiler:

Also please forgive me; after some deep thought I've decided to sidestep the overall consensus. I realize everyone wants something sooner rather than later, but what's there now isn't going to be of any consequence to anyone outside of this forum. We have one shot at this and it needs to be done the right way.

[Dr. Mackeroth]

So I was hunting around and I came across this really interesting post

This may sound surprising on the face of it, but actually isn't: The higher you make the graphical resolution, polygon count, colour depth and whatnot, the easier it is for your game to look terrible. The crucial component in enjoying an audio-visual artwork is the mind: Your mind knows that you are looking at a flat computer screen. You are willing to accept that and not be bothered by it, and instead construct the mental image of the world that is being portrayed in your mind.

Now, if the visuals are highly stylized, sketchy or pixelated, the mind is attuned to that, and factors that out as "background" -- it doesn't get in the way of the mental construction of the scene. That's why a game like the original Monkey Island, with its 320x200 resolution, can get away with a door animation that consists of only two frames: We already accept that the scene is a pirate tavern, and we have no problem accepting that the door just opened.

But if you have a high resolution and want to go for photo-realism, then the mental expectations go up dramatically. It's no longer obvious that we're faced with visual fiction, and the mind does a lot less of the internal reconstruction work. The more realistic the input, the less the imagination is at work filling in the details. The (possibly unintended) side effect is that you as the designer must now go and produce all the details in actual graphics and 3D modelling. You've successfully un-outsourced the imaginative work from your consumer and signed your graphics design team on to the task.

It made me think a bit, because I was chatting with fr0st a few months back and he said something similar. Shooting for realism will fall flat on its face unless you have a team to make it happen. Since I'm not exactly in a position where I have an army of AAA level graphic artists at my beck and call, I've been wondering about the alternative...it's nice to say you need a 'consistent visual style' but coming up with one is another thing entirely. Prototype is in a good spot with his since he keeps with the Minecraft low fidelity theme, but here I am with a lot less constrictions and thus more graphic potential but no idea how much of it to exercise. Once I make game art I really have no imminent desire to go back just to make things consistent, so I was wondering if anyone might have thoughts on this.

Spoiler:

Also please forgive me; after some deep thought I've decided to sidestep the overall consensus. I realize everyone wants something sooner rather than later, but what's there now isn't going to be of any consequence to anyone outside of this forum. We have one shot at this and it needs to be done the right way.

The motto of this is: stylised and/or simple graphics are often better than realistic ones. In the end its the gameplay that matters. Given our limited resources, we're never going to be able to achieve AAA level of graphics, so we should even pretend to aim for that. Instead, we need to focus on creating interesting and - more importantly - addictive gameplay.

Also, I respect your decision to take the longer route. Your reasoning makes sense- we only have one shot and it needs to be good and well made if we are to attract attention/funding.

I just wish I could be of any use to you.

[Saravanth]

Spoiler:

Also please forgive me; after some deep thought I've decided to sidestep the overall consensus. I realize everyone wants something sooner rather than later, but what's there now isn't going to be of any consequence to anyone outside of this forum. We have one shot at this and it needs to be done the right way.

This is the right attitude. Do what you yourself deem best.

[cannonfodder]

So I was hunting around and I came across this really interesting post

This may sound surprising on the face of it, but actually isn't: The higher you make the graphical resolution, polygon count, colour depth and whatnot, the easier it is for your game to look terrible. The crucial component in enjoying an audio-visual artwork is the mind: Your mind knows that you are looking at a flat computer screen. You are willing to accept that and not be bothered by it, and instead construct the mental image of the world that is being portrayed in your mind.

Now, if the visuals are highly stylized, sketchy or pixelated, the mind is attuned to that, and factors that out as "background" -- it doesn't get in the way of the mental construction of the scene. That's why a game like the original Monkey Island, with its 320x200 resolution, can get away with a door animation that consists of only two frames: We already accept that the scene is a pirate tavern, and we have no problem accepting that the door just opened.

But if you have a high resolution and want to go for photo-realism, then the mental expectations go up dramatically. It's no longer obvious that we're faced with visual fiction, and the mind does a lot less of the internal reconstruction work. The more realistic the input, the less the imagination is at work filling in the details. The (possibly unintended) side effect is that you as the designer must now go and produce all the details in actual graphics and 3D modelling. You've successfully un-outsourced the imaginative work from your consumer and signed your graphics design team on to the task.

It made me think a bit, because I was chatting with fr0st a few months back and he said something similar. Shooting for realism will fall flat on its face unless you have a team to make it happen. Since I'm not exactly in a position where I have an army of AAA level graphic artists at my beck and call, I've been wondering about the alternative...it's nice to say you need a 'consistent visual style' but coming up with one is another thing entirely. Prototype is in a good spot with his since he keeps with the Minecraft low fidelity theme, but here I am with a lot less constrictions and thus more graphic potential but no idea how much of it to exercise. Once I make game art I really have no imminent desire to go back just to make things consistent, so I was wondering if anyone might have thoughts on this.

Spoiler:

Also please forgive me; after some deep thought I've decided to sidestep the overall consensus. I realize everyone wants something sooner rather than later, but what's there now isn't going to be of any consequence to anyone outside of this forum. We have one shot at this and it needs to be done the right way.

The motto of this is: stylised and/or simple graphics are often better than realistic ones. In the end its the gameplay that matters. Given our limited resources, we're never going to be able to achieve AAA level of graphics, so we should even pretend to aim for that. Instead, we need to focus on creating interesting and - more importantly - addictive gameplay.

Also, I respect your decision to take the longer route. Your reasoning makes sense- we only have one shot and it needs to be good and well made if we are to attract attention/funding.

I just wish I could be of any use to you.

Spoiler:

Also please forgive me; after some deep thought I've decided to sidestep the overall consensus. I realize everyone wants something sooner rather than later, but what's there now isn't going to be of any consequence to anyone outside of this forum. We have one shot at this and it needs to be done the right way.

This is the right attitude. Do what you yourself deem best.

I appreciate the support. That still leaves the question, though - what kind of style are we talking here? Simplified palette? Flat colors? Exaggerated guns? A large part of outlining a style is developing a kind of 'character' with traits that can be applied across the board.

Also, I haven't really seen anything about gameplay on this thread. I guess I kinda stole the show, but by all means keep doing what you're doing. Better to have too many ideas floating around than a boneyard.

[Error]

You're probably the most capable one here, Tiel; hell, we're essentially given you project lead status back, so honestly, you do what you like, we follow and help where we can.

Speaking of, have a modelling program installed, see what I can turn out with it.

[cats]

Tiel's the project lead as well as a modeler, programmer, designer, and our only engine specialist? I have no doubt that he could do any one of those well, but that's a lot for one person, and we'll probably end up like we did last time. We really need someone with decent communication skills to organize and assign tasks rather than someone throwing something on a thread and hoping it gets done. Maybe even separate groups to handle different things.

[Tell]

Well we do have the first post outlining a bunch of stuff, I already made a google drive with the futurecraft gmail but we could easily share stuff here as well as there.

[cannonfodder]

I agree. Part of me wants to do this by myself, but you're completely right - if you want this in a reasonable timeframe there has to be more than one guy doing anything. As far as project lead goes, while I'm grateful for another shot, I really can't say I want to do it unless I have to. I guess we have this mindset that workload importance must equate to seniority, as was with fr0st, but like him I really don't want to be the one making decisions and issuing orders. I can take them ok (I guess that explains my career choice) though the past has shown that I'm simply a crap taskmaster.

Get something organized. Here's a laundry list of what's ultimately needed:

• leadership
• textures
• models
• vfx/sfx
• programming

I'd like to say "just pool what you can" but turns out that saying you can do something doesn't mean you'll be good at it. Some people are going to have to crosstrain to get vacancies filled. I understand that no one really knows what's going on right now - that's just my paranoia about sharing things. If anyone steps up to the plate and starts organizing I'll be more than happy to divulge a sitrep.

@Tell I have no idea what that is.