And the award for the ugliest RPG in existence goes to... MM9
Christoph Nahr
compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
Primitive blurry textures on three-polygon landscapes with static
skies and four-polygon buildings housing one (1) NPC per building. No
visible weapon swings or arrows flying -- visual weapon feedback in
MM6-8 was BETTER than in MM9! Same for spell effects, they're just
cheaply made and no improvement at all.
Same again for FMVs, the artistic and technical quality is a far cry
from MM8. And the production value isn't any higher in the audio
department either -- except for some birds chirping way too loud, I
didn't hear any environmental effects even though EAX2 was activated
in both pre-game and in-game setup. Very short musical pieces are
repeated over and over, and they too are simplistic compared to MM6-8.
Only the first line of any NPC is voice-acted, the rest is text which
(in case you didn't expect it by now) is blurry and hard to read.
The paperdolls suck, they barely show any relationship to the
characters they are supposed to represent. But never mind, that's a
good match for the tiny item graphics which are shareware quality at
best. And this after MM6-8 which had paperdolls and item graphics
that set the standard for the genre!
Jesus Christ in a Viking boat. How far have the mighty fallen. Now I
almost HOPE they kill the series after this game. It's already dead
for all practical purposes, no good keeping a zombie around. :-(
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Lithurge
news:hsbpau0kvrk1psobc...@4ax.com:
> I can't believe I'm saying this but Wizardry 8 actually looked good
> compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
> they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
> pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
>
> Primitive blurry textures on three-polygon landscapes with static
> skies and four-polygon buildings housing one (1) NPC per building. No
> visible weapon swings or arrows flying --
>
Yes they have butchered the lithetech engine, not the prettiest in
exsistence anyway. But you do see arrows flying to the target. Just no
bow, sword etc....
And despite this I feel strangely drawn to playing it, no idea why, first
half an hour was "god this looks appalling". And the shipwreck, eh,
suddenly I'm on an island and no idea why, did I miss something. Oh look
there's a knackered ship in the sea there.
Nick
Eric VanHeest
> And despite this I feel strangely drawn to playing it, no idea why, first
> half an hour was "god this looks appalling". And the shipwreck, eh,
> suddenly I'm on an island and no idea why, did I miss something. Oh look
> there's a knackered ship in the sea there.
There's a cutscene between those two areas; maybe you accidentally
skipped it? It's of a group of five or so generic adventurers on a
ship, and a narrator describing the wreck.
(It's not terribly important, but it is there.)
Eric VanHeest
> And this after MM6-8 which had paperdolls and item graphics
> that set the standard for the genre!
I especially liked the characters holding blasters by the barrel, as if
they were going to use them as clubs :)
Eric VanHeest
> Jesus Christ in a Viking boat. How far have the mighty fallen. Now I
> almost HOPE they kill the series after this game. It's already dead
> for all practical purposes, no good keeping a zombie around. :-(
I dunno. If Might and Magic 10 came out and looked exactly the same,
in terms of graphics detail, as 9, I'd probably get it. I'm having a
lot of fun with 9, at any rate.
I wouldn't mind some general interface and feedback improvements, of
course.
Christoph Nahr
>Yes they have butchered the lithetech engine, not the prettiest in
>exsistence anyway. But you do see arrows flying to the target. Just no
>bow, sword etc....
Right, I was wrong there, you do see the arrows. But weren't they
somehow bigger in the previous games? I remember seeing the whole
arrow, point and shaft and feathers, very clearly as it went off...
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Christoph Nahr
<e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>I especially liked the characters holding blasters by the barrel, as if
>they were going to use them as clubs :)
Okay, but that wasn't until really late in the game. :-)
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Olaf
news:hsbpau0kvrk1psobc...@4ax.com...
> I can't believe I'm saying this but Wizardry 8 actually looked good
> compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
> they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
> pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
Haha this paragraph made me laugh out loud. This game reminds me of Arcanum
graphicly, and yes Wiz8 looked worlds better, and thats saying a lot.
> Primitive blurry textures on three-polygon landscapes with static
> skies and four-polygon buildings housing one (1) NPC per building. No
> visible weapon swings or arrows flying -- visual weapon feedback in
> MM6-8 was BETTER than in MM9! Same for spell effects, they're just
> cheaply made and no improvement at all.
Yes.
> Same again for FMVs, the artistic and technical quality is a far cry
> from MM8. And the production value isn't any higher in the audio
> department either -- except for some birds chirping way too loud, I
> didn't hear any environmental effects even though EAX2 was activated
> in both pre-game and in-game setup. Very short musical pieces are
> repeated over and over, and they too are simplistic compared to MM6-8.
> Only the first line of any NPC is voice-acted, the rest is text which
> (in case you didn't expect it by now) is blurry and hard to read.
The cut scenes are hilarious. The only one that looks 1/2 decent I have
seen so far is the shipwreck one. The one where you fireball the skeleton
building on the first map is so bad its not funny. High school interns
could do better, I am certain of it.
> The paperdolls suck, they barely show any relationship to the
> characters they are supposed to represent. But never mind, that's a
> good match for the tiny item graphics which are shareware quality at
> best. And this after MM6-8 which had paperdolls and item graphics
> that set the standard for the genre!
Yeah its disappointing, and really inexcusable, when a game with an
established history takes a step backwards. This is one such example, the
automap is another.
> Jesus Christ in a Viking boat. How far have the mighty fallen. Now I
> almost HOPE they kill the series after this game. It's already dead
> for all practical purposes, no good keeping a zombie around. :-(
But despite all of the flaws and the horrible graphics, the game is fun.
Your characters level about once every 30mins, tops and you are constantly
getting gear you can use, even late in the game.
olaf
Dave Caspermeyer
beating Descent to Undermountain as worst RPG released. Oddly enough, the
game has gotten mid-range scores on its first review site that I know of.
http://www.pcgamereview.com/reviews/roleplaying/product_1712.asp
"Christoph Nahr" <s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote in message
news:hsbpau0kvrk1psobc...@4ax.com...
Eric VanHeest
> I guess the big unanswered question is whether this game qualifies for
> beating Descent to Undermountain as worst RPG released. Oddly enough, the
> game has gotten mid-range scores on its first review site that I know of.
There seem to be an awful lot of people who are under the impression
that there is no way to do certain things (transfer items between
characters easily, target particular monsters when selecting a spell
from the spellbook, etc.). That bothers me a bit; I don't mind a review
claiming foul on a game for things that are actually wrong, but some of
these reviewers look like they didn't even bother to ask anyone else
who'd played the game if it was possible to do certain things.
It's just as bad as reviews that praise a game while completely
overlooking major shortcomings.
Troy
"Christoph Nahr" <s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote in message
news:hsbpau0kvrk1psobc...@4ax.com...
well that's a new one.
Troy
Invader Portia_EH
> compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
> they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
> pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
>
The graphics are one of the two largest obstacles to overcome before you can
start really enjoying the game. Yes, the game looks bad - but it gets a lot
better once you get past the training mission and the starter island. I
think those two scenarios have some of the worst character models to ever
grace a computer screen in three-dimensions.
> Primitive blurry textures on three-polygon landscapes with static
> skies and four-polygon buildings housing one (1) NPC per building. No
> visible weapon swings or arrows flying -- visual weapon feedback in
> MM6-8 was BETTER than in MM9! Same for spell effects, they're just
> cheaply made and no improvement at all.
>
Actually, some of the spell effects are quite good - but none of the spells
that are available to you at the beginning of the game. Even Curse and
Sparks make for pretty decent effects.
I should also mention that you 'do' actually see flyout for the arrows and
thrown weapons. My 'soon-to-be assassin' specialized in Thrown weapon
types, so while cycling through my ranged attack you see three arrow and a
spiraling hand-axe flying towards the monsters.
> Same again for FMVs, the artistic and technical quality is a far cry
> from MM8. And the production value isn't any higher in the audio
> department either -- except for some birds chirping way too loud, I
> didn't hear any environmental effects even though EAX2 was activated
> in both pre-game and in-game setup. Very short musical pieces are
> repeated over and over, and they too are simplistic compared to MM6-8.
> Only the first line of any NPC is voice-acted, the rest is text which
> (in case you didn't expect it by now) is blurry and hard to read.
>
The FMV introduction is bad, but the narrator's voice (pregnant pauses
excluded) sounds very professionally cast. The character voices since MM6
have always been excruciatingly bad since the advent of the character
portrait squealing, "Pick me!" during character creation. I'd rather they
don't speak at all ... Unfortunately, MM9 carries on this shameless
tradition much like its recent predecessors did.
> The paperdolls suck, they barely show any relationship to the
> characters they are supposed to represent. But never mind, that's a
> good match for the tiny item graphics which are shareware quality at
> best. And this after MM6-8 which had paperdolls and item graphics
> that set the standard for the genre!
>
The paper dolls actually start looking pretty sweet after a character
advancement or two. The first couple of paper dolls definitely threw me off
at the beginning though. My dwarf fighter had a paper doll of a large,
busty half-orc and my human fighter had a paper doll of a short, heavily
bearded dwarf clad in armor. Pretty ridiculous, but it's grown on me.
> Jesus Christ in a Viking boat. How far have the mighty fallen. Now I
> almost HOPE they kill the series after this game. It's already dead
> for all practical purposes, no good keeping a zombie around. :-(
I don't think it's near dead, just fallen back towards the bottom. The good
news is that once you play this through the opening couple of hours, the
game is very rich and rewarding. It's an excellent rpg with occasionally
unbearable dialogue, a clumsy interface and some unprofessional voice
acting.
Overall, I would suggest giving the game a fair amount of play time before
passing your full and final judgment. It's really quite a little gem.
--
/ ========
"Sometimes you've just got to lift up the horse's tail
and stare the problem right in the face." -Lloyd Bingham
======== /
-EH (remove "no2spam~" for reply address)
Boogie with Stu
|
| Jesus Christ in a Viking boat.
Love that line. :-)
--
Boogie with Stu
Peter Seebach
Christoph Nahr <diog...@kynosarges.de> wrote:
>I can't believe I'm saying this but Wizardry 8 actually looked good
>compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
>they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
>pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
Obviously, you are not playing the same game I am. This is one of the
most beautiful engines I've ever seen. Lighting, transparency, and the
ability to look out a stained glass window and see just a hint of the sky.
It's very, very, pretty. I think you must be doing something wrong.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Seebach
Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>There seem to be an awful lot of people who are under the impression
>that there is no way to do certain things (transfer items between
>characters easily, target particular monsters when selecting a spell
>from the spellbook, etc.).
Yeah, there's no "easy" way to transfer items between characters, you
actually have to use drag and drop. Boy, that was hard.
asdffs
shift s sells
shift d deletes
holding any of those will speed through stacks of items, handy for selling
(just keep one characters inventory empty, that way you can use the filters
to keep the others sorted)
asdffs
> most beautiful engines I've ever seen. Lighting, transparency, and the
> ability to look out a stained glass window and see just a hint of the sky.
>
> It's very, very, pretty. I think you must be doing something wrong.
>
No, you haven't played anything with a good engine :P
It is really butt ugly, indeed, it shocked me how bad it looked at the
beginning.
Thankfully, the game itself is fun, once you get about five hours in, and
everything past that is fun (right up until you complete the first chapter
and the lousy scripting makes figuring out what to do next a bit of a pain).
I should be finished with it soon though. Enjoyable, and pretty cool.
Peter Seebach
>No, you haven't played anything with a good engine :P
I'm comparing it to Wiz6, Wiz7, MM6-8, and the like. Y'know, *RPG's*.
>It is really butt ugly, indeed, it shocked me how bad it looked at the
>beginning.
What *ARE* you comparing it to? LotR in the theatre? :)
Eric VanHeest
> The character voices since MM6 have always been excruciatingly bad
> since the advent of the character portrait squealing, "Pick me!"
> during character creation. I'd rather they don't speak at all .
It all went downhill when they got rid of "Choose me or suffer!" from
MM6 ...
:)
Eric VanHeest
> Yeah, there's no "easy" way to transfer items between characters, you
> actually have to use drag and drop. Boy, that was hard.
I think I gave the wrong impression.. I didn't mean "people seem to
think that drag and drop is hard," I mean "people seem to think that
drag and drop is the only way to move items around, and thus moving a
large number of items between characters is frightfully annoying"
(which is false; you can use shift + 1-4 to transfer items quickly).
atholbrose
news:a8iebj$ksf$2...@og1.olagrande.net:
My favorite cut-scene was the thing behind the locked door on the Isle of
Ashes. (Woo, look out, spoilers ahead.)
Behind the door is a small room with a book. You read the book. Switch to a
cutscene, external view of the room you're in: the outer wall crumbles, a
fireball slowly flies out of the room and across the water and into a
Greek-temple-looking building on a small spur of rock out in the bay. It
blows up. An empty ship floats away.
And hey, presto, you're elsewhere!
I saved after that, and named my saved game "What the hell" because I
wasn't too clear on what happened. Nobody ever mentioned a Greek temple
keeping ships from sailing out or anything. But, hey, who knows. Other
important stuff happens and gets buried in the journal or whatever, like
Forad Darre the Invincible swearing fealty to the party.
I couldn't take M&M9 any more after clearing out Askram Keep TWICE and
still not correctly triggering the end-of-level boss (and yes, the second
time I entered at the top, did everything in one swoop, cleared all imp
generators AND got the two monsters-in-the-walls areas). I returned it and
used the credit to buy Nox, Revenant and Darkened Skye.
asdffs
>
It's running on lithtech - a 3d fps engine
> What *ARE* you comparing it to? LotR in the theatre? :)
good 3d engines ;)
If anything, I think they should have used the Serious engine (from Serious
Sam of course). It could have handled mammoth outdoor areas, and swarms of
creatures. Two things the game lacks, but has always had in the past.
Ah well.
Christoph Nahr
>Obviously, you are not playing the same game I am. This is one of the
>most beautiful engines I've ever seen. Lighting, transparency, and the
>ability to look out a stained glass window and see just a hint of the sky.
>
>It's very, very, pretty. I think you must be doing something wrong.
Are you being sarcastic, or is it just that you haven't been playing
anything but Might and Magic games in the last 10 years?
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Eric VanHeest
> Are you being sarcastic, or is it just that you haven't been playing
> anything but Might and Magic games in the last 10 years?
If it helps, I find every single polygonal game I've ever seen to be
immensely ugly, and so MM9 doesn't seem any worse to me than anything
else around.
But I bet it doesn't :)
Christoph Nahr
<dave.cas...@cox.net> wrote:
>I guess the big unanswered question is whether this game qualifies for
>beating Descent to Undermountain as worst RPG released. Oddly enough, the
>game has gotten mid-range scores on its first review site that I know of.
LOL, the game probably isn't *that* bad. It works, and it does seem
like there's some amount of fun to be had. Better than DTU or U9. ;-)
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Christoph Nahr
<ehou...@no2spamzipperint.com> wrote:
>The graphics are one of the two largest obstacles to overcome before you can
>start really enjoying the game. Yes, the game looks bad - but it gets a lot
>better once you get past the training mission and the starter island. I
>think those two scenarios have some of the worst character models to ever
>grace a computer screen in three-dimensions.
We'll see. I'm on the chain of islands with the dragonfly infestation
and the 3' troll woman now, and so far it's not much better...
>Actually, some of the spell effects are quite good - but none of the spells
>that are available to you at the beginning of the game. Even Curse and
>Sparks make for pretty decent effects.
Okay, I hope that will improve later on then.
>I should also mention that you 'do' actually see flyout for the arrows and
>thrown weapons. My 'soon-to-be assassin' specialized in Thrown weapon
>types, so while cycling through my ranged attack you see three arrow and a
>spiraling hand-axe flying towards the monsters.
True, you do see the arrows, I was wrong there.
>The FMV introduction is bad, but the narrator's voice (pregnant pauses
>excluded) sounds very professionally cast. The character voices since MM6
>have always been excruciatingly bad since the advent of the character
>portrait squealing, "Pick me!" during character creation. I'd rather they
>don't speak at all ... Unfortunately, MM9 carries on this shameless
>tradition much like its recent predecessors did.
Actually I don't mind the cheesy character voices, they're part of a
grand M&M tradition of cheesiness! In fact I was wondering why my
characters weren't commenting on my actions, is that intentional?
>The paper dolls actually start looking pretty sweet after a character
>advancement or two. The first couple of paper dolls definitely threw me off
>at the beginning though. My dwarf fighter had a paper doll of a large,
>busty half-orc and my human fighter had a paper doll of a short, heavily
>bearded dwarf clad in armor. Pretty ridiculous, but it's grown on me.
I guess the idea to have the paperdolls reflect the class is a neat
one, especially since every characters changes class twice over the
course of a game, but I'm not sure it was worth throwing out the
beautiful inventory graphics they had in the previous three games.
>I don't think it's near dead, just fallen back towards the bottom. The good
>news is that once you play this through the opening couple of hours, the
>game is very rich and rewarding. It's an excellent rpg with occasionally
>unbearable dialogue, a clumsy interface and some unprofessional voice
>acting.
>
>Overall, I would suggest giving the game a fair amount of play time before
>passing your full and final judgment. It's really quite a little gem.
No problem, I beat MM6 so I'm not going to give up so easily. ;-)
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Eric VanHeest
> We'll see. I'm on the chain of islands with the dragonfly infestation
> and the 3' troll woman now, and so far it's not much better...
One of the problems is that you move so godawfully slow in this game
that you have lots of time to admire the crude polygonal graphics.
"Fleet Foot" is obnoxious; it's not fast enough even at GrandMaster
level, and it just goes away any time the proximity gem isn't solid
green. I understand why it is disenchanted during red-gem mode (actual
combat), but the light-green that also disables it is rather too common
for my tastes, and doesn't have anything to do with combat, just with
neutral (yellow) characters milling about. It happens -in town- in
Guberland by the Mage shop, because there's a critter in a water tank
for decoration. Bah.
Also, unless I am missing something important, it doesn't come back
after combat, either; you have to re-cast it (and it isn't cheap enough
to just cast repeatedly without peskiness, either).
The game is fun the way it is, but if I could find a timescale hack
(like Anachronox has), I would use it in a heartbeat.
Ykalon Dragon
>In article <uaptmdi...@corp.supernews.com>, asdffs <a...@spam.net> wrote:
>>No, you haven't played anything with a good engine :P
>
>I'm comparing it to Wiz6, Wiz7, MM6-8, and the like. Y'know, *RPG's*.
Why compare it with 2-5 year old games? Compare it with Wizardry 8,
Anachronox and even Ultima 9 instead all of them look better. Besides
there's a difference between art and graphics in a game. The art
itself can be good but the implementation could be better.
In spite of this I enjoy the game.
--
Reply to ykalon at subdimension dot com
who...@wherever.com
: If anything, I think they should have used the Serious engine (from Serious
: Sam of course). It could have handled mammoth outdoor areas, and swarms of
: creatures. Two things the game lacks, but has always had in the past.
Hmmm...
A M&M-style monster bash RPG with Serious engine.. That's a darn good idea.
simon.appleton1
Sturmford yesterday at night time and was struck how beautiful it looked
with the stars shining. The houses in the town are vastly more authentic
(large) than any in earlier MMs.
Simon
Christoph Nahr wrote:
> I can't believe I'm saying this but Wizardry 8 actually looked good
> compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
> they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
> pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
>
> Primitive blurry textures on three-polygon landscapes with static
> skies and four-polygon buildings housing one (1) NPC per building. No
> visible weapon swings or arrows flying -- visual weapon feedback in
> MM6-8 was BETTER than in MM9! Same for spell effects, they're just
> cheaply made and no improvement at all.
>
> Same again for FMVs, the artistic and technical quality is a far cry
> from MM8. And the production value isn't any higher in the audio
> department either -- except for some birds chirping way too loud, I
> didn't hear any environmental effects even though EAX2 was activated
> in both pre-game and in-game setup. Very short musical pieces are
> repeated over and over, and they too are simplistic compared to MM6-8.
> Only the first line of any NPC is voice-acted, the rest is text which
> (in case you didn't expect it by now) is blurry and hard to read.
>
> The paperdolls suck, they barely show any relationship to the
> characters they are supposed to represent. But never mind, that's a
> good match for the tiny item graphics which are shareware quality at
> best. And this after MM6-8 which had paperdolls and item graphics
> that set the standard for the genre!
>
> Jesus Christ in a Viking boat. How far have the mighty fallen. Now I
> almost HOPE they kill the series after this game. It's already dead
> for all practical purposes, no good keeping a zombie around. :-(
> --
> http://www.kynosarges.de
atholbrose
> LOL, the game probably isn't *that* bad. It works, and it does seem
> like there's some amount of fun to be had. Better than DTU or U9. ;-)
Better than DTU, oh, God, yes. Better than U9? I don't know... for all that
the towns and character interactions and combats were pitiful in U9, the
actual DUNGEONS were pretty, well-laid-out and fun. If the whole game had
been dungeon-delving of that caliber, it would have been a GREAT game.
M&M9 is a fair-to-middling game, really, with some major annoyances.
Hopefully the patch they just released won't be the last one.
jmfb...@aol.com
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <a8igg8$oea$1...@og1.olagrande.net>,
>Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
>>There seem to be an awful lot of people who are under the impression
>>that there is no way to do certain things (transfer items between
>>characters easily, target particular monsters when selecting a spell
>>from the spellbook, etc.).
>
>Yeah, there's no "easy" way to transfer items between characters, you
>actually have to use drag and drop. Boy, that was hard.
<grin> It is if I have to use that User Device From Hell ;-).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
who...@wherever.com
: Better than DTU, oh, God, yes. Better than U9? I don't know... for all that
: actual DUNGEONS were pretty, well-laid-out and fun. If the whole game had
: been dungeon-delving of that caliber, it would have been a GREAT game.
Weird, my impression of U9 was exactly the opposite. Overland terrain looked
great, but dungeons looked pretty much the same.
Brian Whittaker
No, the ugliest RPG is King's Field for the PS1.
You can actually become violently ill playing this game, and, like Hell
Tanner, you "see the world through shit-coloured glasses".
R. Cohen
> On 4 Apr 2002 20:34:04 GMT, Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes they have butchered the lithetech engine, not the prettiest in
> >exsistence anyway. But you do see arrows flying to the target. Just no
> >bow, sword etc....
>
> Right, I was wrong there, you do see the arrows. But weren't they
> somehow bigger in the previous games? I remember seeing the whole
> arrow, point and shaft and feathers, very clearly as it went off...
Oh come on, the graphics are decent. Wizardry 8's graphics were
"butt-ugly" in some places, much better in others. Might & Magic 9 is
the same way. It's certainly better then the previous mm games...
The outside environment and the dungeons just look polished. The
cities also improve in "graphic" complexity as you move through the
game. I agree that certain features seem to be left out in order for
the game to be finished by a certain time. So perhaps instead of
putting in a buggy map system, they just put in a very basic one.
Instead of a more sophisticated paper doll they put in a simpler one.
It's too bad, because it's those little things that make a game great.
And MM9 is just not going to be considered a great game. That said,
what it continues to do very well is make for a very playable and
entertaining game. Especially for those who have liked this series in
the past. That part is still very solid imo. I "think" I'm near the
middle and the quests continue to be just a little bit harder then my
party is capable of. Perfect. So it's not a great game but I really
don't think it's a terrible game either.
R. Cohen
It's that type of thinking that has kept Duke Nukem in the vapor for 5
years. There's always going to be a better graphics engine... Let's
*snap" our fingers and change the graphics engine! *POP*
Eric VanHeest
> Stick with it - it's a culture shock but it grows on you. I went back to
> Sturmford yesterday at night time and was struck how beautiful it looked
> with the stars shining. The houses in the town are vastly more authentic
> (large) than any in earlier MMs.
> Simon
My party was wandering around Drangheim, climbing a ladder to sneak
into the Count's house, and it was nighttime ... and I noticed the array
of stars, so I looked up at them and rotated the view a bit, saying
something like "oooh.." I then proceeded to wander off the edge of the
ledge while staring up at the sky, fell 8 stories down, and died. :(
Christoph Nahr
<simon.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Stick with it - it's a culture shock but it grows on you. I went back to
>Sturmford yesterday at night time and was struck how beautiful it looked
>with the stars shining. The houses in the town are vastly more authentic
>(large) than any in earlier MMs.
I'm in Sturmford now, and I have to agree that the game is getting
better. The drunkard at the tavern with his "goold old times" rant
was just great! The environments aren't as sparse anymore either.
Man, they really put the ugliest and most boring part right up front.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Dave Friend
You know, I've been playing pretty much all RPG and strategy game for several
years. Recently I got a new rig with a GF3 Ti200 and the best looking game
I owned to try out was Wiz8. I tried it out at 1280x1024 and though it
looked fabulous.
Then I bought Jedi Knight 2 and nearly crapped myself. And in the action
group JK2 is being described as having "mediocre to good" graphics. I can't
imagine what they consider "excellent". Curved surfaces and high resolution
textures go a long way to eliminating that boxy look so indicative of
previous 3D games.
But the old proverb (is it a proverb yet?) "good graphics don't make a good
game" still apply. I've played Dungeon Siege a couple of times and while
it's pretty the game seems awfully simplistic.
It's easier for my mind to get over some outdated graphics than it is to
get over crappy gameplay.
--
Dave Friend
dave DOT friend AT charter DOT net
Lithurge
news:Xns91E6E5492B74...@209.249.90.101:
> Eric VanHeest <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote in
> news:a8iebj$ksf$2...@og1.olagrande.net:
>
>> Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote:
>>> And despite this I feel strangely drawn to playing it, no idea why,
>>> first half an hour was "god this looks appalling". And the shipwreck,
>>> eh, suddenly I'm on an island and no idea why, did I miss something.
>>> Oh look there's a knackered ship in the sea there.
>> There's a cutscene between those two areas; maybe you accidentally
>> skipped it? It's of a group of five or so generic adventurers on a
>> ship, and a narrator describing the wreck.
>
Well I didn't press anything on the keyboard, mouse so it must have auto
skipped. The intro movie plays fine though. Don't think I'll bother going
back to look at it from what you say :-)
Nick
Lithurge
news:3cacfb19$0$79553$3c09...@news.plethora.net:
> In article <uaptmdi...@corp.supernews.com>, asdffs <a...@spam.net>
> wrote:
>>No, you haven't played anything with a good engine :P
>
> I'm comparing it to Wiz6, Wiz7, MM6-8, and the like. Y'know, *RPG's*.
>
>>It is really butt ugly, indeed, it shocked me how bad it looked at the
>>beginning.
>
> What *ARE* you comparing it to? LotR in the theatre? :)
>
> -s
You could of course compare it to other Lithtech engined games No One
Lives Forever, Aliens V Predator etc... They both looked better than this
game has managed to.
Nick
Lithurge
> On 4 Apr 2002 20:34:04 GMT, Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes they have butchered the lithetech engine, not the prettiest in
>>exsistence anyway. But you do see arrows flying to the target. Just no
>>bow, sword etc....
>
> Right, I was wrong there, you do see the arrows. But weren't they
> somehow bigger in the previous games? I remember seeing the whole
> arrow, point and shaft and feathers, very clearly as it went off...
Last one I played was 6, so I can't remember, but I imagine it's easier to
do this in a 2d engine than one using polygons.
Nick
Olaf
news:3cacfb19$0$79553$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <uaptmdi...@corp.supernews.com>, asdffs <a...@spam.net>
wrote:
> >No, you haven't played anything with a good engine :P
>
> I'm comparing it to Wiz6, Wiz7, MM6-8, and the like. Y'know, *RPG's*.
>
> >It is really butt ugly, indeed, it shocked me how bad it looked at the
> >beginning.
>
> What *ARE* you comparing it to? LotR in the theatre? :)
So you were serious? You think this game looks good?
Wiz8 looks better. Gothic kicks the absolute crap out of it. All of the
current MMORPGs look better. Stuff like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex,
arguably RPGs, look much better. Most isometric RPGs, while a different
viewpoint, look better.
MM9 is tied with Arcanum for most disappointing graphics in a game.
olaf
Olaf
>
> You could of course compare it to other Lithtech engined games No One
> Lives Forever, Aliens V Predator etc... They both looked better than this
> game has managed to.
Yes they managed to make the absolute worst looking Lithtech game ever. I
imagine the people behind Lithtech are hoping their engine is not mentioned
in reviews.
Olaf
news:l3lrauojskrhh03gb...@4ax.com...
Yeah that was a nice touch. There are a couple more of those. Be on the
lookout for the one in Frosgard.
olaf
Olaf
news:a140b0ad.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Christoph Nahr <s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote in message
news:<8pfpaug0dpajp8c8u...@4ax.com>...
> > On 4 Apr 2002 20:34:04 GMT, Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Yes they have butchered the lithetech engine, not the prettiest in
> > >exsistence anyway. But you do see arrows flying to the target. Just no
> > >bow, sword etc....
> >
> > Right, I was wrong there, you do see the arrows. But weren't they
> > somehow bigger in the previous games? I remember seeing the whole
> > arrow, point and shaft and feathers, very clearly as it went off...
>
> Oh come on, the graphics are decent. Wizardry 8's graphics were
> "butt-ugly" in some places, much better in others. Might & Magic 9 is
> the same way. It's certainly better then the previous mm games...
I feel like I am discussing Arcanum all over again.
Yeah the graphics are better than previous MM games, but *barely*. Do you
still have MM7-8? Load them up and take a peek. They didnt do much with
the time they've had since then, or the new engine.
I cant say the graphics are decent. They are disappointing, especially
considering how hyped the graphics are. Check the webpage, or read the back
of the box. Its disgusting.
olaf
who...@wherever.com
: Man, they really put the ugliest and most boring part right up front.
Come to think of it, the previous M&M games, 6-8, started off inside or
very near a busy, populated town.
Knight37
> It's easier for my mind to get over some outdated graphics than it is to
> get over crappy gameplay.
Damn straight.
--
Knight37
"old man says "NOBody scares shit to avoid, but they
avoid because its f_cking dirty."
-- Sokwoo Lee, on csipg.strategic
Invader Portia_EH
> better. The drunkard at the tavern with his "goold old times" rant
> was just great! The environments aren't as sparse anymore either.
> Man, they really put the ugliest and most boring part right up front.
> --
Agreed! The time I've actually stepped back and said, "Ohhhh" was during
night time emerging from the bowels of The Chasm Of The Dead where the
Apparitions spawn. You step out of this dark, rotten crypt onto the top of
a mountain pass, spiraling down into a vast canyon. The ruins down below
you combined with the open, starry sky really struck me as wonderful.
Truly, if you don't play the game beyond Beet Hoven you're doing yourself an
injustice.
This game rocks!
--
/ ========
"Sometimes you've just got to lift up the horse's tail
and stare the problem right in the face." -Lloyd Bingham
======== /
-EH (remove "no2spam~" for reply address)
Greg Campbell
> Christoph Nahr <s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Are you being sarcastic, or is it just that you haven't been playing
> > anything but Might and Magic games in the last 10 years?
>
> If it helps, I find every single polygonal game I've ever seen to be
> immensely ugly, and so MM9 doesn't seem any worse to me than anything
> else around.
>
> But I bet it doesn't :)
Here's a screenshot from MM9:
http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/scr.phtml?cat=r&pic=mightandmagic911
And here's a screenshot from recently released "polygonal game" Dungeon Siege:
http://www.microsoft.com/Games/dungeonsiege/slideshow.asp?image=21
Are you really saying that MM9 doesn't seem any worse?
Knight37
I have not played MM9 so take this with a grain of salt, but one reason an
RPG made with lithtech might be worse looking than an FPS game with
lithtech is that an RPG has a lot more going on behind the scenes AND has
to have a lot more creatures/etc variety than your typical FPS game.
Knight37
> MM9 is tied with Arcanum for most disappointing graphics in a game.
D2 original (pre LOD) was pretty disappointing.
--
Knight37
I know what you're thinking, because I've been thinking the same thing.
Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here. Why oh why didn't I
take the blue pill?
-- Cypher, "The Matrix"
Evgueni Limarenko
> http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/scr.phtml?cat=r&pic=mightandmagic911
>
> And here's a screenshot from recently released "polygonal game"
Dungeon Siege:
> http://www.microsoft.com/Games/dungeonsiege/slideshow.asp?image=21
>
> Are you really saying that MM9 doesn't seem any worse?
If you move camera even further then you can easily get first prize,
but then again you need good imagination since every monster
on the screen will be 5 millimeter in size.
The idea is to show a really big and detailed monster.
This is where the difference between 1 person and isometric
view is.
In other words, sometimes, when you play Baldur's Gate or
Planescape Torment, for example, you can't see face of the
creature, because it's too small. Is it good? I say no.
Not that I'm happy with the current 3D engines though.
For me it's simple. We have to wait until technology evolve
to the next level.
Once again: either we play isometric games with 5-15 millimeters
characters or we have to face ugly 3D creatures.
So, what will you say to that?
Lithurge
news:Xns91E77D5F8...@216.148.53.100:
> "Olaf" <ola...@swbell.net> had the moxy to write:
>
>>
>> "Lithurge" <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> You could of course compare it to other Lithtech engined games No One
>>> Lives Forever, Aliens V Predator etc... They both looked better than
>>> this game has managed to.
>>
>> Yes they managed to make the absolute worst looking Lithtech game
>> ever. I imagine the people behind Lithtech are hoping their engine is
>> not mentioned in reviews.
>
> I have not played MM9 so take this with a grain of salt, but one reason
> an RPG made with lithtech might be worse looking than an FPS game with
> lithtech is that an RPG has a lot more going on behind the scenes AND
> has to have a lot more creatures/etc variety than your typical FPS
> game.
>
I really can't see that with MM9, don't get me wrong I am enjoying it, but
it is just ugly. To be honest, it's probably more people are used to
playing FPS with lots of lovely graphical options, that can be switched
off for slower machines.
With MM they've gone for "this is the minimum spec, and we won't tart it
up for those with more powerful machines". The polygon count of the enemy
entities is very low, an FPS may have less variety but tends to have a
higher poly count, as indeed is the case with most objects, but this lack
of graphical polish isn't taken up by coding for AI or other things.
Nick
Lithurge
SNIP
> Not that I'm happy with the current 3D engines though.
>
> For me it's simple. We have to wait until technology evolve
> to the next level.
>
> Once again: either we play isometric games with 5-15 millimeters
> characters or we have to face ugly 3D creatures.
>
> So, what will you say to that?
>
Sorry, but they don't have to be that ugly. They can do a lot better with
current 3d engines. Lithetec is not the best, but even the oldest game
based on it NOLF the other creatures don't look this bad. One thing that
is really offputting is the lack of movement for NPC's, the shopkeepers
are statues.
Nick
Evgueni Limarenko
>>characters or we have to face ugly 3D creatures.
>
> Sorry, but they don't have to be that ugly. They can do a lot better with
> current 3d engines. Lithetec is not the best, but even the oldest game
> based on it NOLF the other creatures don't look this bad. One thing that
> is really offputting is the lack of movement for NPC's, the shopkeepers
> are statues.
They might be worse than other 3D engines.
The difference is not that big. Yes, for this very moment
you might think it's a big difference. In fact the
difference is minimal and you'll see it in couple of
years.
And shopkeepers are statues (or people with serious disabilities)
in every other RPG, aren't they?
Invader Portia_EH
> current 3d engines. Lithetec is not the best, but even the oldest game
> based on it NOLF the other creatures don't look this bad. One thing that
> is really offputting is the lack of movement for NPC's, the shopkeepers
> are statues.
>
I personally thought Shogo looked better, and it was the first major
Lithtech-engine title.
Olaf
news:Xns91E77D5F8...@216.148.53.100...
> "Olaf" <ola...@swbell.net> had the moxy to write:
> >
> > Yes they managed to make the absolute worst looking Lithtech game
> > ever. I imagine the people behind Lithtech are hoping their engine is
> > not mentioned in reviews.
>
> I have not played MM9 so take this with a grain of salt, but one reason an
> RPG made with lithtech might be worse looking than an FPS game with
> lithtech is that an RPG has a lot more going on behind the scenes AND has
> to have a lot more creatures/etc variety than your typical FPS game.
Well, I could see that if the problem was the game was sluggish. But that
isnt it. It just looks very bad. They really dont have an incredible
amount of creatures either. They do the standard 1 model, 3 colors thing
and there are only 15 or so models per map, tops.
olaf
Olaf
> "Olaf" <ola...@swbell.net> had the moxy to write:
>
> > MM9 is tied with Arcanum for most disappointing graphics in a game.
>
> D2 original (pre LOD) was pretty disappointing.
Yeah good point. It looked the same as D1, pretty much. At least it had
good animation though, as opposed to Arcanum which looked washed out and had
very poorly detailed animation.
olaf
Lithurge
news:3cae...@news.nwlink.com:
> "Lithurge" <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote in message
>> Sorry, but they don't have to be that ugly. They can do a lot better
>> with current 3d engines. Lithetec is not the best, but even the oldest
>> game based on it NOLF the other creatures don't look this bad. One
>> thing that is really offputting is the lack of movement for NPC's, the
>> shopkeepers are statues.
>>
>
> I personally thought Shogo looked better, and it was the first major
> Lithtech-engine title.
>
> --
>
>
>
Forgot that one.
Knight37
> an FPS may have less variety but tends to have a
> higher poly count
That was my point.
--
Knight37
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it
for yourself.
-- Morpheus, "The Matrix"
Lithurge
>>>Once again: either we play isometric games with 5-15 millimeters
>>>characters or we have to face ugly 3D creatures.
>
> >
>
>> Sorry, but they don't have to be that ugly. They can do a lot better
>> with current 3d engines. Lithetec is not the best, but even the oldest
>> game based on it NOLF the other creatures don't look this bad. One
>> thing that is really offputting is the lack of movement for NPC's, the
>> shopkeepers are statues.
>
> They might be worse than other 3D engines.
> The difference is not that big.
No they are worse than other Lithtech games not other 3d engines. You can
count LT as a current engine. (Yes they have upgraded it with a couple of
different versions recently but...) And yes, perhaps depending on
hardware, the difference is that big. The recent UK PC Format reviewed a
GF 4 & one of the cut down GF's. There was a comparison pic of the Zoltar
face, on the two cards. This illustrates the argument very well. (Wish I
had a scanner to stick it on a website)
It's clear that with M&M development graphics are not the priority, fair
enough, top dog's nadger graphics don't mean the game is crap. It would
just be nice if more had been put into the art side of things. Human
beings are programmed to respond to visual stimuli.
Yes, for this very moment
> you might think it's a big difference. In fact the
> difference is minimal and you'll see it in couple of
> years.
Yes engines are improving even as we speak, that isn't the point. "All new
stunning 3D engine", they set themselves up. And before you ask I've been
playing games for 20 years, and still go back & play games I played years
ago (when I can get them to work).
Let's mention an RPG called Anachronox, used Quake technology , and I
can't remember if it was 1 or 2. You could tell it was old quake tech, but
they made a real effort with textures, characters, animations etc...
within the engines, expanded by themselves, limitations.
>
> And shopkeepers are statues (or people with serious disabilities)
> in every other RPG, aren't they?
>
In other 3d engined RPG's? (Again Anachronox). M&M really does feel it was
pushed out the door before it should have been, there is so much that
feels wrong. But that doesn't stop me playing & enjoying it :-)
Nick
Lithurge
news:Xns91E78EE35...@216.148.53.100:
> Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> had the moxy to write:
>
>> an FPS may have less variety but tends to have a higher poly count
>
> That was my point.
>
Yes but they also (in most but not all cases) tend to be more intelligent
than M&M monsters, indicating that as the AI is non-exsistent, M&M could
have spent a bit more on monster polygon levels. As I said elsewhere, my
feeling is they went for lowest common denominator systems.
Eric VanHeest
> Here's a screenshot from MM9:
> http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/scr.phtml?cat=r&pic=mightandmagic911
> And here's a screenshot from recently released "polygonal game" Dungeon Siege:
> http://www.microsoft.com/Games/dungeonsiege/slideshow.asp?image=21
> Are you really saying that MM9 doesn't seem any worse?
Not really. I think they're both ugly. The MM9 shot is much closer to
an object of significant size, so it looks worse in that respect. Can
you get a close-up shot of a character in Dungeon Siege? Not that it
matters much; I think the characters in the Final Fantasy movie were
awful as well. I can see a different level of "bad" in the MM9 humans
that in other things, if that's what you're asking, but as far as I'm
concerned, once it looks "computer generated" (i.e. polygonal), I don't
care how bad it is after that.
Regardless of my opinion on the ugliness, I think it's silly to ask
"does this picture of a human figure look worse than this picture of a
landscape?"
I think MM9 is unnecessarily low-resolution, though, and that is something
concrete that I can see in comparison to other games (not necessarily
that DS screenshot, since that has no large humans for comparison).
The -only- advantage polygons have is that you can run them at
arbitrarily high resolutions, so running them at low res is even more
absurd, since you get the primary problem (things look like polygons)
and a secondary one (things are jaggy).
R. Cohen
> "R. Cohen" <rlcc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:a140b0ad.02040...@posting.google.com...
> > Christoph Nahr <s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<8pfpaug0dpajp8c8u...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 4 Apr 2002 20:34:04 GMT, Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yes they have butchered the lithetech engine, not the prettiest in
> > > >exsistence anyway. But you do see arrows flying to the target. Just no
> > > >bow, sword etc....
> > >
> > > Right, I was wrong there, you do see the arrows. But weren't they
> > > somehow bigger in the previous games? I remember seeing the whole
> > > arrow, point and shaft and feathers, very clearly as it went off...
> >
> > Oh come on, the graphics are decent. Wizardry 8's graphics were
> > "butt-ugly" in some places, much better in others. Might & Magic 9 is
> > the same way. It's certainly better then the previous mm games...
>
> I feel like I am discussing Arcanum all over again.
>
> Yeah the graphics are better than previous MM games, but *barely*. Do you
> still have MM7-8? Load them up and take a peek. They didnt do much with
> the time they've had since then, or the new engine.
>
This is very subjective. I think the graphics are "definitely" better
then the other MM games (that's up from "barely"). But that's my
opinion. Do I think they are spectacular? No, not at all. I think
they are "nice" to look at but they don't make me "gush" or anything.
The dungeons "seem" crisper and the cities seem to look better to me
as well. The monsters and townspeople look blocky to me but then most
graphic engines seems to have trouble with characters. The faces look
just plain odd. Wizardry 8th characters were equally blocky. The
people in Medal of Honor are definitely better but not *that* much
better.
To be honest I think I liked Baldurs Gate2 graphics the most!
As far as Arcanum goes, I can see why many people didn't like them,
but I thought they were adequate. It seemed very victorian to me and
I liked that.
> I cant say the graphics are decent. They are disappointing, especially
> considering how hyped the graphics are. Check the webpage, or read the back
> of the box. Its disgusting.
>
> olaf
I would agree that the graphics don't match the hype. Would it help
if I told you to ignore all marketing blather?? 8-)
R. Cohen
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:53:33 +0000 (UTC), Eric VanHeest
> <e...@og1.olagrande.net> wrote:
> >Christoph Nahr <s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you being sarcastic, or is it just that you haven't been playing
> >> anything but Might and Magic games in the last 10 years?
> >
> >If it helps, I find every single polygonal game I've ever seen to be
> >immensely ugly, and so MM9 doesn't seem any worse to me than anything
> >else around.
> >
> >But I bet it doesn't :)
>
> years. Recently I got a new rig with a GF3 Ti200 and the best looking game
> I owned to try out was Wiz8. I tried it out at 1280x1024 and though it
> looked fabulous.
>
> Then I bought Jedi Knight 2 and nearly crapped myself. And in the action
> group JK2 is being described as having "mediocre to good" graphics. I can't
> imagine what they consider "excellent". Curved surfaces and high resolution
> textures go a long way to eliminating that boxy look so indicative of
> previous 3D games.
>
So what you're saying is that it's basically the graphics card. That
makes perfect sense. So what do "you" think of MM9's graphics?
> But the old proverb (is it a proverb yet?) "good graphics don't make a good
> game" still apply. I've played Dungeon Siege a couple of times and while
> it's pretty the game seems awfully simplistic.
Knight37
> As I said elsewhere, my
> feeling is they went for lowest common denominator systems.
Maybe so. That's probably a smarter move in the long run that Origin's
old method of targeting machines that aren't even available yet.
--
Knight37
Summer's day, as she passed away
Birds were singing in the summer sky
Then came the rain, and once again
A tear fell from her mother's eye
I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that God's got a sick sense of humor
And when I die I expect to find Him laughing
-- Depeche Mode, "Blasphemous Rumors"
Olaf
news:cu1it75...@thatch.nwr...
> "Olaf" <ola...@swbell.net> writes:
>
> > MM9 is tied with Arcanum for most disappointing graphics in a game.
>
> continually scout out the most advanced cpu hungry games out there.
> For overhead isometric games, I don't own any that look better.
Hmm which do you own? Because I cant think of one that looks worse. Not
that I can think of a lot, but take BG2 for instance, it blows the doors off
Arcanum and it was released much earlier.
olaf
Lithurge
news:Xns91E79C26B...@216.148.53.100:
> Lithurge <we...@bogoffwhich.net> had the moxy to write:
>
>> As I said elsewhere, my
>> feeling is they went for lowest common denominator systems.
>
> Maybe so. That's probably a smarter move in the long run that Origin's
> old method of targeting machines that aren't even available yet.
>
Maybe, but we'll see.
simon.appleton1
conscious decision. A bit risky regarding public opinion, however. I defy you
to go into Beet Hoven in Sturmford and tell me the graphics are ugly. The
cobwebs there are just awesome.
Simon
Christoph Nahr wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:50:42 +0100, "simon.appleton1"
> <simon.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Stick with it - it's a culture shock but it grows on you. I went back to
> >Sturmford yesterday at night time and was struck how beautiful it looked
> >with the stars shining. The houses in the town are vastly more authentic
> >(large) than any in earlier MMs.
>
> I'm in Sturmford now, and I have to agree that the game is getting
> better. The drunkard at the tavern with his "goold old times" rant
> was just great! The environments aren't as sparse anymore either.
> Man, they really put the ugliest and most boring part right up front.
> --
Peter Seebach
Olaf <ola...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I cant say the graphics are decent. They are disappointing, especially
>considering how hyped the graphics are. Check the webpage, or read the back
>of the box. Its disgusting.
Okay, I tried again, and I really *tried* to find something I didn't like.
I guess I could complain that the framerate doesn't seem to be way up there.
Uhm.
That's it, really. The graphics look great to me. Better than many other
games I've played, perfectly usable, and I'm certainly happy. Looks like
a *big* step forwards from MM6-8 to me... About as much of a step forwards
as 6 was over 5.
Every time a new M&M game comes out, there are all these people unhappy with
the engine, but I just don't get it. I'm loving this engine. This engine
is great. I can see things, I can run around and do things, and it looks
like a 3D world. Good enough for me.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Seebach
>> I'm comparing it to Wiz6, Wiz7, MM6-8, and the like. Y'know, *RPG's*.
>It's running on lithtech - a 3d fps engine
Adapted to run an RPG, yes.
>> What *ARE* you comparing it to? LotR in the theatre? :)
>good 3d engines ;)
>If anything, I think they should have used the Serious engine (from Serious
>Sam of course). It could have handled mammoth outdoor areas, and swarms of
>creatures. Two things the game lacks, but has always had in the past.
And this engine was available for initial development that long ago? :)
I guess it depends on what you want. A good 3D engine for Might & Magic needs
to be able to do cool-looking spell effects, allow me to target monsters, and
not be too painfully slow. That's it.
Peter Seebach
Ykalon Dragon <yka...@softhome.net> wrote:
>On 05 Apr 2002 01:17:13 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>>In article <uaptmdi...@corp.supernews.com>, asdffs <a...@spam.net> wrote:
>>>No, you haven't played anything with a good engine :P
>>I'm comparing it to Wiz6, Wiz7, MM6-8, and the like. Y'know, *RPG's*.
>Why compare it with 2-5 year old games?
'Cuz they were the last ones I had worth playing. :)
>Compare it with Wizardry 8,
>Anachronox and even Ultima 9 instead all of them look better.
I refuse to be drawn into an Ultima 9 flamewar. I maintain that the series
stopped after 7 or so. You cannot make me look down that dark path.
I won't get to Wiz8 until I've replayed 6 (I forgot what happened), played
7 (never got around to it, because of compatibility problems).... You get
the idea.
>Besides
>there's a difference between art and graphics in a game. The art
>itself can be good but the implementation could be better.
Sure, it could. But I'd rather have this game now than wait a month or three
or six or a year and then have this game with better graphics.
>In spite of this I enjoy the game.
See? Fun game. Everything is cool.
Peter Seebach
Olaf <ola...@swbell.net> wrote:
>So you were serious? You think this game looks good?
I love it.
>Wiz8 looks better.
Haven't gotten around to Wiz8.
>Gothic kicks the absolute crap out of it.
Never heard of Gothic.
>All of the
>current MMORPGs look better.
Not masochistic enough to play those.
>Stuff like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex,
>arguably RPGs, look much better.
Really? No interest in DE (all accounts suggest it's got shooter elements,
which are an instakill on my interest). I have System Shock 2 lying around,
but haven't gotten to it.
>Most isometric RPGs, while a different
>viewpoint, look better.
That's not really a fair comparison.
>MM9 is tied with Arcanum for most disappointing graphics in a game.
Okay, now I *know* you have totally different goals in life than I do. I
*LOVED* Arcanum's graphics. Beautiful game!
What exactly do you *want* a game to look like? Arcanum looked like
steampunk. What else could it have possibly looked like?
Peter Seebach
Christoph Nahr <diog...@kynosarges.de> wrote:
>Are you being sarcastic, or is it just that you haven't been playing
>anything but Might and Magic games in the last 10 years?
Let's see... I played Quake for about 30-40 minutes on a couple of occasions,
and got bored to tears. Very pretty, but visually dull as hell. Very
impressive light rendering in GL; very unimpressive anything else. MM6-8:
I liked these. The graphics could have been improved in dozens of ways,
but who cares? I could tell what I was doing, and I could identify monsters.
I was *very* impressed with 6 when it came out, but it rapidly stopped being
impressive. 6 still holds a special place in my heart for the level of detail
they put into it; finding paintings on walls made all the difference for me.
BG, BG2, IWD, Torment: Nice graphics, but in a non-comparable genre. I
liked them, except that I didn't like the "stop everything while the spell
goes off" in Torment.
Arcanum: Beautiful steampunk. I'm sure it could have been lusher, and less
grainy, but it felt right to me, so I had no complaints.
Every FPS shooter ever released: Not my bag. Ignored them.
RTS games: Not my bag. Ignored them.
Diablo: Sorta pretty, but somewhat annoying.
Diablo II: Based on the premise that my successful Diablo I character
was destroyed. Well, fuck you too. Not buying it, not playing it. If
I win a game, I will *NOT* buy a game based on the idea that, the moment
my hand was off the mouse, my character got destroyed.
Warcraft: Too much real-time, not enough strategy. When "clicking faster"
is shown to be a highly developed cognitive skill, I'll consider one of
these.
HOMM/HOMM2/HOMM3/HOMM4: Loved these. Graphics in HOMM1 were a little too
cartoonish for me; 2 and 3 are fine.
Hmm. Apart from that, I'm still playing old Sega and Playstation games, and
quite happy with them.
I suppose next you'll be explaining that the Mona Lisa is no longer
interesting art, because we can do something more complicated?
I guess I just don't see the complaint. MM9 is much more appealing than
earlier games in the series. I might like more variety in the paper dolls,
but I'm fine with the clearly delineated boxes instead of the endless trickery
of trying to successfully click on the right "part" of the doll. I think
these are better art, even if they're less impressive graphically.
The movement animation strikes me as quite good; I have watched the
Oculus/Evil Mage fight several times, and they move well. I even like
watching cows get up after being tipped.
Peter Seebach
Greg Campbell <gtc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Here's a screenshot from MM9:
>http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/scr.phtml?cat=r&pic=mightandmagic911
>And here's a screenshot from recently released "polygonal game" Dungeon Siege:
>http://www.microsoft.com/Games/dungeonsiege/slideshow.asp?image=21
>Are you really saying that MM9 doesn't seem any worse?
Well, I suspect you could find more flattering MM9 pictures, and less
flattering Dungeon Siege pictures, but sure, MM9 isn't as cool looking as
Dungeon Siege.
Now, which of them has more people posting about quests they're trying to
solve?
Peter Seebach
Christoph Nahr <diog...@kynosarges.de> wrote:
>I guess the idea to have the paperdolls reflect the class is a neat
>one, especially since every characters changes class twice over the
>course of a game, but I'm not sure it was worth throwing out the
>beautiful inventory graphics they had in the previous three games.
I am - I like this better, for the same reasons I liked this better in BG.
The inventory system in MM6-8 bugged me; I'd rather have a small, tasteful,
bit of art than a very detailed picture that I have to look at and try
to click on. I particularly disliked the inventory system in MM6-8 in
terms of trying to pick one item and getting another, which happened way
too often.
Eric VanHeest
> Really? No interest in DE (all accounts suggest it's got shooter elements,
> which are an instakill on my interest). I have System Shock 2 lying around,
> but haven't gotten to it.
I don't know what "shooter elements" Deus Ex has that Might and Magic 9
doesn't have, except perhaps that you use modern-to-futuristic weaponry
instead of fastasy-based weaponry. There's no turn-based mode in Deus
Ex, but neither is there any way to complete dungeons in Might and Magic
without killing anyone. Both games have their places.
Christoph Nahr
>Let's see... I played Quake for about 30-40 minutes on a couple of occasions,
>and got bored to tears. Very pretty, but visually dull as hell.
Quake is a very old game, and even MM9 can compete with it visually.
For state-of-the-art shooter graphics you should try Quake 3 (the
current version) or Unreal Tournament.
>I was *very* impressed with 6 when it came out, but it rapidly stopped being
>impressive. 6 still holds a special place in my heart for the level of detail
>they put into it; finding paintings on walls made all the difference for me.
As a matter of fact I too was impressed by MM6 when it came out. It
was the first 3d RPG after Daggerfall, and some of the vistas were
incredible (at the time anyway). Btw, the terrain modelling in MM6-8
was perhaps better than in MM9 -- I'm seeing the same dreaded canyons
that have plagued most 3d games except Ultima IX. Might get better
later on, though (I'm on the Sturmford/Drangheim island now).
>I suppose next you'll be explaining that the Mona Lisa is no longer
>interesting art, because we can do something more complicated?
No, but it's no wonder you think MM9 looks good since you haven't
played any of the 3d RPGs that came out in recent years: Vampire,
Ultima IX, Anachronox, Gothic, Wizardry VIII, and in the action/RPG
hybrid department we have Deus Ex and System Shock 2. The graphics in
MM9 really suck compared to *any* of these. I'm surprised you haven't
played Wiz8 by the way, that should be right up your alley!
But I agree that the animations are okay and that the paperdoll is
more "ergonomic" though visually less appealing than the old one.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Christoph Nahr
<simon.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Yup, from what JVC said about past Homms, delaying gratification was a
>conscious decision. A bit risky regarding public opinion, however. I defy you
>to go into Beet Hoven in Sturmford and tell me the graphics are ugly. The
>cobwebs there are just awesome.
Erm, I've already beaten Beet Hoven and while the graphics are okay
they certainly aren't what I would call "awesome," including the
cobwebs. You folks suffer from a serious under-exposure to modern
game graphics! And I don't think even JVC himself would attempt to
spin the ugly, boring starting town into "delayed gratification"...
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
act smiley
news:3caeb562$0$79563$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> Really? No interest in DE (all accounts suggest it's got shooter
elements,
> which are an instakill on my interest). I have System Shock 2 lying
around,
> but haven't gotten to it.
>
Shock 2 is an scifi-horror action/rpg.
Deus Ex is less of a shooter than most full RPGs (*cough, M&M6/7*) and
definitely less of a shooter than Shock2. Most gamers give up Shock2 not
because of the gameplay, which is startlingly addictive, but because of the
fear it creates.
Why is it that RPG'ers are so snobbish about FP Action-RPG games? Sheesh. DX
simply takes the best bit of shooters (action) and mixes it with the depth
and interaction of RPGs and sprinkles a little stealth on the top. What more
can you ask for in a game? Oh wait, hordes of monsters that can only be
stopped by pressing the "A" key lots of times and hoping you've levelled
enough to take 'em on to retrieve the item for another bland excuse for
dungeo- I mean quest.
> Okay, now I *know* you have totally different goals in life than I do. I
> *LOVED* Arcanum's graphics. Beautiful game!
> What exactly do you *want* a game to look like? Arcanum looked like
> steampunk. What else could it have possibly looked like?
It looked good, I reckon. Nice and stylish, but it could've done with a bit
of detail on the environments - it looked a bit cut'n'paste.
toolstech
> Every time a new M&M game comes out, there are all these people unhappy
with
> the engine, but I just don't get it. I'm loving this engine. This engine
> is great. I can see things, I can run around and do things, and it looks
> like a 3D world. Good enough for me.
It isn't the engine that many people are really complaining about, it's the
resolution fixed at 800x600. The engine can go much higher, NWC just didn't
take advantage of it.
sp...@spam.com
>That's it, really. The graphics look great to me.
Well, all I can say to that is: Welcome back to the hobby! =)
Clearly, you haven't played a computer game since about 1997 if you think MM9
graphics look "great".
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
THRESHOLD RPG - Where Roleplaying is not an option, it's a requirement.
Player run clans, guilds, legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and
more. Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
sp...@spam.com
>>Wiz8 looks better.
>
>Haven't gotten around to Wiz8.
>
>>Gothic kicks the absolute crap out of it.
>
>Never heard of Gothic.
>
>>All of the
>>current MMORPGs look better.
>
>Not masochistic enough to play those.
>
>>Stuff like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex,
>>arguably RPGs, look much better.
>
>Really? No interest in DE (all accounts suggest it's got shooter elements,
>which are an instakill on my interest). I have System Shock 2 lying around,
>but haven't gotten to it.
So basically you admit you haven't played any of the games released in the
last 3-5 years, and yet still insist that these graphics are great.
Look dude, if you are clueless about computer games, perhaps you shouldn't
comment on them. And yes, CLUELESS can be defined as having not played ANY of
the major games of the last few years.
sp...@spam.com
>I am - I like this better, for the same reasons I liked this better in BG.
>The inventory system in MM6-8 bugged me; I'd rather have a small, tasteful,
>bit of art than a very detailed picture that I have to look at and try
>to click on. I particularly disliked the inventory system in MM6-8 in
>terms of trying to pick one item and getting another, which happened way
>too often.
Holy Fanboy-itis, batman.
So you are saying you have more difficulty clicking on an icon that is 8 times
the size?
You find it harder to aim for a BIGGER icon?
That is coddswollop.
Peter Seebach
I wouldn't mind seeing that addressed in a patch.
On the other hand, if you want to see resolution changes done *RIGHT*, look
at HOMM4. They didn't just stretch things; they added interface widgets to
higher resolution displays. *EXCELLENTLY* done.
After three rounds of "We can't just change resolutions, the game wouldn't
look right", they did it the hard way, and the results pay off bigtime.
MM9 would be much easier; just adjust the portrait locations. Yeah, they
should do that. :)
Peter Seebach
>In article <3caeb3ff$0$79563$3c09...@news.plethora.net>,
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>>That's it, really. The graphics look great to me.
>Well, all I can say to that is: Welcome back to the hobby! =)
>Clearly, you haven't played a computer game since about 1997 if you think MM9
>graphics look "great".
I think we're living in different worlds. Great, for me, is pretty much
something I can measure in absolute terms, without reference to anything
else. It doesn't imply "impressive". Today, the only part of Sonic the
Hedgehog that isn't "great" for me is the same thing that bugged me the first
day I played it: Occasional parts of sprites being lost when other sprites
are near them. The music is pretty, and well-suited to circumstances. The
sound effects are excellent. The graphics are beautiful, and lush when
they're supposed to be.
MM9 is great. It looks like a world, with features like "functional glass"
that earlier games lacked. Buildings are as big inside as they are outside,
so far; I really like that, too.
I guess I just don't see anything to complain about. It looks like a 3D
world. Can I pick out individual hairs on a goat at 15 paces? No. Do I
want to? No.
Peter Seebach
>So you are saying you have more difficulty clicking on an icon that is 8 times
>the size?
No...
>You find it harder to aim for a BIGGER icon?
No. I had problems where, when something was on the paper doll, I'd try to,
say, grab the character's bow, and I'd miss by 2 pixels and get the cloak.
I like having separate squares; easier and more stable targets.
Peter Seebach
act smiley <smiley...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Deus Ex is less of a shooter than most full RPGs (*cough, M&M6/7*) and
>definitely less of a shooter than Shock2. Most gamers give up Shock2 not
>because of the gameplay, which is startlingly addictive, but because of the
>fear it creates.
I never played 6 or 7 as a shoorter.
>Why is it that RPG'ers are so snobbish about FP Action-RPG games?
Because I have no twitch reflexes, at all. I can't play WarCraft II, I can
barely play Diablo at all (and had to level up hugely to have a chance), and
I can't play, well, pretty much anything that doesn't run in turn-based mode.
I simply suck at anything that doesn't use a turn-based combat model. The
one exception I can remember is Dungeon Master, which had a nice stable half
second or so "tick" that you could time.
Peter Seebach
>So basically you admit you haven't played any of the games released in the
>last 3-5 years, and yet still insist that these graphics are great.
Yes, and I admit that I haven't listened to the radio in about ten years, and
I still think that Dark Side of the Moon is a great album. Strangely, my
ability to enjoy something is not totally and inextricably linked to the
knowledge that it is the newest, flashiest, and brightest thing in the world;
I can enjoy things on their own merits.
Peter Seebach
Christoph Nahr <diog...@kynosarges.de> wrote:
>Quake is a very old game, and even MM9 can compete with it visually.
>For state-of-the-art shooter graphics you should try Quake 3 (the
>current version) or Unreal Tournament.
Someone tried to load Quake 3 on one of my machines. It looked just like
Quake 1 to me, and then it crashed.
>No, but it's no wonder you think MM9 looks good since you haven't
>played any of the 3d RPGs that came out in recent years: Vampire,
>Ultima IX, Anachronox, Gothic, Wizardry VIII, and in the action/RPG
>hybrid department we have Deus Ex and System Shock 2. The graphics in
>MM9 really suck compared to *any* of these. I'm surprised you haven't
>played Wiz8 by the way, that should be right up your alley!
I have it, I'm just waiting to go through Wiz6/Wiz7 first. I'm being patient.
>But I agree that the animations are okay and that the paperdoll is
>more "ergonomic" though visually less appealing than the old one.
I actually think it's more visually appealing, because it's *consistent*.
The MM6-8 paper doll was photorealistic cheese. This uses good pictures.
I like this better.
Ykalon Dragon
<s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote:
>On 06 Apr 2002 08:53:16 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>
>>Let's see... I played Quake for about 30-40 minutes on a couple of occasions,
>>and got bored to tears. Very pretty, but visually dull as hell.
>
>Quake is a very old game, and even MM9 can compete with it visually.
>For state-of-the-art shooter graphics you should try Quake 3 (the
>current version) or Unreal Tournament.
Q3 good graphics? You must be kidding. The only Quake game with decent
graphics is Quake 2. Or more to the point, the artwork in Quake 3 sux
big time.
--
Reply to ykalon at subdimension dot com
DemilinX
news:hsbpau0kvrk1psobc...@4ax.com...
> I can't believe I'm saying this but Wizardry 8 actually looked good
> compared to this stinking pile of visual shit. Good lord, what have
> they done to the poor little Lithtech engine? I know this engine is
> pretty bad by shooter standards but it's not THAT bad!
>
> Primitive blurry textures on three-polygon landscapes with static
> skies and four-polygon buildings housing one (1) NPC per building. No
> visible weapon swings or arrows flying -- visual weapon feedback in
> MM6-8 was BETTER than in MM9! Same for spell effects, they're just
> cheaply made and no improvement at all.
I'm sure there were sacrifices that had to be made when incorporating an RPG
gameplay system into a 3D engine designed for first person shooter action
games. Even more important to note though is that this was probably a HUGE
learning experience for NWC. It's most likely not as tight design-wise as
is possible with the Lithtech engine and I'm sure if a M&M X comes out that
the team's new experience will shine through.
--
[m33p]Demi|inX
np:
"I hate when lanes end."
drocket
>Maybe so. That's probably a smarter move in the long run that Origin's
>old method of targeting machines that aren't even available yet.
Possibly so, but you do realize that there IS a middle option between
50 polygon monsters and 5000 polygon monsters, right?
Greg Campbell
> In article <a3e7fc22.02040...@posting.google.com>,
> Greg Campbell <gtc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Here's a screenshot from MM9:
> >http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/scr.phtml?cat=r&pic=mightandmagic911
>
> >And here's a screenshot from recently released "polygonal game" Dungeon Siege:
> >http://www.microsoft.com/Games/dungeonsiege/slideshow.asp?image=21
>
> >Are you really saying that MM9 doesn't seem any worse?
>
> Well, I suspect you could find more flattering MM9 pictures, and less
> flattering Dungeon Siege pictures, but sure, MM9 isn't as cool looking as
> Dungeon Siege.
>
> Now, which of them has more people posting about quests they're trying to
> solve?
The one where several quests were buggy to the point of broken-ness
before the patch was released.
HTH.
;)
--greg
p.s. I think Morrowind's graphics would be a more apt comparison,
given that both games are first-person, but I wanted to stick with
RPGs (assuming Dungeon Siege is an RPG) currently in release. Without
that limitation, here's another picture of a nice scene rendered by a
polygonal engine:
http://www.madonion.com/products/3dmark2001/images/3Dmark2001se_shot07_big.jpg
p.p.s. I haven't played MM9 yet (I loved 4 and 5, enjoyed 6, then was
progressively more disappointed by 7 and 8, so I'm waiting until 9
hits the bargain bin before checking it out), so I can't make any
points about its gameplay.
Eric VanHeest
> Possibly so, but you do realize that there IS a middle option between
> 50 polygon monsters and 5000 polygon monsters, right?
Yeah, a slider that has "50" on the left and "5000" on the right would
be smooth.
Gerry Quinn
>
>On the other hand, if you want to see resolution changes done *RIGHT*, look
>at HOMM4. They didn't just stretch things; they added interface widgets to
>higher resolution displays. *EXCELLENTLY* done.
>
>After three rounds of "We can't just change resolutions, the game wouldn't
>look right", they did it the hard way, and the results pay off bigtime.
>
I just bought HOMM4, and it looks a bit confusing. I guess I'll get
used to it after a few plays.
I'm not going to bother with MM9 for now. With Geneforge and Wiz8, my
CRPG needs are satisfied for the moment, anyway...
Gerry Quinn
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>Q3 good graphics? You must be kidding. The only Quake game with decent
>graphics is Quake 2. Or more to the point, the artwork in Quake 3 sux
>big time.
Technically the graphics engine is good, though. Artistically I don't
think much of any id game (they all tend to look dull as Peter said)
but games based on the Q3 engine such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein
really show what this engine is capable of.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
sp...@spam.com
>Yes, and I admit that I haven't listened to the radio in about ten years, and
>I still think that Dark Side of the Moon is a great album. Strangely, my
>ability to enjoy something is not totally and inextricably linked to the
>knowledge that it is the newest, flashiest, and brightest thing in the world;
>I can enjoy things on their own merits.
Perhaps you are unaware that JVC is the one who created the expectations that
this game's appearance would be somewhat close to a modern standard. Read the
box as well.
When the game creator makes certain claims, it is realistic to expect that the
product be moderately close to these claims.
Furthermore, there is no excuse for:
1) the horrific game stopping bugs (IMP quest, promotion quests, etc).
2) the elimination of the fly spell (which was a last second, rush it out the
door decision, as fleet foot even uses the exact same GRAPHIC as fly used in
the previous 3 games).
3) The horrible paper doll that does not even reflect your RACE nor the gear
you are currently using.
4) The atrocious map that not only lacks fog of war and cannot be scrolled,
but is so buggy that it utterly fails to operate and orient properly in many
cities and other locations.
5) The last second elimination of a real mini-map in the top right corner
(again, another obvious last second move to rush the game out of the door- the
location exists for the minimap to be the same as every game since MM2, and
yet it is a dumbed down version. Clearly, the map problems that plagued them
as mentioned in #4 made a minimap impossible).
6) The inability to PROPERLY define the location of pieces of the interface so
you could run the game in a higher resolution that the engine supports. All
they had to do was define the right hand interface elements to orient from the
top right corner rather than from the top left, and you could use ANY
resolution the engine supported. That is just piss poor programming.
In all honesty, while I am shocked that the graphics sucked despite JVCs
cartwheeling and gushing about how great MM9's graphics would be. What annoys
me is all the places where MM9 takes a giant step BACKWARDS in gameplay
compared to MM6, 7, and 8, and in some cases, even behind MM2.
You have been going on and on about how gameplay is the most important thing
in a game. I agree completely. And that is precisely why MM9 is such a let
down: the gameplay is WORSE than previous games, and that is just
unacceptable.
When consumers accept developers taking short cuts and rushing games out the
door before they are finished, they will continue to get games that are less
than they could be and should be.
toolstech
<sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xy_r8.1139$Aq5....@news.webusenet.com...
> Perhaps you are unaware that JVC is the one who created the expectations
that
> this game's appearance would be somewhat close to a modern standard. Read
the
> box as well.
Box claims:
- Richly detailed castles -- Nope. Sure, the design for many castles is
neat, but they are empty, very little detail work.
- Lush ourtdoor environments -- Not with these textures they aren't.
- All new stunning 3D game engine -- Okay, they got me there. I certainly
was stunned when I found I couldn't increase the resolution past 800x600
without making the interface run amok.