Might and Magic 6 could have been great if..
Patrick Andersson
1. If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
look a lot better, it would be much smoother. I get 15-20 FPS using a
P266MHz MMX (overclocked) and a overclocked Stealth 2 graphics card.
Nice graphics adds much to gameplay and atmosphere in a game. If I'm
gonna look at this game for approx 100-150 hours, then the graphics
really need to be better/smoother than this.
2. If they made a patch for configuring and using your mouse to walk
with. Why using a
digital device like the keyboard for this??? Sucks. And this changing
from keyboard to mouse all the time drives me nuts... And there should
be a "always run" option too. Even Ultima Underworld 1 had great mouse
support and it came out approx 7-8 years ago..
I quit playing this game after 2 hours in hope that there will be a
patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
--
Patrick
NFLed
I guess since the game is getting great sales and great reviews they're
not the ones doing the kidding.
For me, I prefer moving with the keyboard anyway (while mouse
support would be a plus I wouldn't want them to spend any time
programming it), I'd love an always run option (though its lack is
not one millionth of a full cause for me to stop playing the game)
and the graphics look good enough to me (I've never played
Quake and don't care about quoted frame rates, I do care about
how it looks which is fine for me) on my PII 266.
Different strokes for different folks. If those factors are more
important to you than all of the positives about the game (see
the many online reviews) then so be it.
Ed B.
Patrick Andersson
You must be the perfect customer. ;-) If everyone ignored graphics,
controlling methods
etc we would still be playing Bards Tale. There is no excuse for not using
the best controlling methods available. Especially since it could be easily
fixed. And even if the game has gotten many postive reviews, many of the
reviewers complains about the graphics and the controlls. The game should
have gotten a 10/10 from me if it weren't for the graphics, and the keyboard
controlls. Customers/reviewers got to complain about stuff like this! If we
don't then how is it ever going to get any better..? Graphics and controlling
isn't just some small details in a game(even if it's an RPG). Without good
graphics, no real atmosphere. Without good controlls, gameplay suffers to
much to get you into the game.
There aren't many new RPG's for PC.. I dont think It should have sold that
much OR getting so many postive reviews if it werent for this. I knew it was
unaccellerated, I've heard that the controlls were bad. I bought it anyways
to see if I could stand it. I suppose a lot of other people did the same
thing. Some could stand it some hated it.. Pure luck I'm not a game reviewer
;-)
--
Patrick
Christoph Nahr
>1. If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
>look a lot better, it would be much smoother.
And how do you know that, pray tell? The developers claim they did
make a 3dfx version of the engine. It was *slower* than software
rendering because of the massive amount of texture memory they would
have required which current cards don't provide.
>2. If they made a patch for configuring and using your mouse to walk
>with.
The more controlling options the better but I'm very comfortable with
the keyboard interface. In fact, I'm playing Quake & co with the
keyboard exclusively... mouse for aiming & selecting, keyboard for
movement is fine with me. It's what I use in other games as well.
"Always run" is NOT an option you would want, btw. Running *severely*
impacts your characters' recovery rate. You can fight while walking
but you hardly ever get a shot off while running!
>I quit playing this game after 2 hours in hope that there will be a
>patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
>accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
First and foremost, it's a role-playing game, not a 3D game. This is
a huge and complex game in a series of tile-based games where the 3D
engine was thrown in as an enhancement, not a 3D game where the rest
is just an add-on to the engine as with Quake & co. There are some
things I'd like to have fixed for MM7, including the graphics engine
(talking about the clipping bugs here), but complaining about bad
graphics in MM6 is a bit like complaining that Steel Panthers doesn't
have a first person view... the graphics of MM6 are the best you can
currently get *for this genre*.
--
Chris Nahr (chn...@emailNOSPAM.msn.com, remove NOSPAM to e-mail)
MM6 Quick Reference at http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Nahr
Patrick Andersson
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 23:19:53 +0200, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
> >1. If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
> >look a lot better, it would be much smoother.
>
> And how do you know that, pray tell? The developers claim they did
> make a 3dfx version of the engine. It was *slower* than software
> rendering because of the massive amount of texture memory they would
> have required which current cards don't provide.
>
Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
whatever. Why does it work inthese games? They look superior compared to MM6
(even the trees in MM6 i sprites for christ sake, and only that speeds up
things a lot!). Obviously the creators of MM6 couldnt get it work beacuse
lack of knowledge. Then they didnt want to spend any more $$$ on hiring
people who could get it to work right.
> >2. If they made a patch for configuring and using your mouse to walk
> >with.
>
> The more controlling options the better but I'm very comfortable with
> the keyboard interface. In fact, I'm playing Quake & co with the
> keyboard exclusively... mouse for aiming & selecting, keyboard for
> movement is fine with me. It's what I use in other games as well.
>
Yeah, works for you since you're used to it. I would never play Quake or any
other 3D game using that configuration. I guess the creators of MM6 also are
used to that setup,but just beacuse of that they dont need to force me to use
it since I(and many others) think it sucks.
> "Always run" is NOT an option you would want, btw. Running *severely*
> impacts your characters' recovery rate. You can fight while walking
> but you hardly ever get a shot off while running!
>
I used the run button 80-90% of the time (not in fighting, in fighting I
switch to turn based), walking was too damn slow when travelling over large
open areas. Eg. pressing ctrl would turn "allways run" on, press it again to
turn it off would be much better and would have worked great.
> >I quit playing this game after 2 hours in hope that there will be a
> >patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
> >accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
>
> First and foremost, it's a role-playing game, not a 3D game. This is
> a huge and complex game in a series of tile-based games where the 3D
> engine was thrown in as an enhancement, not a 3D game where the rest
> is just an add-on to the engine as with Quake & co.
"The 3D engine was thrown in as an enhacement"? Give me a break. They build
thegame from the begining to be a 3D game, that is just not some small detail
they throwed in.
All the other Might & Magic(not the heroes-series of course) was in 3D too.
They used to be quite up to date when it came to graphics back then. Now it's
very out of date..
> There are some
> things I'd like to have fixed for MM7, including the graphics engine
> (talking about the clipping bugs here), but complaining about bad
> graphics in MM6 is a bit like complaining that Steel Panthers doesn't
> have a first person view...
Uum.. It's not. Cause that would have been a completely different game. MM6
would still be the same(only a lot better) if it had a better 3Dengine.
> the graphics of MM6 are the best you can
> currently get *for this genre*.
Why, beacuse it's an RPG? Some kind of secret rule they have that graphics
HAS to be bad? Graphics just didnt have as much priority as the other things
in the MM6, cause they knew it would sell anyways. Why? because there never
has been many RPG's to choose from anyways and the Might and Magic series are
very well known. And of course it sells because it's a great game in every
aspect except from graphics and controlling. Which *I* think is just as
important as story etc. in a game(yes, even if it's an RPG). But apparenty
not everyone care about this. And that bothers me a lot, because I want
future 3D RPG's to look just as good and has just as good controlling as any
other 3D-game on the market. If no one complain about this stuff then how is
it ever going to get any better? The game developers wont bother to make
better graphics, or better controlling methods if no one complains! It sells,
and that's whats important to them.
--
Patrick
Mikko P Vuorinen
>You must be the perfect customer. ;-) If everyone ignored graphics,
>controlling methods
>etc we would still be playing Bards Tale. There is no excuse for not using
>the best controlling methods available. Especially since it could be easily
>fixed. And even if the game has gotten many postive reviews, many of the
>reviewers complains about the graphics and the controlls. The game should
>have gotten a 10/10 from me if it weren't for the graphics, and the keyboard
>controlls. Customers/reviewers got to complain about stuff like this! If we
>don't then how is it ever going to get any better..? Graphics and controlling
>isn't just some small details in a game(even if it's an RPG). Without good
>graphics, no real atmosphere. Without good controlls, gameplay suffers to
>much to get you into the game.
I don't need mouse control, I wouldn't use it even if there was one.
Keyboard control is just perfect for me. As for the graphics, well, I
don't own a 3D card and I don't intend to buy one yet because there aren't
any games I play that require it. 3DO was nice enough to release the game
for the RPG and adventure public, not the 3D-blaster public.
--
)))) (((( + Mikko Vuorinen + mvuo...@cc.helsinki.fi
)) OO `oo'((( + Dilbon@IRC&ifMUD + http://www.helsinki.fi/~mvuorine/
6 (_) ( ((( + GSM 050-5859733 +
`____c 8__/((( + + Did you see that?
Peter Seebach
In article <356BDDB7...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
>than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
>whatever.
Really? MM6 uses mostly 256x256 textures, weren't the 3D card advocates
saying 64x64 was normally fine?
>lack of knowledge. Then they didnt want to spend any more $$$ on hiring
>people who could get it to work right.
Sorry, but this one seems deeply implausible. These people have made a lot
of very good games, and they seem to do just fine at it.
>Yeah, works for you since you're used to it. I would never play Quake or any
>other 3D game using that configuration. I guess the creators of MM6 also are
>used to that setup,but just beacuse of that they dont need to force me to use
>it since I(and many others) think it sucks.
I basically agree on this one; more configuration is better.
>I used the run button 80-90% of the time (not in fighting, in fighting I
>switch to turn based), walking was too damn slow when travelling over large
>open areas. Eg. pressing ctrl would turn "allways run" on, press it again to
>turn it off would be much better and would have worked great.
Also agreed. I wish caps lock worked. ;)
>"The 3D engine was thrown in as an enhacement"? Give me a break. They build
>thegame from the begining to be a 3D game, that is just not some small detail
>they throwed in.
They built it from the ground up to use a 3D world, but the focus of the game
is not the 3D, it's the world.
>Why, beacuse it's an RPG? Some kind of secret rule they have that graphics
>HAS to be bad?
No, just that if you have to spend an extra year working on putting depth
in the world, your engine will be a little more out of date when you're done
with the whole game.
Would it take 100-150 hours to play Quake (single player)? Would you be
finding out new things about the world other than "shoot that logo, then
run back to the secret door"?
>Graphics just didnt have as much priority as the other things
>in the MM6, cause they knew it would sell anyways.
Right - because we aren't buying it for the graphics.
-s
--
Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Christoph Nahr
On Wed, 27 May 1998 11:32:39 +0200, Patrick Andersson
<sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
>than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
>whatever.
This is simply wrong, sorry. Many places in the game have textures
for windows, walls or furniture that are definitely more complex
(large and hi-res) than anything I've seen in H2, JK or Q2. Now you
might ask "maybe they should have used smaller textures in order to be
able to use 3d cards"? That would be a valid question but as it is, I
tend to believe their claims that the 3d hardware engine was slow.
[snipped control issues which I agree with though it isn't a big deal
for me]
>Why, beacuse it's an RPG? Some kind of secret rule they have that graphics
>HAS to be bad? Graphics just didnt have as much priority as the other things
>in the MM6, cause they knew it would sell anyways. Why? because there never
>has been many RPG's to choose from anyways and the Might and Magic series are
>very well known. And of course it sells because it's a great game in every
>aspect except from graphics and controlling.
You're missing my point which is that MM6's graphics are actually very
good *compared to other RPGs*. MM6 *does* advance the state of the
art for RPGs in the graphics area. There is *no* other engine
available that could do the things MM6 does (true three-dimensional
architecture, vast open areas, huge textures).
Sure the graphics look worse than those of a recent shooter but it
*technically* isn't possible to simply transfer the shooters' graphics
engine to MM6. The only valid point of comparison from a technical
viewpoint is Daggerfall, and MM6 sure as hell has better graphics than
Daggerfall.
Yes, it would be nice if the graphics were as good-looking and fast as
in Voodoo accelerated Quake 2, but only if *at the same time* they
still had the vast areas, huge dungeons with true 3d architecture,
loads of creatures, complex textures. We are still waiting for such
an engine. MM6 doesn't have it, that much is true. But no other game
has it either.
Martin Pazderka
>Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
>than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
>whatever. Why does it work inthese games? They look superior compared to MM6
>(even the trees in MM6 i sprites for christ sake, and only that speeds up
>things a lot!). Obviously the creators of MM6 couldnt get it work beacuse
>lack of knowledge. Then they didnt want to spend any more $$$ on hiring
>people who could get it to work right.
Yeah, you're right, their excuses suck. Everybody is talking about too
large textures, but then, take a look at games like g-police, what do
you see: hi-res and animated textures, and surprise, it playes
smoothly!
Although I sympathize with people like chnahr or seebs, who try to
advocate and argue for a game they like (I enjoy MM6 myself!), I just
get tired of hearing this over and over again.
CU, Martin
--
If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their
feet, what happens if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it?
-+* http://home.pages.de/~pazi *+-
RayRuenes
Patrick Andersson lamented,
> If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
>look a lot better, it would be much smoother. I get 15-20 FPS using a
>P266MHz MMX (overclocked) and a overclocked Stealth 2 graphics card.
>Nice graphics adds much to gameplay and atmosphere in a game. If I'm
>gonna look at this game for approx 100-150 hours, then the graphics
>really need to be better/smoother than this.
Speak for yourself. I'm running it on a nearly-obsolete Pentium 120 MHz with
an old ATI 1 meg PCI video card, and I have no complaints. The pace and
choppiness haven't reduced my interest in continuing the quests one bit. I'm
frankly grateful that New World Computing programmed the software to accomodate
slightly less-than-state-of-the-art processors, as opposed to companies that
claim to be CRPG aficionados but require arcade-like computers to run their
strangely arcade-like games.
"The Republican Party...the first assembly that sounded in its camp was a call
to sacrifice, and not to spoils. The emancipation of a race, under the
proclamation of the first Republican President, has forever immortalized the
party that accomplished it."
Patrick Andersson
> [snip]
>
> >I quit playing this game after 2 hours in hope that there will be a
> >patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
> >accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
>
> It always amazes me what people expect from games.
[snip]It has always amazed me that some people *don't* expect the best from a
game! Why shouldn't you? Yes, it takes more time to develop a game that is
good at everything, not just some things. Yes, it costs more money to do
that. Yes, I'm willing to wait.
> As for the mouse, how do you handle the
> problem that the mouse is used to select things. Given a standard two
> button mouse, how do you easily use it to move, since both the left
> and right mouse buttons are valid actions?
>
> - Drew
Double clicking the right mouse button to look at stuff and holding it down
it to walk with..?
The mouse is by all means the absolutely best device to move around in a 3D
world with.
Using the keyboard to move around in a 3D world is too slow, too unprecise
and too uncomfortable. Beacuse you *do* spend a lot of time walking around in
this game and that's why this game also need serious controlling methods.
It's not just coincidence that all(?) other 3D games uses the mouse for
moving around with!
It's simply because it's the most comfortable and most precise controll that
you can get with a PC.
--
Patrick
Dave Litchman
In article <35838ed8...@news.supernews.com>, chn...@emailNOSPAM.msn.com
says...
>First and foremost, it's a role-playing game, not a 3D game. This is
>a huge and complex game in a series of tile-based games where the 3D
>engine was thrown in as an enhancement, not a 3D game where the rest
>things I'd like to have fixed for MM7, including the graphics engine
>(talking about the clipping bugs here), but complaining about bad
>graphics in MM6 is a bit like complaining that Steel Panthers doesn't
>currently get *for this genre*.
I have to disagree. There are some (admittedly few) RPGs which have graphics
superior to MM6. My opinion, of course. I would nominate the Ultima
Underworld games. Sure, they were only 320x200, but the locations had a more
"solid" feel to me. And System Shock, which can be run in resolutions equal to
that of MM6. Again, much more solid feeling. But the point is not that MM6
has "good" graphics or "bad" graphics, it's that MM6 has acceptable graphics.
RPGs are not about watching pretty sparkles on the screen, that's what
Quake-type games are for. RPGs are about PLAYING a ROLE. As long as the
graphics are of sufficient quality that they don't get in the way of that, then
there's no problem. If you are not happy with the quality of the graphics, and
that's all that's important to you, then you're playing the wrong game. You
need to run yourself down to the software store and pick up
"Super-3D-Shiny-Things Bouncing Around XVIII". However, if you've bought MM6
expecting to get a good story and fun gameplay, then graphics should be the
last thing on your mind. It should be on your mind, as really bad graphics can
ruin what might otherwise be a good game (Descent to Undermountain, anyone?)
but as long as they don't get in the way, just let them be.
--
Dave Litchman
da...@discovernet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SF2 Code v1.0: t- c+ T r-(++) f g++ m+ s -> + v+(++) M+ n+: o+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Andersson
RayRuenes wrote:
> Patrick Andersson lamented,
>
> > If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
> >look a lot better, it would be much smoother. I get 15-20 FPS using a
> >P266MHz MMX (overclocked) and a overclocked Stealth 2 graphics card.
> >Nice graphics adds much to gameplay and atmosphere in a game. If I'm
> >gonna look at this game for approx 100-150 hours, then the graphics
> >really need to be better/smoother than this.
>
> Speak for yourself. I'm running it on a nearly-obsolete Pentium 120 MHz with
>
I speak for *a lot* of other people too, considering I'm like number 50000 in this
and other NG's that has complained about the graphics/lack of hardware
accelleration in MM6.
Some people dont think you should expect too much from a computer game. I do.
Simply because I want the best gaming experince.
--
Patrick
Andrew Hardin
>
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I quit playing this game after 2 hours in hope that there will be a
>> >patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
>> >accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
>>
>> It always amazes me what people expect from games.
>
>[snip]It has always amazed me that some people *don't* expect the best from a
>game! Why shouldn't you? Yes, it takes more time to develop a game that is
>good at everything, not just some things. Yes, it costs more money to do
>that. Yes, I'm willing to wait.
Call it professional courtesy. I program for a living, and have to
deal with the very question you ask everyday. I put a lot of hours
into my programming, and treat my game time VERY seriously. I guess
it is I feel like I did get the best from the folks at NWC. I could
ask for more, but I don't have the slightest feeling that they didn't
do the best they could in the time they had with the resources they
had. Quake II has a great engine (outstanding work by the those
fellows, BTW) but it doesn't have character development, skill system,
or any of the other standard CRPG features. You bought it because it
makes a good shooter. I paid about $40 for the game. Do you realize
that at the going rate in the industry, I bought less than an hour of
some programmer's time. Our company sells it product at a price
CONSIDERABLY more than that and barely pays it's operating costs. For
as small an industry as the gaming industry actually is, we get a
very, very good product for the cost.
[snipped the rest]
Patrick Andersson
Dave Litchman wrote:
> In article <35838ed8...@news.supernews.com>, chn...@emailNOSPAM.msn.com
> says...
> >First and foremost, it's a role-playing game, not a 3D game. This is
> >a huge and complex game in a series of tile-based games where the 3D
> >engine was thrown in as an enhancement, not a 3D game where the rest
> >is just an add-on to the engine as with Quake & co. There are some
> >things I'd like to have fixed for MM7, including the graphics engine
> >(talking about the clipping bugs here), but complaining about bad
> >graphics in MM6 is a bit like complaining that Steel Panthers doesn't
> >have a first person view... the graphics of MM6 are the best you can
> >currently get *for this genre*.
>
> I have to disagree. There are some (admittedly few) RPGs which have graphics
> superior to MM6. My opinion, of course. I would nominate the Ultima
> Underworld games. Sure, they were only 320x200, but the locations had a more
> "solid" feel to me. And System Shock, which can be run in resolutions equal to
> that of MM6. Again, much more solid feeling.
Yes, I agree. Both Ultima Underworld and System Shock were great. Considering how
old these games are by now, I'd expect much better graphics/atmosphere in a game as
new as MM6.
> But the point is not that MM6
> has "good" graphics or "bad" graphics, it's that MM6 has acceptable graphics.
> RPGs are not about watching pretty sparkles on the screen, that's what
> Quake-type games are for. RPGs are about PLAYING a ROLE. As long as the
> graphics are of sufficient quality that they don't get in the way of that, then
> there's no problem. If you are not happy with the quality of the graphics, and
> that's all that's important to you, then you're playing the wrong game.
No, I love RPG's. But I also love nice graphics. Should all RPG's only have
acceptablegraphics just beacuase of the fact that they are RPG's??? That doesnt
make much sense..
Graphics shouldnt be overlooked just beacause a game has a good story(or the
opposite either which is more common these days). Graphics *do* add much to
gameplay, *even* if it's an RPG. I would say graphics is even more important in
RPG's than in other games. Beacause RPG's is about simulating a role and a world
which you interact with, and that can only be accomplished *if* the world seems
somewhat realistic and is somewhat fun to wander around in. Yes, you could use your
imagination(you have to do that a lot when playing tradtional RPG's with books) but
then they've missed the whole point of a CRPG.
> You
> need to run yourself down to the software store and pick up
> "Super-3D-Shiny-Things Bouncing Around XVIII".
Nah, I've played it. It sucked, not enough aliens in that one.
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
Peter Seebach wrote:
> In article <356BDDB7...@mail.bip.net>,
> Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
> >Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
> >than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
> >whatever.
>
> Really? MM6 uses mostly 256x256 textures, weren't the 3D card advocates
> saying 64x64 was normally fine?
>
It sure doesn't look like that. They seem *very* repeative (talking about the
patterns in the textures, not the number of textures). I haven't seen one single
texture in MM6 that couldnt have been in 64x64..
--
Patrick
Torsten Kablitz
From the sound of it Patrick, you wont be satisfied until you build your own
game. If you don't like it - don't buy it (or return it, or sell it, or burn
it). Just wait around until someone else spends a few million dollers making
a game you will like.
Unitl then, I'm enjoying this game even if it is unplayable - odd though
that I have been doing quite well in it.
Torsten
Patrick Andersson wrote in message <356C42ED...@mail.bip.net>...
Peter Seebach
In article <356C4E08...@mail.bip.net>,
Go into the abandoned temple and look at the stained glass and the painting.
NFLed
>You must be the perfect customer. ;-) If everyone ignored graphics,
>controlling methods
>etc we would still be playing Bards Tale. There is no excuse for not using
>the best controlling methods available. Especially since it could be easily
>fixed. And even if the game has gotten many postive reviews, many of the
>reviewers complains about the graphics and the controlls. The game should
>have gotten a 10/10 from me if it weren't for the graphics, and the keyboard
>controlls. Customers/reviewers got to complain about stuff like this! If we
>don't then how is it ever going to get any better..? Graphics and controlling
>isn't just some small details in a game(even if it's an RPG). Without good
>graphics, no real atmosphere. Without good controlls, gameplay suffers to
>much to get you into the game.
>
>much OR getting so many postive reviews if it werent for this. I knew it was
>unaccellerated, I've heard that the controlls were bad. I bought it anyways
>to see if I could stand it. I suppose a lot of other people did the same
>thing. Some could stand it some hated it.. Pure luck I'm not a game reviewer
>;-)
>
Ignore graphics, ignore controller modes???! I do nothing of the sort,
I say that they are either perfectly fine for my tastes or any problems
with them are very minor compared to my enjoyment of the game.
I agree that these things should be discussed (complained about,
whatever) so that companies know what to work on -- by the way,
for those companies listening to me MM6 graphics are fine don't
spend lots of time/effort upgrading them (there, I said my piece) --
it's just that some people *seem* to trash the entire game with
their angry attacks on graphics and that's fine if that's their opinion;
I simply disagree and like to encourage game companies to make
rpg's instead of giving the message "Hey company, if you make
an rpg which isn't absolutely perfect in every way you will get
flamed and flamed."
Ed B.
Kevin Lo
In article <356C3FDB...@mail.bip.net>, sens...@mail.bip.net
says...
>
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > >I quit playing this game after 2 hours in hope that there will be a
> > >patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
> > >accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
> >
> > It always amazes me what people expect from games.
>
> [snip]It has always amazed me that some people *don't* expect the best from a
> game! Why shouldn't you? Yes, it takes more time to develop a game that is
> good at everything, not just some things. Yes, it costs more money to do
> that. Yes, I'm willing to wait.
Maybe you've never been a programmer or designer for a major game.
Adding features to the core game takes time, and when you have a
set deadline for a game, you don't sit at the drawing board thinking to
yourself, "Hmm, what can i do to please all those users who have [3D
Cards / TI-85 / Linux]?". You sit there thinking, "What can I do to
please the _majority_ of all the users?" Sure, it may look like almost
everyone has a kick-ass 3D card, but unfortunately that is not the case.
Product timing and pricing is a very critical aspect that a lot of
consumers shrug off. If producers and developers had an infinite supply
of resources to work off of, _then_ I'd see your point about waiting. But
incorporating something such as hardware acceleration is a big step, and
obviously one they chose to pass up in order to get the game out. IMHO,
they made a fine choice.
I'd trade off pretty alpha-blended explosions and bump-mapped walls
anytime for good RPG elements found in MM6.
Regards,
Kevin
K. Laisathit
In article <356C3FDB...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
>> It always amazes me what people expect from games.
>
>[snip]It has always amazed me that some people *don't* expect the best
>from a game! Why shouldn't you? Yes, it takes more time to develop
>a game that is good at everything, not just some things. Yes, it
>costs more money to do that. Yes, I'm willing to wait.
How's this. Will you pay $120 for advanced MM6 with all
the perfect enhancements? Even if your answer is yes, I
don't think it's feasible. How many are willing to pay for
all that? If MM6 has XGA graphic with 40fps, but costs
me $120, I'm not sure I wanna buy it. For one thing, I
don't even have XGA, let alone a 3D accelerator.
For my $40, MM6 does the job and it does the job
well enough. The best? I don't even know what it's
like.
>The mouse is by all means the absolutely best device to move around in a 3D
>world with.
>Using the keyboard to move around in a 3D world is too slow, too unprecise
>and too uncomfortable. Beacuse you *do* spend a lot of time walking around in
>this game and that's why this game also need serious controlling methods.
*shrug* I played Daggerfall using keyboard, I only used mouse
to pick up objects or to hack the creatures. Keyboard imprecise?
yes, slow? No. The point? Mouse allows more fluid motion, while
keyboard is definitely more responsive. If you hit left arrow, you
turn left immediately. If you you use mouse, you'll have to move
the arrow leftward, which is faster? Hit a key, or turn your
wrist?
Later...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
K I R A T I L A I S A T H I T kir...@u.washington.edu
waih...@cyberway.com.sg
In article <199805262128...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
nf...@aol.com (NFLed) wrote:
>
> >1. If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
> >look a lot better, it would be much smoother. I get 15-20 FPS using a
> >P266MHz MMX (overclocked) and a overclocked Stealth 2 graphics card.
> >Nice graphics adds much to gameplay and atmosphere in a game. If I'm
> >gonna look at this game for approx 100-150 hours, then the graphics
> >really need to be better/smoother than this.
> >
> >digital device like the keyboard for this??? Sucks. And this changing
> >from keyboard to mouse all the time drives me nuts... And there should
> >be a "always run" option too. Even Ultima Underworld 1 had great mouse
> >support and it came out approx 7-8 years ago..
> >
> >patch.. Releasing a 3D game without proper mouse support and no hardware
> >accelleration in 1998.?? They've gotta be kidding..
> >
>
> not the ones doing the kidding.
>
> For me, I prefer moving with the keyboard anyway (while mouse
> support would be a plus I wouldn't want them to spend any time
> programming it), I'd love an always run option (though its lack is
> not one millionth of a full cause for me to stop playing the game)
> and the graphics look good enough to me (I've never played
> Quake and don't care about quoted frame rates, I do care about
> how it looks which is fine for me) on my PII 266.
For me, I prefer a keyboard interface anytime. Still miss the days of
the old ultimas where every key has a function :P
In anycase, mouse would be just as good. Most important thing, the
interface must not force me to switch between mouse and keyboard in
the middle of the game. I really hate doing that.
As for the graphics, I do agree that the frame rate is bad. Initially,
it really turned me off. But I stayed on and got used to it :)
(BTW, I've played quake the like before) The game play and story made
up for the lack of fast speed action (this is not an action game anyway)
If u want to compare graphics, u should compare with the likes of LOL2 or
Daggerfall, etc. IMO, Daggerfall really sucks :P
One last thing, I'm only using a Pentium 166 (no MMX) and MM6 is running
fine on it! :)
> Different strokes for different folks. If those factors are more
> important to you than all of the positives about the game (see
> the many online reviews) then so be it.
>
> Ed B.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Patrick Andersson
> How's this. Will you pay $120 for advanced MM6 with all
> the perfect enhancements? Even if your answer is yes, I
> don't think it's feasible. How many are willing to pay for
> all that? If MM6 has XGA graphic with 40fps, but costs
> me $120, I'm not sure I wanna buy it. For one thing, I
> don't even have XGA, let alone a 3D accelerator.
IF this had been true, than how is it possible that in fact MM6 was using 3D
accelleration from the begining? Obviously it didnt work because they for some
very strange reason had used 256x256 textures(which still looks as repeative as
32x32 textures in MM6) instead of 32x32 textures. Do you really think MM6 would
have costed that much if they hadn't fucked up? No way. There are other RPG's in
the works using 3DFX and/or Direct3D support, and none of these compaines which
are making these RPG's are as big as NWC.
There *are* games that has both nice graphics *and* good story/gameplay, to think
that it would cost to much and wouldnt be possible is just stupid.
> For my $40, MM6 does the job and it does the job
> well enough. The best? I don't even know what it's
> like.
>
Seems like many people(including you) DON'T want to see what it would be like,
which i find *very* strange.
> >The mouse is by all means the absolutely best device to move around in a 3D
> >world with.
> >Using the keyboard to move around in a 3D world is too slow, too unprecise
> >and too uncomfortable. Beacuse you *do* spend a lot of time walking around in
> >this game and that's why this game also need serious controlling methods.
>
> *shrug* I played Daggerfall using keyboard, I only used mouse
> to pick up objects or to hack the creatures. Keyboard imprecise?
> yes, slow? No. The point? Mouse allows more fluid motion, while
> keyboard is definitely more responsive. If you hit left arrow, you
> turn left immediately. If you you use mouse, you'll have to move
> the arrow leftward, which is faster? Hit a key, or turn your
> wrist?
>
I prefer precise and fluid motion over (far too) responsive and
unprecise/uncomfortable keyboard controll. Digital controll which isnt needed at
all in MM6 fits perfectly for some arcade, sport and 2D platform games(in which
fast response is important) but not in 3D games. If that had been true all other
3D games would be using keyboard configuration instead of mouse as well. They
don't. There is absolutely no excuse for not having proper mouse support in MM6,
*even* if it's not a FPS! You still have to move around just like in every other
3D game don't you?
--
Patrick
David Baker
>[snip]It has always amazed me that some people *don't* expect the best from a
>game! Why shouldn't you? Yes, it takes more time to develop a game that is
>good at everything, not just some things. Yes, it costs more money to do
>that. Yes, I'm willing to wait.
Spoken like someone who has never programmed a thing in his life.
There is a limit to a limited number of programmers can do in a
limited amount of time on a limited budget. One game cannot excel in
every single aspect and still cost a reasonable amount of money.
That's why genres exist. Each genre excels in certain things.
Shooters emphasize graphics and 3d. RPGs aim more for exploration and
character development.
This doesn't mean that an RPG must have poor graphics, it means that
when making an RPG, choices have to be made. Do they spend their time
making a eye-pleasing shallow, empty game, or do they spend their time
developing an incredibly complex world. Most RPGs would go with the
more complex world. In the real world, there are always trade-offs.
I find it pathetic that you wouldn't play the game for more than two
hours because it didn't have Quake-ish graphics. Well, how 'bout
this... I won't play Quake because it doesn't have hardly any
features.
Pretty graphics... Yes (debatable if they are pretty.)
Character development Nope
Elaborate world Not as such.
Weapon/Armor Selection Not really (less than 10 weapons?)
Non-linear story Certainly not.
A character party Nein.
So I should just go bitch in the Quake area that the game just doesn't
have the features, and the programmers are all lazy?
If you couldn't play the game for more than two hours because of bad
graphics(which I contest), you really need to reconsider your stance
that you are in fact a RPG fan. I can't find a single thing wrong
with this game. All the complaints I have heard I consider to be
minor points. No other game has captured my attention so much in a
long time. Not since WOX anyway.
Dave
Patrick Andersson
> Maybe you've never been a programmer or designer for a major game.
> Adding features to the core game takes time, and when you have a
> set deadline for a game, you don't sit at the drawing board thinking to
> yourself, "Hmm, what can i do to please all those users who have [3D
> Cards / TI-85 / Linux]?". You sit there thinking, "What can I do to
> please the _majority_ of all the users?" Sure, it may look like almost
> everyone has a kick-ass 3D card, but unfortunately that is not the case.
No, not everyone. But many, so many that most game developers make sure theyalso
support hardware accelleration. If I've spent a lot of cash buying an accellerator
then I also want the game developers to be kind enough to support it. Most of the
time this is never a problem since 99% of all new 3D games support either
Direct3D/Glide/OpenGL or often all of these.
> Product timing and pricing is a very critical aspect that a lot of
> consumers shrug off. If producers and developers had an infinite supply
> of resources to work off of, _then_ I'd see your point about waiting. But
> incorporating something such as hardware acceleration is a big step, and
> obviously one they chose to pass up in order to get the game out. IMHO,
> they made a fine choice.
> I'd trade off pretty alpha-blended explosions and bump-mapped walls
> anytime for good RPG elements found in MM6.
>
There doesnt *need* to be a trade off in most cases. I guess the story with MM6 is
a bit different, since they *did* 3D accelleration, but it didnt work out.
Why do you people think games like Unreal etc. sells so good? Because of the
"great" story? Because you get to shot aliens? No. Because of the gorgeous graphics
and special effects which makes the atmosphere in a game so much more fun even if
it has a lame story. MM6 would have appealed to this very large group of people
also and it would have sold *a lot* more. It's seems like some people in this NG
can't understand that most people that likes Unreal, Quake etc. also loves RPG's,
strategy, and adventure games. I don't think there is anyone who only plays action
games. There are some people in this NG that ONLY plays RPG's, that's for sure
;-)..
--
Patrick
Martin Pazderka
>There is a limit to a limited number of programmers can do in a
>limited amount of time on a limited budget.
If this is the reason MM6 lacks 3D-Accel, then hell - they should
point it out clearly, and stop that wimpy excuses like the textures
are too large blah blah...
Most of us will understand time/money constraints during a game
development, but those excuses are lame.
CU
Lost Dragon
>also and it would have sold *a lot* more. It's seems like some people in this NG
>can't understand that most people that likes Unreal, Quake etc. also loves RPG's,
>strategy, and adventure games. I don't think there is anyone who only plays action
Origin is apparently building U9 with gamers like this one in mind.
Personally, I don't like my PC Game genres mixed around. Let Quake be
Quake. Let Ultima be Ultima. Not every game has to have action
sequences, a bunch of eye-candy, FMV, or busty women running around.
/| .oo__. .-----.=- Lost Dragon -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- Dungeon Bane: A New Shareware CRPG -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --===| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`=====-- Currently in Development --====='-----' C
Patrick Andersson
> Spoken like someone who has never programmed a thing in his life.
> limited amount of time on a limited budget.
3D accelleration and configurable keyboard/mouse isn't really too much to ask for.
C'mon, that's two things! One of them which almost made it, one of them which
could easily be fixed (and maybe it will).
> One game cannot excel in
> every single aspect and still cost a reasonable amount of money.
> That's why genres exist. Each genre excels in certain things.
> Shooters emphasize graphics and 3d. RPGs aim more for exploration and
> character development.
Genres exists because different people prefer different games at different times.
Just like with music, movies, food, whatever. A strategy game with jump’n run
action and character development wouldn’t appeal to a very large group of people.
Quake with character development and a great story would be nice, but nothing I
would prefer to play after coming home tired from work. Sometime you just don't
want to get involved in a story or think a lot.
> This doesn't mean that an RPG must have poor graphics, it means that
> when making an RPG, choices have to be made. Do they spend their time
> making a eye-pleasing shallow, empty game, or do they spend their time
> developing an incredibly complex world. Most RPGs would go with the
> more complex world. In the real world, there are always trade-offs.
>
> I find it pathetic that you wouldn't play the game for more than two
> hours because it didn't have Quake-ish graphics. Well, how 'bout
> this... I won't play Quake because it doesn't have hardly any
> features.
See the above comment regarding Quake.
I guess i'm too spoilt by games such as Unreal to be able to accept the graphics
in MM6. And I didnt like that there wasnt a key to turn "always run" on and off in
MM6 either or the lack of mouse support when moving around. Guess I'm kinda spoilt
by not having to press a key 90% of the time in a game and not having to use the
keyboard to walk with. In my oppinion these things matters. I didn't find the
story to be so interesting that I couldnt stop playing it either.
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
Lost Dragon wrote:
> Personally, I don't like my PC Game genres mixed around. Let Quake be
> Quake. Let Ultima be Ultima. Not every game has to have action
> sequences, a bunch of eye-candy, FMV, or busty women running around.
>
Having hardware accelleration in MM6 wouldnt have turned the game into a FPS like
Quake. It would have been the same, but with better and smoother graphics. I can't
really understand arguments like these.
--
Patrick
Christopher A. Tew
This was said on Thu, 28 May 1998 02:08:26 -0500. Why? Only Lost Dragon
knows.
> >also and it would have sold *a lot* more. It's seems like some people in this NG
> >can't understand that most people that likes Unreal, Quake etc. also loves RPG's,
> >strategy, and adventure games. I don't think there is anyone who only plays action
>
> Origin is apparently building U9 with gamers like this one in mind.
CRPGers who like nice graphics?
>
> Personally, I don't like my PC Game genres mixed around. Let Quake be
> Quake. Let Ultima be Ultima. Not every game has to have action
> sequences, a bunch of eye-candy, FMV, or busty women running around.
That's not the point. The point is that MM6 could have looked and run
much better than it does while keeping the RPG elements that it does
have. Thus, people who like nice and smooth graphics but who haven't
played many CRPGs would possibly have been attracted to MM6 and CRPGs in
general. Would that be a bad thing?
Oh, and if you don't like your game genres mixed, then you should
probably get out of computer gaming post-haste. CRPGs are hybriding with
RTS games (Baldur's Gate) and action games (MM6). RTS games are being
mated with shooters (Uprising, Battlezone). Adventure games and CRPGs
are coming closer together (FF7, QFG5). Shooters will be getting more
CRPG (Daikatana) and strategy (Metal Gear: Solid Snake, Messiah, Dark
Project, Spec Ops) elements. Flight sims and strategy are coming
together (TAW, possibly IAF) in a way.
While pure genre games (Unreal, Quake 3) will continue to exist, computer
games are evolving towards mixed genres. When done right, a hybrid is
better than the sum of its parts; it provides a more complete experience.
-Cat
--
"Eddy! Look! I'm cheating to win! I'm cheating to win!"
Jena
>1. If they made a patch for hardware accelleration. Not only it would
>look a lot better, it would be much smoother. I get 15-20 FPS using a
>P266MHz MMX (overclocked) and a overclocked Stealth 2 graphics card.
>Nice graphics adds much to gameplay and atmosphere in a game. If I'm
>gonna look at this game for approx 100-150 hours, then the graphics
>really need to be better/smoother than this.
>
Jezus another whining idiot about 3d quality of this great game! Wake
up Quakeboy... if you're looking for some f&cking dumb 3d support, go
play Unreal.
Patrick Andersson
ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 1998 19:22:19 +0200, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, you could use your
> >imagination(you have to do that a lot when playing tradtional RPG's with books) but
> >then they've missed the whole point of a CRPG.
>
> Which is to hinder you in using your imagination?
>
Not my point. Computers are capable of producing wonderfull 3D graphics and special
effects, not only "making the mechanics transparent". It's stupid not to use it fully
and only use it for some purposes. There are many advantages of letting a CRPG have
special effects and gorgeous looking graphics:
First, It draws peoples attention like nothing else (sad maybe, but true). Because it
draws peoples (and not only CRPG:ers) attention, more people will get interested in the
product.
Second, the more people who gets interested in the product / sees the product in
magazines, at E3, whatever, the more people will buy it. And that is important for the
CRPG genre so it can continue to evolve both graphically and gameplay wise.
I'm getting really tired of this. I've mentioned many things why MM6/RPG's in general
would have been much better with hardware accelleration, and none in this thread has
came up with *anything* that can prove me the opposite. You people really need to work
on your arguments.
> I was under the impression that the whole point of a CRPG was to make
> all of the mechanics transparent and let you get on with the Role
> Playing.
See the above.
--
Patrick
Peter Seebach
In article <356D840C...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>I'm getting really tired of this. I've mentioned many things why MM6/RPG's in
>general would have been much better with hardware accelleration, and none in
>this thread has came up with *anything* that can prove me the opposite. You
>people really need to work on your arguments.
What about the "apparently it's slower because it needs too much texture
memory" argument?
You haven't yet offered any proof that MM6 could ever have been 3D accelerated
and come out faster.
Sure, you *say* it would have been faster, but can you show me MM6 running
faster with 3D hardware? If not, you're just guessing, same as everyone
else.
Except the developers. They're not *guessing*.
I agree - if it were possible for the computer to produce better graphics, I'd
like it to.
Patrick Andersson
Jena wrote:
> Jezus another whining idiot about 3d quality of this great game! Wake
> up Quakeboy... if you're looking for some f&cking dumb 3d support, go
> play Unreal.
The only whining idiots in this NG are the ones that belive that there
arent people who both enjoy graphics AND roleplaying. And that there are
*many* people who are both "Quakers" AND "RPG:ers". Either shut up, or
come up with something creative like "why 3D CRPG's dont need hardware
accelleration".
--
Patrick
Andrew Hardin
>> Spoken like someone who has never programmed a thing in his life.
>> There is a limit to a limited number of programmers can do in a
>> limited amount of time on a limited budget.
>
>3D accelleration and configurable keyboard/mouse isn't really too much to ask for.
>C'mon, that's two things! One of them which almost made it, one of them which
>could easily be fixed (and maybe it will).
Okay, Patrick, please defend your statement. What would be required
to reconfigure the keyboard control and mouse control? Easily fixed?
How?
- Drew
Patrick Andersson
Andrew Hardin wrote:
I can easily refrain that and ask you, or NWC really since it's them who's making the
game: Why couldnt it be fixed? Upgrades, patches and modifications are made all the
time to most/all games. Just because a game can be bought and is delivered in a nice
box doesnt mean it's 100% complete.
--
Patrick
> - Drew
Patrick Andersson
ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 1998 19:22:19 +0200, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, you could use your
> >imagination(you have to do that a lot when playing tradtional RPG's with books) but
> >then they've missed the whole point of a CRPG.
>
> Which is to hinder you in using your imagination?
Not my point. Computers are capable of producing wonderfull 3D graphics and
specialeffects, and not only for "making the mechanics transparent". It's stupid not to
use it fully
and only use it for some purposes. There are many advantages of letting a CRPG have
special effects and gorgeous looking graphics:
First, It draws peoples attention like nothing else (sad maybe, but true). Because it
draws peoples (and not only CRPG:ers) attention, more people will get interested in the
product. Second, the more people who gets interested in the product / sees the product
in
magazines, at E3, whatever, the more people will buy it. And that is important for the
CRPG genre so it can continue to evolve both graphically and gameplay wise.
I'm getting really tired of this. I've mentioned many things why MM6/RPG's in general
would have been much better with hardware accelleration, and none in this thread has
came up with *anything* that can prove me the opposite(except for lame excuses that it
would take to much time
--
Patrick
Andrew Hardin
>Andrew Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 May 1998 09:30:56 +0200, Patrick Andersson
>> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Spoken like someone who has never programmed a thing in his life.
>> >> There is a limit to a limited number of programmers can do in a
>> >> limited amount of time on a limited budget.
>> >
>> >3D accelleration and configurable keyboard/mouse isn't really too much to ask for.
>> >C'mon, that's two things! One of them which almost made it, one of them which
>> >could easily be fixed (and maybe it will).
>>
>> Okay, Patrick, please defend your statement. What would be required
>> to reconfigure the keyboard control and mouse control? Easily fixed?
>> How?
>>
>
>I can easily refrain that and ask you, or NWC really since it's them who's making the
>game: Why couldnt it be fixed? Upgrades, patches and modifications are made all the
>time to most/all games. Just because a game can be bought and is delivered in a nice
>box doesnt mean it's 100% complete.
A correct statement. However, you claimed it was easily fixed. Don't
assume that it is. If the input controls are sufficiently abstracted,
then it could be as simple as changing the code which maps the input
to a particular function, in which case it might not be too hard. Or
there could be a good bit of functionality specific to each particular
form of input (probably not the way they did it, but you never know),
and it would be harder to rethink. Handling mouse events can be a
good bit trickier than keyboard input (typically speaking), though one
can 'reasonably' assume the programmers are familiar with the
problems.
As for your statements about 3D graphics, I suggest you read the
material on DirectX and 3D cards in general. My experiences with this
artform were interesting, but I realized very quickly it would take me
a good while to be comfortable with all the quirks. If the
programmers felt they had to remove what would be a great feature,
then I suspect they did so for solid reasons, quite possibly the
memory constraints people babble on about. Insufficient memory will
cause a system to drag badly, and just because the Quake II
programmers (notice that there aren't that many people who can do what
those fellows do) managed it doesn't make it possible for large
outdoor areas like you see in MM6. When it comes to system
bottlenecks, you have certain thresholds you generally cannot exceed
without causing a massive drop in speed (I have noticed that my
programs run almost 50% as fast using only a couple of megs of virtual
memory under certain circumstances).
Anyhow, don't go assuming this stuff is easy. It isn't. I know
several people who think they are the great programmers, and in many
ways they are. But I have seen them try to build an entire game, and
the task is daunting. 3D accelerated graphics would have been nice,
and as the years go by I will more and more expect it. However, MM6
strengths far outweigh the weaknesses, and I truly feel your
expectations are somewhat unreasonable.
- Drew
NFLed
>Computers are capable of producing wonderfull 3D graphics and
>specialeffects, and not only for "making the mechanics transparent". It's
>stupid not to
>use it fully
>and only use it for some purposes. There are many advantages of letting a
>CRPG have
>special effects and gorgeous looking graphics:
>
>First, It draws peoples attention like nothing else (sad maybe, but true).
>Because it
>draws peoples (and not only CRPG:ers) attention, more people will get
>interested in the
>product. Second, the more people who gets interested in the product / sees
>the product
>in
>magazines, at E3, whatever, the more people will buy it. And that is
>important for the
>CRPG genre so it can continue to evolve both graphically and gameplay wise.
>
>I'm getting really tired of this. I've mentioned many things why MM6/RPG's in
>general
>would have been much better with hardware accelleration, and none in this
>thread has
>came up with *anything* that can prove me the opposite(except for lame
>excuses that it
>would take to much time
Of all that you've heard you haven't understood any of it? How is the
argument that it might take a lot of time lame?? Also, do we know that
NWC could simply do it without removing some other good feature
of the game? Do you know that for certain?
The point is that it doesn't need 3D support and, while this is of course
my opinion, sales and most reviews seem to say that this opinion is not
in the minority.
Yes state your case that you want 3D blah blah blah (I don't feel that 3D
support is particularly important) so that companies will know for the
future but if you state that a company is stupid for releasing a game
like MM6 without 3D support I think that's a totally ridiculous
statement since many of us are enjoying the game "despite" its lack
of 3D support. And ridiculous statements get lots of emotional
responses.
Ed B.
Patrick Mcginley
Patrick Andersson (sens...@mail.bip.net) scribbled something about:
: The only whining idiots in this NG are the ones that belive that there
: arent people who both enjoy graphics AND roleplaying. And that there are
: *many* people who are both "Quakers" AND "RPG:ers". Either shut up, or
: come up with something creative like "why 3D CRPG's dont need hardware
: accelleration".
How about this as an argument against hardware accel: I have a 3dfx card,
but I am already sick of the smooth texturing over everything. Those pale,
crappy colors and the like. I like the bright, vibrant sprites. I would
not pay more for 3dfx enhancement. I think the graphics are good.
You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
The reason you don't understand why companies don't give it all, is that
it's guns or butter (graphics vs gameplay.) There is a tradeoff, consumers
will only pay so much for a game, and while it might be an incredible game
if the devote more to 3dfx, based on sales projections/amount of RPGers
with 3Dfx cards/whatnot they determined that it was more pennywise to
invest limited resources into fun/playability/RPG elements to please
the larger RPG market.
You represent a small sample of the RPG market, and I don't think you share
the views of 50,000 others, as you claim.
However, someone who only played the game for 2 hours by his own admission
who feels the need to complain about the complexity of the bitmaps like he
knows what he's talking about is obviously a nincompoop.
: --
: Patrick
--
.......................................................................
Man as an individual is a genius. But men in the mass form the Headless
Monster, a great, brutish idiot that goes where prodded. - Chaplin
+Patrick McGinley+
NFLed
>I think most people prefer good, fluid graphics over jerky
>graphics/movements and large ugly pixels. If most people didnt prefer smooth
>graphics, then 3DFX/direct 3D wouldnt have existed. Most(all?) new 3Dgames do
>use 3DFX or Direct3D and future 3D RPG's will use it also, Everquest, Ultima9
>etc.
Patrick, is there such a game as you seem to imply is not that difficult
to create? A good rpg (as we define the term here, good story,
good quests, etc., whatever those of us who enjoy MM6 like about
it) with full 3D support? Is there a game like this currently on the
market?
If so I'd be interested in it. I suspect that the answer is no and that it
is therefore theoretical that such a game "should" be made -- "if
Quake and other games can have 3D support why can't rpg's"?
Theory is fine but requires a lot more of a resume than I'd be
interested in viewing for me to believe one person's theory
over another's.
If the answer is yes (and hopefully more than just a single yes)
then either I'm just not seeing it or my definition of a
"good rpg" is different (for example, if you say that Lands of
Lore 2 is a "good rpg" with 3D support I will subjectively
strongly disagree).
Ed B.
Patrick Andersson
Patrick Mcginley wrote:
> Patrick Andersson (sens...@mail.bip.net) scribbled something about:
>
> : The only whining idiots in this NG are the ones that belive that there
> : arent people who both enjoy graphics AND roleplaying. And that there are
> : *many* people who are both "Quakers" AND "RPG:ers". Either shut up, or
> : come up with something creative like "why 3D CRPG's dont need hardware
> : accelleration".
>
> How about this as an argument against hardware accel: I have a 3dfx card,
> but I am already sick of the smooth texturing over everything. Those pale,
> crappy colors and the like. I like the bright, vibrant sprites. I would
> not pay more for 3dfx enhancement. I think the graphics are good.
Textures doesnt need to be smooth/blurry with hardware accelleration, it all
depends on the game and if it use 8 bit textures, 16 bit textures etc. Look at
Unreal; the textures are VERY detailed even up close. Pale colors? I don't know
what 3DFX game you are refering to, but I'm sure there are 3DFX games in which
the colors are pale, but again, that has nothing to do with the accelleration
itself.
This is a *very* stupid argument as well, because you can run almost every 3D
game in unaccellerated mode too if that is what you prefer. I find it strange
that you bought a 3DFX card in the first place if you prefer to run 3D games
unaccellerated(which I think is a complete lie).
> You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
> NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
>
Why should they? Story isnt important at all in a FPS game like Quake, most
people only play it in deathmatch anyways. If I want a game with story and much
interaction then I'd buy a RPG, If I want a game where I don't need to care
about character develompment, quests, and a deep story etc. etc. then I buy
Unreal. Sometimes I prefer a shoter, sometimes I prefer a RPG, it all depends
in what mood I'm in. Just like listening to music or whatever.
> You represent a small sample of the RPG market, and I don't think you share
> the views of 50,000 others, as you claim.
>
Uum, I think most people prefer good, fluid graphics over jerky
graphics/movements and large ugly pixels. If most people didnt prefer smooth
graphics, then 3DFX/direct 3D wouldnt have existed. Most(all?) new 3Dgames do
use 3DFX or Direct3D and future 3D RPG's will use it also, Everquest, Ultima9
etc.
--
Patrick
Jena
>Jena wrote:
>
>> Jezus another whining idiot about 3d quality of this great game! Wake
>> up Quakeboy... if you're looking for some f&cking dumb 3d support, go
>> play Unreal.
>
>The only whining idiots in this NG are the ones that belive that there
>arent people who both enjoy graphics AND roleplaying. And that there are
>*many* people who are both "Quakers" AND "RPG:ers". Either shut up, or
>come up with something creative like "why 3D CRPG's dont need hardware
>accelleration".
Where were you months ago when this NG was full of "why no 3d
support"? Sitting on the moon with your head in your ass?
Newworld said then that there will be NO 3d support for M&M 6 and you
can cry about it, stand on your head about it (as so many others tried
months agooooo.......) but they won't do any d3d or 3dfx support and
instead of complaining why don't you program a patch for 3dfx support
and prove Newworld wrong. That would be constructive instead of
whining and crying because your precious expensive 3dcards sit there
in your computer with the only reason of heating up the inside of the
computer!!
Patrick Andersson
NFLed wrote:
> Of all that you've heard you haven't understood any of it? How is the
> argument that it might take a lot of time lame??
Cause it's not true. I've answerd this before. If you are going to participate in
a discussion, then please make sure that you've read the whole thread.But i'll be
kind enough to tell you once more:
1. Might & Magic 6 should have used it, but they had some problems and couldnt get
it to work. I can understand that they couldn't start over from the begining and
make a completely new 3D engine. But if they hadn't fucked up, I'm sure that the
game would have been exactly the same, only better looking.
2. There are other RPG's in the works using 3DFX/Direct3D. I dont think the
creators of these RPG's are making a less interesting story just becacause they
also are making it hardware accellerated.I don't think these games will cost $120
either (that some people in this NG thinks). I don't think it'll take forever to
create these game either. Everquest is a good example.
> Also, do we know that
> NWC could simply do it without removing some other good feature
> of the game? Do you know that for certain?
They havent said anything about removing "good features from the game" because of
making the game hardware accellerated. They said they didnt do it because of
problems with the textures. If they had used your argument "that they had to
remove good features from the game", then it would have worked better. I'm most
certain that they would have said this insted of saying "problems with textures"
which pisses some people off.
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
NFLed wrote:
> Patrick, is there such a game as you seem to imply is not that difficult
> to create? A good rpg (as we define the term here, good story,
> good quests, etc., whatever those of us who enjoy MM6 like about
> it) with full 3D support? Is there a game like this currently on the
> market?
Nope. There arent many new 3D RPGs on the market at all. But to think that future
3D RPGs wont use harware accelleration because of trade offs or because it takes
to much time is ridiculous. If 3D accelleration was so difficult to create/take so
much time then 3DFX accellerated games in general wouldnt have existed. Nice
graphics sells, a good story sells, I'm sure that this is what game developers
knows also. Why do you think they tried to get MM6 accellerated? Beacuse most
people would have prefered it.
> If so I'd be interested in it. I suspect that the answer is no and that it
> is therefore theoretical that such a game "should" be made -- "if
> Quake and other games can have 3D support why can't rpg's"?
> Theory is fine but requires a lot more of a resume than I'd be
> interested in viewing for me to believe one person's theory
> over another's.
> If the answer is yes (and hopefully more than just a single yes)
> then either I'm just not seeing it or my definition of a
> "good rpg" is different (for example, if you say that Lands of
> Lore 2 is a "good rpg" with 3D support I will subjectively
> strongly disagree).
>
The problem right now on the 3D RPG market is that there is no competion between
different companies about who's making the best looking hardware accellerated 3D
RPG game. When the first *good* hardware accellerated 3D RPG becomes available on
the market, reviewers and customers are going to compare this game with the
unaccellerated ones. Then game developers need to rethink; "are we going to
release a better looking RPG than the current one available or are we going to
continue to use software rendering?" The anwer is for most certain "no, we'll make
a much better RPG with better story, better graphics".
This is the reason I bought MM6, I knew it wasnt using hardware accelleration, but
since there are no other good RPGs on the market i bought it anyways. I think the
RPG market is going to grow, they sell quite good. There are even FPS games in the
works but with RPG elements, not true RPGs, but at least they show where we're
heading. RPG's are going to evolve(and not only "mechanicaly", but also graphics
wise) just like any other genre.
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
> Where were you months ago when this NG was full of "why no 3d
> support"? Sitting on the moon with your head in your ass?
> Newworld said then that there will be NO 3d support for M&M 6 and you
> can cry about it, stand on your head about it (as so many others tried
> months agooooo.......) but they won't do any d3d or 3dfx support and
> instead of complaining why don't you program a patch for 3dfx support
> and prove Newworld wrong. That would be constructive instead of
> whining and crying because your precious expensive 3dcards sit there
> in your computer with the only reason of heating up the inside of the
> computer!!
If you are going to participate in a discussion:
1. Make sure you'vre read the whole thread and not only one or two posts, I'm
not only talking about MM6.
2. At least try to act/write like a grown up and/or try to come up with a
good argument why 3D RPGs in general is better without hardware
accelleration. And I'm not anwering stuff that I've answered 5-10 times
already. Read prevoius posts and reply to them.
3. You're still the whining ones, I'm still the one who's writing the facts.
--
Patrick
Patrick Mcginley
Patrick Andersson (sens...@mail.bip.net) scribbled something about:
Nice how you feel the need to point out subjective matters and argue
against them, but you snip out areas that show you for the silly person
you are.
You stated yourself you only played this game for 2 hours. Yet in several
posts, you claim that their bitmaps can be done easily with 3d accel, yet
you also know nothing of programming, as can be identified by your posts.
This newsgroup, while not the most technical, can get this way at times.
If you feel the need to defend a defenseless position out of ignorance, go
back to alt.games.quake, or kick back and learn something.
Look, it's painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
You claim no one can argue against harware accel. and yet when someone
does, you ignore it - or when someone argues about the financial aspects
of making super accelerated RPG, you ignore it.
: This is a *very* stupid argument as well, because you can run almost every 3D
: game in unaccellerated mode too if that is what you prefer. I find it strange
: that you bought a 3DFX card in the first place if you prefer to run 3D games
: unaccellerated(which I think is a complete lie).
I like 3dfx when framerate is the most important thing, not when I want
beautiful graphics. I want to kill in online quake, not stop and look at
the beautiful textures. Stupid not.
: > You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
: > NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
: >
: Why should they? Story isnt important at all in a FPS game like Quake, most
: people only play it in deathmatch anyways. If I want a game with story and much
: interaction then I'd buy a RPG, If I want a game where I don't need to care
: about character develompment, quests, and a deep story etc. etc. then I buy
: Unreal. Sometimes I prefer a shoter, sometimes I prefer a RPG, it all depends
: in what mood I'm in. Just like listening to music or whatever.
: > You represent a small sample of the RPG market, and I don't think you share
: > the views of 50,000 others, as you claim.
: >
: Uum, I think most people prefer good, fluid graphics over jerky
: graphics/movements and large ugly pixels. If most people didnt prefer smooth
: graphics, then 3DFX/direct 3D wouldnt have existed. Most(all?) new 3Dgames do
: use 3DFX or Direct3D and future 3D RPG's will use it also, Everquest, Ultima9
: etc.
Mammoth framerate does not automatically equal more fun. It's that simple.
Patrick Andersson
Patrick Mcginley wrote:
> Patrick Andersson (sens...@mail.bip.net) scribbled something about:
>
> Nice how you feel the need to point out subjective matters and argue
> against them, but you snip out areas that show you for the silly person
> you are.
>
> You stated yourself you only played this game for 2 hours. Yet in several
> posts, you claim that their bitmaps can be done easily with 3d accel
Actualy I've played it for about 12-15 hrs now, I've given up the hopes for a patch
;-).
Do you really think that the textures looks bigger in MM6 than in eg. Unreal or
Quake2? Are they less repeative(the patterns) than in most hardware accellerated
games? I think they are not.
About graphics; you said it yourself: "I want to kill in online quake, not stop and
look at
the beautiful textures. Stupid not." In FPS games you run around and shot at stuff
most of the time. RPG's are slower, you wander around and explore a lot and therefore
the graphics becomes even more intense than in a FPS. I've said this before: graphics
should be even more important in RPG's than in FPS games.
> , yet
> you also know nothing of programming, as can be identified by your posts.
> This newsgroup, while not the most technical, can get this way at times.
> If you feel the need to defend a defenseless position out of ignorance, go
> back to alt.games.quake, or kick back and learn something.
>
> Look, it's painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
> You claim no one can argue against harware accel. and yet when someone
> does, you ignore it - or when someone argues about the financial aspects
> of making super accelerated RPG, you ignore it.
>
I think I've defended my statements quite well thank you. I think it's you who are
ignoring the fact that most people like hardware accelleration and all the special
effects/better graphics/framrates that is possible with it. I've answered why it's
possible in a RPG too, still no one have come up with a good argument against..:
Still we have the facts that accellerated RPG's are in the works.If they're going to
be better than MM6 gameplay wise remains to be seen. Still we have the fact that MM6
was accellerated, and if it had worked it would have been the same game, only with
better graphics. The only reason they didnt do it was beacuse of the textures(If you
would call smaller textures a trade off then I would strongly disagree with you).
> : This is a *very* stupid argument as well, because you can run almost every 3D
> : game in unaccellerated mode too if that is what you prefer. I find it strange
> : that you bought a 3DFX card in the first place if you prefer to run 3D games
> : unaccellerated(which I think is a complete lie).
>
> I like 3dfx when framerate is the most important thing, not when I want
> beautiful graphics. I want to kill in online quake, not stop and look at
> the beautiful textures. Stupid not.
So, you think graphics are more beautiful without hardware accelleration...? Ok, fine
but most people don't and that is a fact. Hardware accelleration do add a lot of
features(not only better framerate) to graphics that is just not possible with a
regular graphics card. That is also a fact. Are you really sure that you have a 3DFX
card..? I'm starting to doubt..
You've seen any "out of this world lightning effects" when casting a spell or walking
thru a portal in MM6? Don't think so. Seen any reflective floors or mirrors? I
haven't. I think 3DFX rocks compared to software rendering. Either you are insane/not
knowing what you're talking about, or you just want to argue about something that is
totaly defenceless.
> : > You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
> : > NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
> : >
>
> : Why should they? Story isnt important at all in a FPS game like Quake, most
> : people only play it in deathmatch anyways. If I want a game with story and much
> : interaction then I'd buy a RPG, If I want a game where I don't need to care
> : about character develompment, quests, and a deep story etc. etc. then I buy
> : Unreal. Sometimes I prefer a shoter, sometimes I prefer a RPG, it all depends
> : in what mood I'm in. Just like listening to music or whatever.
>
> : > You represent a small sample of the RPG market, and I don't think you share
> : > the views of 50,000 others, as you claim.
> : >
>
> : Uum, I think most people prefer good, fluid graphics over jerky
> : graphics/movements and large ugly pixels. If most people didnt prefer smooth
> : graphics, then 3DFX/direct 3D wouldnt have existed. Most(all?) new 3Dgames do
> : use 3DFX or Direct3D and future 3D RPG's will use it also, Everquest, Ultima9
> : etc.
>
> Mammoth framerate does not automatically equal more fun. It's that simple.
You're absoloutely right. A game must have more than fast framerates. But a game must
have more than just a good story too. So, does better graphics equals better
gameplay? That is very subjective and I guess we could continue arguing about that
for as long as we live....
--
Patrick
Gorgeous George
On Wed, 27 May 1998 01:32:12 +0200, Patrick Andersson
<sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>You must be the perfect customer. ;-) If everyone ignored graphics,
>controlling methods
>etc we would still be playing Bards Tale.
Don't you mean Moria? :)
>controlls. Customers/reviewers got to complain about stuff like this! If we
I agree. Certain people seem to be under the impression that if they
say anything bad about the game, everyone at NWC will have a mental
breakdown and be unable to complete MM7.
>don't then how is it ever going to get any better..? Graphics and controlling
>isn't just some small details in a game(even if it's an RPG). Without good
>graphics, no real atmosphere. Without good controlls, gameplay suffers to
>much to get you into the game.
In all honesty, it'd take a lot more than a graphics overhaul to give
the game "real atmosphere," interesting NPCs for starters. I've never
felt M&M had much atmosphere, actually. Just as soon as you start
taking it seriously you end up in a space ship fighting robots.
>much OR getting so many postive reviews if it werent for this. I knew it was
>unaccellerated, I've heard that the controlls were bad. I bought it anyways
>to see if I could stand it. I suppose a lot of other people did the same
>thing. Some could stand it some hated it.. Pure luck I'm not a game reviewer
You could always add a review at Gamespot. :)
Galadin
Patrick Andersson wrote:
Okay, I hate to jump in on this thread this late, but Patrick, your assumptions are
wrong. When NWC made their 3D engine, they decided on some basic decisions. One of
these decisions is very important to the discussion here, that is the fact that they
want to load up as much of the world into memory as possible. This way they can
negate the speed loss of CD-ROM reads and Hard Drive reads. Everquest has decided
that the graphics were more important in their case.
I prefer NWC answer as it allows the game to run on lower end machines with a greater
speed than Everquest will. But this does not allow the use of our current 3D video
cards. The reason is due to the low texture memory. Most of the installed cards only
have 1MB of texture memory. If NWC were to use this, then the dungeons would either
have to load up each new room into the video card, causing a loss of speed for this
bus write on older machines, they would also have to reduce the size of their
textures. This would result in dungeons that look like Quake, the same tile set used
throughout. I personally would not appreciate this.
When you move into the outside, the problem becomes even worse. Walk into the middle
of any of the towns and look around at all of the buildings. How many unique textures
do you see applied? Now, how much memory do you think those textures take? I will
guarantee you that it is more than 1MB of memory. Is this problem going to stay this
way? No, with the advent of AGP graphics and higher busspeeds then even complex worlds
like those seen in M&M6 can be created using 3D acceleration. NWC might even have
been able to do this with M&M6, but then the minimum requirements would have been an
Pentium II system with a 100MHz bus, a new AGP card and a fast CD-ROM drive. It would
also have pushed the development date back another year. NWC decided that this was
not a viable option and went with their current engine. This engine is the most
advanced graphics engine ever seen in an RPG.
Galadin
Mike Weldon
In article <356F0B34...@mail.bip.net> Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> writes:
>Patrick Mcginley wrote:
>Actualy I've played it for about 12-15 hrs now, I've given up the hopes for a patch
>;-).
No one ever said there was going to be a patch. So there's no reason to
get your hopes up.
>Do you really think that the textures looks bigger in MM6 than in eg. Unreal or
>Quake2? Are they less repeative(the patterns) than in most hardware accellerated
>games? I think they are not.
Indoors maybe not, but outdoors definitly. Accelerating the indoor engine
and not the outdoor would be silly and require extra work.
>About graphics; you said it yourself: "I want to kill in online quake, not stop and
>look at
>the beautiful textures. Stupid not." In FPS games you run around and shot at stuff
>most of the time. RPG's are slower, you wander around and explore a lot and therefore
>the graphics becomes even more intense than in a FPS. I've said this before: graphics
>should be even more important in RPG's than in FPS games.
Ideally all games would have perfect, life-like graphics. However both engines
and plotlines require time to create. Given a finite amount of time to develop
a game, tradeoffs have to be made. Either make a perfect engine with no plot,
or a perfect plot with a dated engine, or something in between. Good RPG's
require good plots, so they *typically* don't have the best engines. It is
a fact of life. Deal with it.
>I think I've defended my statements quite well thank you. I think it's you who are
>ignoring the fact that most people like hardware accelleration and all the special
>effects/better graphics/framrates that is possible with it. I've answered why it's
>possible in a RPG too, still no one have come up with a good argument against..:
Anything is possible, but possible and practical are not the same thing. I
like pretty graphics as much as anyone else, but given the choice, I prefer
a plot to glitz.
>Still we have the facts that accellerated RPG's are in the works.If they're going to
>be better than MM6 gameplay wise remains to be seen. Still we have the fact that MM6
>was accellerated, and if it had worked it would have been the same game, only with
>better graphics. The only reason they didnt do it was beacuse of the textures(If you
>would call smaller textures a trade off then I would strongly disagree with you).
"Smaller" usually means lower-resolution or lower-color-depth. I'm sure you
would notice a big difference if they halved the resolution of all the
textures, or rendered them with a 6-bit palette.
Mike
Gorgeous George
On 27 May 1998 15:54:15 GMT, rayr...@aol.com (RayRuenes) wrote:
> Speak for yourself. I'm running it on a nearly-obsolete Pentium 120 MHz with
>an old ATI 1 meg PCI video card, and I have no complaints. The pace and
Whooooooooooo, boy. I pity you when you hit the Baa Temple in
Hermit's Isle. That puppy sent my P2-266 into a 5 FPS tailspin at
times. :)
Patrick Andersson
Galadin wrote:
> Okay, I hate to jump in on this thread this late, but Patrick, your assumptions are
> wrong. When NWC made their 3D engine, they decided on some basic decisions. One of
> these decisions is very important to the discussion here, that is the fact that they
> want to load up as much of the world into memory as possible. This way they can
> negate the speed loss of CD-ROM reads and Hard Drive reads. Everquest has decided
> that the graphics were more important in their case.
>
> I prefer NWC answer as it allows the game to run on lower end machines with a greater
> speed than Everquest will.
MM6 runs like crap on my P200MMX@250MHz(83MHz buss speed) and a overclockedDiamond
Stealth2 4MB card. I'm sure Everquest will be much faster than MM6 on low-end systems, the
graphics in Everquest is no way near the graphics in Unreal. Unreal runs great on my
machine(s) compared to MM6.
> But this does not allow the use of our current 3D video
> cards. The reason is due to the low texture memory. Most of the installed cards only
> have 1MB of texture memory.
1MB?? I have 4MB of texture memory in my Voodoo(1) Hiscore3D card and 8MB of texture
memory in my Creative Labs Voodoo2 card. A standard Voodoo(1) card has 2MB of texture
memory, I haven't heard of any 3Dcards with just 1MB. My Stealth2 have 2MB also.
> If NWC were to use this, then the dungeons would either
> have to load up each new room into the video card, causing a loss of speed for this
> bus write on older machines, they would also have to reduce the size of their
> textures. This would result in dungeons that look like Quake, the same tile set used
> throughout. I personally would not appreciate this.
I think the variation of textures in games like Unreal or Jedi knight is more than
enough(Quake1 is a bad example, it has lousy and very repeative textures). Maybe I havent
played MM6 enough yet(approx 15hrs), but the variation of textures doesnt seem to be
better than in eg. Jedi Knight. And games such as Quake2, Unreal, JK: Mysteries of the
sith has lightning effects which makes the world look less "dead". I'm not saying MM6
should have the same lighning effects as in Unreal of course, beacuse it wouldnt fit in
the game. But at appropriate places such as some places in dungeons and for magical stuff
it would have been very cool.
> When you move into the outside, the problem becomes even worse. Walk into the middle
> of any of the towns and look around at all of the buildings. How many unique textures
> do you see applied? Now, how much memory do you think those textures take? I will
> guarantee you that it is more than 1MB of memory. Is this problem going to stay this
> way? No, with the advent of AGP graphics and higher busspeeds then even complex worlds
> like those seen in M&M6 can be created using 3D acceleration.
Sounds great! :)
> NWC might even have
> been able to do this with M&M6, but then the minimum requirements would have been an
> Pentium II system with a 100MHz bus, a new AGP card and a fast CD-ROM drive. It would
> also have pushed the development date back another year. NWC decided that this was
> not a viable option and went with their current engine. This engine is the most
> advanced graphics engine ever seen in an RPG.
>
> Galadin
Yes, it's much better than Elder Scrolls etc. but IMHO not good enough.. But as you said,
this will change in future 3D RPG's. Hm, at least someone in this thread that is neither
ignorant or stupid....
--
Patrick
Gorgeous George
On Wed, 27 May 1998 10:27:19 -0700, "Torsten Kablitz"
<nospam!tkab...@hst.com> wrote:
>Unitl then, I'm enjoying this game even if it is unplayable - odd though
>that I have been doing quite well in it.
Did you even think about what you wrote? At all?
"...I'm enjoying this game even if it is unplayable...."
That doesn't make any sense. Do you also enjoy root canals, the DMV,
and filling out income tax forms? Do you like to occasionally stick a
fork in a light socket while bathing in paint thinner? :)
Gorgeous George
On 28 May 1998 14:58:55 GMT, je...@it.mail (Jena) wrote:
>Jezus another whining idiot about 3d quality of this great game! Wake
>up Quakeboy... if you're looking for some f&cking dumb 3d support, go
>play Unreal.
He should probably do that anyway. I saw Unreal at Best Buy the other
day for $25! (After rebate, but still, that's amazing when competing
games are upwards of $50.)
Gorgeous George
On 28 May 1998 16:15:38 -0500, pat...@earth.execpc.com (Patrick
Mcginley) wrote:
>You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
>NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
Wow, you really picked the wrong topic to compare Quake and MM6 on.
MM6 might have a few more words in its "story," but the depth and
consistency is about equal. They're both about "a mysterous alien
race trying to take over the world" and they both nonchalantly blend
medieval and sci-fi elements.
>The reason you don't understand why companies don't give it all, is that
>it's guns or butter (graphics vs gameplay.) There is a tradeoff, consumers
>will only pay so much for a game, and while it might be an incredible game
No, they already have different people working on graphics and
different people working on design, so it would NOT add to the cost.
(And there shouldn't need to be a trade off!)
>However, someone who only played the game for 2 hours by his own admission
>who feels the need to complain about the complexity of the bitmaps like he
>knows what he's talking about is obviously a nincompoop.
Grow up.
Peter Seebach
In article <356F3A4A...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>MM6 runs like crap on my P200MMX@250MHz(83MHz buss speed) and a
>overclockedDiamond
>Stealth2 4MB card.
Well, that's your own damn fault, it ran great on my P200MMX (66 Mhz bus)
with an unaltered Mystique 220.
>1MB?? I have 4MB of texture memory in my Voodoo(1) Hiscore3D card and
>8MB of texture
>memory in my Creative Labs Voodoo2 card. A standard Voodoo(1) card has
>2MB of texture
>memory, I haven't heard of any 3Dcards with just 1MB. My Stealth2 have 2MB
>also.
Great, so the most expensive, highest end, 3D card made might be able to
squeeze the textures in with a lot of work. Sorry, but 10MB of textures
visible at once doesn't map well onto the toy hardware you can get in PC
land, and frankly, 95% of 3D card people will have 4MB cards - 2MB frame
buffer, 2MB texture memory.
It's also not totally clear that the card will get full performance using
all 8 MB for distinct textures; to quote
If only one texture processor is being used, it has access to both
banks of memory.
Peter Seebach
In article <35724db7....@news.feist.com>,
Gorgeous George <nos...@yada.yada.yada.com> wrote:
>On 28 May 1998 16:15:38 -0500, pat...@earth.execpc.com (Patrick
>Mcginley) wrote:
>>You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
>>NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
>Wow, you really picked the wrong topic to compare Quake and MM6 on.
You're crazy. It sounds like you completed the game without noticing it.
>MM6 might have a few more words in its "story," but the depth and
>consistency is about equal. They're both about "a mysterous alien
>race trying to take over the world" and they both nonchalantly blend
>medieval and sci-fi elements.
Okay, look at it this way.
In Quake, you start out knowing exactly what to do - kill everything, hit
anything that looks like a switch, and get to the exit. Repeat.
In MM6, there are quests that aren't that simple, and you don't start out
with an exact understanding of what the win condition is.
In Quake, if it moves, you shoot it.
In MM6, there are things that you don't want to shoot, and you can actually
interact with your environment. (Maybe not all that much, but plenty to
prove a point.)
>>The reason you don't understand why companies don't give it all, is that
>>it's guns or butter (graphics vs gameplay.) There is a tradeoff, consumers
>>will only pay so much for a game, and while it might be an incredible game
>No, they already have different people working on graphics and
>different people working on design, so it would NOT add to the cost.
>(And there shouldn't need to be a trade off!)
Huh?
Let's say you can afford 10 people. Are you saying I should have 10 people's
worth of work on the graphics, *and* 10 people's worth on the design?
There *is* a trade-off there. All engineering is trade-offs.
David Baker
>3. You're still the whining ones, I'm still the one who's writing the facts.
Where are these facts you keep claiming to be writing? All I've seen
(and yes, I've read every one of your posts) is you:
1. Speaking for a large majority of players, who you haven't ever
spoken with.
2. Ignoring everything NWC has tried to say about why they chose
not to use hardware-accelerated graphics.
3. PROVING you have no idea what you are talking about when it
comes to the benefits/limitations of the 3d cards.
4. Ignoring any concept of the inherent trade-offs when creating a
game. ("I just want the PERFECT gaming experience, but I only want to
spend $40.")
5. Missing the whole idea that some people don't consider the
polygon graphics to be beautiful. I, for one, find them to be
artificial looking, and hideous.
Do you honestly think that all the guys at NWC sat down and said,
"Wow, this could be a really awesome game if we put support for
hardware acceleration, but we won't because this is only an RPG.
Let's make up some bullshit reason why we can't. I don't think so.
If it had been feasible to add the support, I'm sure they would have
done it.
Please, if you are so troubled by NWC's decision not to provide
support, contact them about it. Let them tell you why they didn't.
And if you don't believe them, don't by their products.
Dave
Gorgeous George
On Sat, 30 May 1998 00:27:20 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
wrote:
>In article <35724db7....@news.feist.com>,
>Gorgeous George <nos...@yada.yada.yada.com> wrote:
>
>>Wow, you really picked the wrong topic to compare Quake and MM6 on.
>
>You're crazy. It sounds like you completed the game without noticing it.
That's exactly my point: there was nothing TO notice. PLEASE, Peter,
do tell me about the visible central plotline through the whole game
that I missed! As far as I know, the central plotline was about the
aliens (demons). You hear a little about it at the beginning (intro),
a little in the middle (knight promotion quest), and a little at the
end (final dungeon). The central plotline was completely superficial,
and completely UN-compelling.
>>MM6 might have a few more words in its "story," but the depth and
>>consistency is about equal. They're both about "a mysterous alien
>>race trying to take over the world" and they both nonchalantly blend
>>medieval and sci-fi elements.
>
>Okay, look at it this way.
>
>In Quake, you start out knowing exactly what to do - kill everything, hit
>anything that looks like a switch, and get to the exit. Repeat.
And MM6 is different how? :) (Right, the only difference is you
can't whack townspeople if you want light master, and you're concerned
with getting from the outside to the center, instead of the other way
around. Real big diff.)
>In MM6, there are quests that aren't that simple, and you don't start out
>with an exact understanding of what the win condition is.
And this has what to do with the story?
(BTW, I knew what the win condition was in MM6; based on the intro, I
figured I'd eventually face off with the boss of the aliens. That was
the only thing that made much sense in the demo at all.)
>In Quake, if it moves, you shoot it.
And MM6 is different how? :) (Townspeople. That's really just a
more aggrivating form of "don't shoot the explosive box if you're too
close to it.")
>In MM6, there are things that you don't want to shoot,
Only peasants. That's not a whole lot more over Quake, and it has
nothing to do with the story.
>and you can actually
>interact with your environment. (Maybe not all that much, but plenty to
>prove a point.)
No more than in Quake (treasure boxes = health/ammo boxes; both are
goodies you want).
>>No, they already have different people working on graphics and
>>different people working on design, so it would NOT add to the cost.
>>(And there shouldn't need to be a trade off!)
>
>Huh?
They have a design team and a graphics team, RIGHT? Each team
generally involves people who aren't in the other team, RIGHT?
>Let's say you can afford 10 people. Are you saying I should have 10 people's
>worth of work on the graphics, *and* 10 people's worth on the design?
Of course not. You're just trying to complicate a simple fact:
different people are in charge of different parts of the game. A
"fancy engine" and robust design do not have to be mutually exclusive
or require more money, because they already have seperate people
working on those seperate teams (programming and design).
>There *is* a trade-off there. All engineering is trade-offs.
Trade-offs within teams (3D acceleration vs. a zillion megs of
textures), sure. That wasn't what I was arguing against, though.
Patrick Andersson
R. McPherson wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sat, 30 May 1998, Patrick Andersson wrote:
>
> :Galadin wrote:
> :
> :> I prefer NWC answer as it allows the game to run on lower end machines with a greater
> :> speed than Everquest will.
> :
> :MM6 runs like crap on my P200MMX@250MHz(83MHz buss speed) and a overclockedDiamond
>
> I am playing MM6 for the 2nd time on a Pentium 75 Mhz with a 2mb video card and
> 40mb RAM (overclocked to 100Mhz -whoa too fast slow down eh?)
>
> If you are running like "crap" on your 200Mhz, then your opinion is the only
> thing only thing that is overclocked on your system.
Ok, sure, I could turn down the resolution, but then the game looks even worse. It's nothing
new that this game requires a P2 to be fast enough in highest resolution. Many people (even
in this NG) has complained about that. Some people thinks that 10-15 FPS is acceptable, but
I just don't.
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
Peter Seebach wrote:
> In article <356F3A4A...@mail.bip.net>,
> Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
> >MM6 runs like crap on my P200MMX@250MHz(83MHz buss speed) and a
> >overclockedDiamond
> >Stealth2 4MB card.
>
> Well, that's your own damn fault, it ran great on my P200MMX (66 Mhz bus)
> with an unaltered Mystique 220.
My own fault? My own fault that I have altered my system to get the best
possible performance?Umm... sure, it's my fault.
I also have a P233, (not overclocked), 64MB EDO RAM and a Matrox Mystique s220
(2MB RAM and no overclocking). It runs slow on that one too, when
turning(smooth turn rate on) it is most noticeable, but it's also quite
"choppy" when just walking straight forward. Turning the graphics down to
"medium" and it became better(but still too slow). On "low" it was very smooth
and very playable(30FPS). I'm using Win95OSR2, Directx 5.2, latest sound and
graphics drivers available.
> >1MB?? I have 4MB of texture memory in my Voodoo(1) Hiscore3D card and
> >8MB of texture
> >memory in my Creative Labs Voodoo2 card. A standard Voodoo(1) card has
> >2MB of texture
> >memory, I haven't heard of any 3Dcards with just 1MB. My Stealth2 have 2MB
> >also.
>
> Great, so the most expensive, highest end, 3D card made might be able to
> squeeze the textures in with a lot of work. Sorry, but 10MB of textures
10MB textures visible at once?? How do you know that, just by looking at the
textures around you..? Prove it. State your sources.
> visible at once doesn't map well onto the toy hardware you can get in PC
> land, and frankly, 95% of 3D card people will have 4MB cards - 2MB frame
> buffer, 2MB texture memory.
95%? where do you get these numbers from? Please state your sources. *Many*
people have Riva and Rendition Verité cards also, these cards are using all
4MB's for textures. *Many* people have Voodoo(1)Pure3D, Hiscore3D and most
serious "gamers" has a Voodoo2 card, these have 4MB or more texture memory.
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
David Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 1998 12:27:29 +0200, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
> >3. You're still the whining ones, I'm still the one who's writing the facts.
>
> Where are these facts you keep claiming to be writing? All I've seen
> (and yes, I've read every one of your posts) is you:
> 1. Speaking for a large majority of players, who you haven't ever
> spoken with.
I know that my friends (8-9 of them which are playing CRPGs) also enjoy games
like Quake and that they also enjoy hardware accellerated graphics. I don't think
I and them are the only people on earth who likes accellerated graphics and would
enjoy it in a RPG even more than in a FPS game. I would claim that most people
prefer hardware accellerated graphics over large pixles, bad framrates and lack
of special effects such as lightning etc which makes a 3D world look more alive.
> 2. Ignoring everything NWC has tried to say about why they chose
> not to use hardware-accelerated graphics.
I have not. I have even accepted it(sort of). I'm only continuing to prove that a
game like MM6 would be possible without trade-offs, lack of unique
textures/atmosphere and story. You think it wont be possible, I do. We can
continue arguing about that until a RPG with accellerated graphics and better
gameplay than MM6 comes out. Fine with me<g>.
> 3. PROVING you have no idea what you are talking about when it
> comes to the benefits/limitations of the 3d cards.
I've seen Jedi Knight, I've seen Unreal. I dont think the 3D world in these games
have less variation in textures or "atmosphere"(speaking about lightning,
transparerency, reflective surfaces etc etc) than what we see in MM6. The 3D
world in MM6 sucks IMO compared to Jedi Knight(even the first JK). I belive that
most people would agree with me. But since not all people on earth are
participating in this disscussion I have no proof. I think it's you who are
proving that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to
benefits/limaitions(limitatioN IMHO) of hardware accellerated cards.
> 4. Ignoring any concept of the inherent trade-offs when creating a
> game. ("I just want the PERFECT gaming experience, but I only want to
> spend $40.")
I dont think MM6 would have cost $120 if the hardware accellerated version would
have worked.It didnt because of the textures. Sad, when the textures still are as
repeative as in Jedi Knight or Unreal. And the lack of features only available
with accelleration is also very sad, beacuse this would easily have made MM6 more
atmospheric and many "3D AND RPG-freaks" (such as myself) would have bought it
"only" for the graphics. More $$$ for NWC, is that so bad?
> 5. Missing the whole idea that some people don't consider the
> polygon graphics to be beautiful. I, for one, find them to be
> artificial looking, and hideous.
I can't remember I've said that. But I don't like spirtes, that's for sure.
Sprites are flat, people are not. Polyogons used in eg. Turok are way better both
when it comes to animations(how many animations does the monsters in MM6 have?
4-5?) and that they don't look flat + that they're very detailed also.
Unfortuneatly polygons in MM6 wouldnt have been possible since 30 fully animated
polygons would require more than a P2 400 and Voodoo2 card(s).. But they could
have made less monsters on screen and used tougher and more life-like polygons
instead. Oh, shit a trade off, skip that idea ;-).
> Do you honestly think that all the guys at NWC sat down and said,
> "Wow, this could be a really awesome game if we put support for
> hardware acceleration, but we won't because this is only an RPG.
> Let's make up some bullshit reason why we can't. I don't think so.
> If it had been feasible to add the support, I'm sure they would have
> done it.Please, if you are so troubled by NWC's decision not to provide
> support, contact them about it. Let them tell you why they didn't.
> And if you don't believe them, don't by their products.
Haha, I did that the first day I bought it. I asked if they were going to do a
hardware accellerated version of the game. I hadn't checked out this NG for at
least 2-3 months so I didnt know about the texture stuff. No answer yet. I don't
even know if I want an answer. I must be like number 8000 who have mailed them
and asked that. They'll probably send someone over to Sweden and track me down
and kill me.. ;-)
--
Patrick
Patrick Andersson
ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 1998 12:00:53 +0200, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
> >This is the reason I bought MM6, I knew it wasnt using hardware accelleration, but
> >since there are no other good RPGs on the market i bought it anyways.
>
> No other good RPGs on the market?
My fault, I forgot to say "NEW RPGs on the market". Fallout (if you call that new), is
great. But otherwise I don't know of any other good *new* RPG's. UO is the only RPG I
play for now, and that's not exactly a new RPG.
> That will really surprise those of us who like the games in the
> Ultimate RPG collection or some of the games in the Ultima collection.
>
> You can still buy Fallout.
Yeah, I have it. It's a great RPG. Good atmosphere and lot's of stats'n skills. Just
like I want 'em.
> You can still buy LOL2, even though it has some problems.
I wouldnt call it RPG.
> DTUM is on the market, and some people have really enjoyed the patched
> version.
DTUM? Hmm.. Don't know what that is.
> You can still buy Diablo and Daggerfall, although definitions might
> kill these two.
Daggerfall was cool, I didnt like Diablo, It's more of a 2D action game than RPG.
> You can order the Wizardry series from Sir-Tech.
>
> You can grab the Forgotten Realms Archives from SSI.
I have played a few SSI RPG's, but I didnt like em.
>
> Some people have picked up old copies of Darklands.
>
Yes, I played it on my 386 when it came out years ago. It was a great RPG! I want
Darklands 2! NOW! In 3D! With hardware... nah.. 2D is fine.
> I found System Shock for $10, but it's not exactly a pure RPG.
Yup, a great game. I'm a huuuuuuge looking glass-fan. Ultima Underworld 2 is still the
best game I have ever played in my entire life. I spent a whole summer just playing
that game. Over and over and over again. System Shock 2 is in the works. I can hardly
wait..
--
Patrick
Alterus16
In article <356B50FB...@mail.bip.net>, Patrick Andersson
<sens...@mail.bip.net> writes:
> The game should
>have gotten a 10/10 from me if it weren't for the graphics, and the keyboard
>controlls. Customers/reviewers got to complain about stuff like this! If we
>don't then how is it ever going to get any better..? Graphics and controlling
>isn't just some small details in a game(even if it's an RPG). Without good
>graphics, no real atmosphere. Without good controlls, gameplay suffers to
>much to get you into the game.
I am not sure your view is important in the larger scheme of things. Most
players are happy with it. You can go back to Doom and Quake.
There is nothing wrong with Bard's Tale I -- it is a still a fun CRPG.
Alterus
Alterus16
In article <356BDDB7...@mail.bip.net>, Patrick Andersson
<sens...@mail.bip.net> writes:
>
>Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
>than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
>whatever. Why does it work inthese games? They look superior compared to MM6
>(even the trees in MM6 i sprites for christ sake, and only that speeds up
>things a lot!). Obviously the creators of MM6 couldnt get it work beacuse
>lack of knowledge. Then they didnt want to spend any more $$$ on hiring
>people who could get it to work right.
Obviously you don't know what textures are or you wouldn't make such a
stupid statement. I would suggest you go out and buy an inexpensive 3D
program and then you MIGHT learn the read definition of a texture.
The textures in Hexen 2 are very limited.
There was nothing wrong with the knowledge of the creators of MM6 -- texture
memory is a hardware thing -- current hardware DOES NOT support much
texture memory. I for one would not want to see fewer textures in MM6 so it
could be squeezed on to some cheap hardware accelerator card.
Alterus
Alterus16
In article <356d755f....@192.48.96.24>, hof...@volition-inc.com (Jason
Hoffoss (Tclord)) writes:
>
>No, it's not very out of date at all. It's just not 3D hardware
>accelerated. If you think it's such a simple thing to do, you should
>try doing it yourself. You might appreciate the problems involved
>then.
>
>
If sensorama knew how to create textures and a 3D objects he would not
be making such obviously stupid statements.
It's another case of someone with the vocabulary of 3D but not the knowledge.
Alterus
Alterus16
In article <356C42ED...@mail.bip.net>, Patrick Andersson
<sens...@mail.bip.net> writes:
>
>I speak for *a lot* of other people too, considering I'm like number 50000 in
>this
>and other NG's that has complained about the graphics/lack of hardware
>accelleration in MM6.
>
>
Yes but they are as ignorant as you --- Get yourself a 3D program, create
some 3D scenes, render them ( see how long it will take for complex
scenes -- esp. with a cheap graphics card such as most gamers have),
then write a program to move the objects in your scene around in real time
and have phong shading and dynamic lighting.
Then when you have mastered that -- you won't be writing such stupid
statements.
Where Ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise!
Alterus
David Baker
On Sat, 30 May 1998 14:28:51 +0200, Patrick Andersson
<sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>David Baker wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 1998 12:27:29 +0200, Patrick Andersson
>> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>>
>> >3. You're still the whining ones, I'm still the one who's writing the facts.
<snip>
>I know that my friends (8-9 of them which are playing CRPGs) also enjoy games
>like Quake and that they also enjoy hardware accellerated graphics. I don't think
>I and them are the only people on earth who likes accellerated graphics and would
>enjoy it in a RPG even more than in a FPS game. I would claim that most people
>prefer hardware accellerated graphics over large pixles, bad framrates and lack
>of special effects such as lightning etc which makes a 3D world look more alive.
I will agree that your 8-9 people would prefer the accelerated
graphics. I will not buy your "claim" that most people enjoy hardware
accelerated graphics. Right or wrong, you have no proof. Where are
these facts you claim to be writing. Your "claim" is nothing more
than your opinion. Personally, I've only notice a few instances of
large pixels and bad frame rates. Even in that one Baa temple when
100+ skeletons came running, the frame rate stayed pretty fast. Like
it or not, those large armies would have been impossible with hardware
acceleration.
>> 2. Ignoring everything NWC has tried to say about why they chose
>> not to use hardware-accelerated graphics.
>
>I have not. I have even accepted it(sort of). I'm only continuing to prove that a
>game like MM6 would be possible without trade-offs, lack of unique
>textures/atmosphere and story. You think it wont be possible, I do. We can
>continue arguing about that until a RPG with accellerated graphics and better
>gameplay than MM6 comes out. Fine with me<g>.
Here you state that that MM6 would be possible without trade-off.
This is completely naive. The large numbers of enemies on the screen
is NOT possible with polygons. Yes, it might be possible in the
future with AGP, more local memory, and faster chips, but that ability
is not available now. In the Heroes of M&M, they have stacks of
enemies where the one picture is actually 1000+ enemies. Well, as far
as I can tell, MM6 is based on that world. If they chose to use
hardware-acceleration, they would be confined to no more that maybe 20
guys, which would not be true to the story. It isn't possible to make
a game without trade-offs. Most game companies just don't mention
trade-offs because to do so, they would have to admit the limitations
of their program. Very few companies would come out and say, "We
didn't put feature x in the program because of feature y." But it
does happen.
>> 3. PROVING you have no idea what you are talking about when it
>> comes to the benefits/limitations of the 3d cards.
>
>I've seen Jedi Knight, I've seen Unreal. I dont think the 3D world in these games
>have less variation in textures or "atmosphere"(speaking about lightning,
>transparerency, reflective surfaces etc etc) than what we see in MM6. The 3D
>world in MM6 sucks IMO compared to Jedi Knight(even the first JK). I belive that
>most people would agree with me. But since not all people on earth are
>participating in this disscussion I have no proof. I think it's you who are
>proving that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to
>benefits/limaitions(limitatioN IMHO) of hardware accellerated cards.
Your first two sentences are again your opinions. Not facts. Please
note the difference. Also, I see no justification for your statement
that I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is typical of your
rebuttals. Discredit the person you are responding to with no real
justification.
>> 4. Ignoring any concept of the inherent trade-offs when creating a
>> game. ("I just want the PERFECT gaming experience, but I only want to
>> spend $40.")
>
>I dont think MM6 would have cost $120 if the hardware accellerated version would
>have worked.It didnt because of the textures. Sad, when the textures still are as
>repeative as in Jedi Knight or Unreal. And the lack of features only available
>with accelleration is also very sad, beacuse this would easily have made MM6 more
>atmospheric and many "3D AND RPG-freaks" (such as myself) would have bought it
>"only" for the graphics. More $$$ for NWC, is that so bad?
Assuming, of course, that their weren't any people who didn't buy it
because they didn't have a 3d card. There is nothing worse than a
game designed for 3d cards when you don't have one.
>> 5. Missing the whole idea that some people don't consider the
>> polygon graphics to be beautiful. I, for one, find them to be
>> artificial looking, and hideous.
>
>I can't remember I've said that. But I don't like spirtes, that's for sure.
>Sprites are flat, people are not. Polyogons used in eg. Turok are way better both
>when it comes to animations(how many animations does the monsters in MM6 have?
>4-5?) and that they don't look flat + that they're very detailed also.
>Unfortuneatly polygons in MM6 wouldnt have been possible since 30 fully animated
>polygons would require more than a P2 400 and Voodoo2 card(s).. But they could
>have made less monsters on screen and used tougher and more life-like polygons
>instead. Oh, shit a trade off, skip that idea ;-).
No one ever said polygons look flat, I said they look artificial. I
would prefer a realistic looking, somewhat flat enemy to a 3d bunch of
polygons. This is purely a preference thing, but don't assume
everyone's tastes are the same as your's.
<snip>
I have a few question for you.
Have you ever programmed something 3d before, a game for instance?
You make several statements like, "It would be easy to..." and "All
they have to do...", without any justication or factual justication
for why it would be possible. Comparing it to other games is NOT
proof of the feasibility of a particular feature. The unknown
internals of the game are what will dictate whether adding a feature
is easy, let alone possible.
Dave
Peter Seebach
In article <356FC61D...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>My own fault? My own fault that I have altered my system to get the best
>possible performance?Umm... sure, it's my fault.
If you claim you've altered the system, and you get bad performance, and
people with unaltered systems get good performance... Well, it wouldn't be
the first time someone "upgraded" a system to ill effect.
>I also have a P233, (not overclocked), 64MB EDO RAM and a Matrox Mystique s220
>(2MB RAM and no overclocking). It runs slow on that one too, when
>turning(smooth turn rate on) it is most noticeable, but it's also quite
>"choppy" when just walking straight forward.
I had this problem when I was trying to use the "PC Dash" to control the
game, but when I went to using a real keyboard, it was fine. I do have a
keyboard with a very light touch, maybe that's it.
>Turning the graphics down to
>"medium" and it became better(but still too slow). On "low" it was very smooth
>and very playable(30FPS). I'm using Win95OSR2, Directx 5.2, latest sound and
>graphics drivers available.
Never tried anything but "high" graphics. What's your turn rate set to?
Anyway, it was just fine on my P200MMX with a Mystique 220, no hackery
involved.
>10MB textures visible at once?? How do you know that, just by looking at the
>textures around you..? Prove it. State your sources.
My sources are George Rouf, who is one of the developers, who posted that
early on.
>95%? where do you get these numbers from? Please state your sources. *Many*
>people have Riva and Rendition Verité cards also, these cards are using all
>4MB's for textures. *Many* people have Voodoo(1)Pure3D, Hiscore3D and most
>serious "gamers" has a Voodoo2 card, these have 4MB or more texture memory.
Well, gee, which kind of card have you been able to buy for a whole year
now? Not everyone runs out and upgrades everything right away...
"most" serious gamers have a Voodoo2 card. Really? How many gamers are
there, and how many Voodoo 2 cards have been sold? I bet <25% have it.
Us rich kids sometimes forget that not everyone can afford to spend $200 or
$300 on an upgrade every couple of months.
Anyway, 4MB (maybe) of texture memory in *some* computers isn't something you
can sell a game for. If you want to say you have "3Dfx acceleration", you
damn well make the game run on the original Monster 3D/Orchid Righteous
3D/whatever Voodoo 1 card. If you don't, people get mad, because you said
"3Dfx", but you didn't really run on all the 3Dfx cards. They spent $200 to
get that card pretty recently, and now you don't think it's good enough? Not
bloody likely if you want to stay in business.
So, given that it seems safe to assume that a majority of the target audience
(not just "hardcore gamers" with $200 a month to spend on upgrades for their
PC's) has no more than 4MB of texture memory available, and the game,
according to the developers, has as much as 10MB of "texture memory" in use
at a time... that's a pretty big gap.
If you'd rather have had simpler graphics, no paintings on the walls, only
one kind of stained glass window, and faded brownish color schemes, just say
so. Me, I'm happy.
Peter Seebach
In article <35724d4c.39598864@skippy>, <ch...@icat.rmci.net> wrote:
>DTUM is on the market, and some people have really enjoyed the patched
>version.
DTUM?
>The Exile series is available... four games in all at great prices.
Isn't that a shareware game? I seem to recall seeing a shareware game
called Exile.
Peter Seebach
In article <35708f8f...@news.feist.com>,
Gorgeous George <nos...@yada.yada.yada.com> wrote:
>That's exactly my point: there was nothing TO notice. PLEASE, Peter,
>do tell me about the visible central plotline through the whole game
>that I missed! As far as I know, the central plotline was about the
>aliens (demons). You hear a little about it at the beginning (intro),
>a little in the middle (knight promotion quest), and a little at the
>end (final dungeon). The central plotline was completely superficial,
>and completely UN-compelling.
I disagree. I'm in a pencil-and-paper RPG right now. My major quest is
to track down an ancient and, probably, completely insane archmage. I know
within about 200 miles where he is. I know all sorts of things. Am I
chasing him? Hell no, I'm trying to smite weaker evil elsewhere while I
research the problem.
M&M's trademark has always been the wide variety of things unrelated to the
"main plot" that you can explore. Who knew about Sheltem near the beginning
of M&M 1? Most of the things you spent your time doing in that game had very
little to do with the major plot, and I loved it. Ditto M&M3, and WOX.
>And MM6 is different how? :) (Right, the only difference is you
>can't whack townspeople if you want light master, and you're concerned
>with getting from the outside to the center, instead of the other way
>around. Real big diff.)
I guess, the difference is that reasons are given for things, and the world
changes a lot more in response to your actions. The dragon towers quest was
great. It actually *matters*, even though it has little, if anything, to do
with the plot.
>And this has what to do with the story?
It's part of it. The story is not a simple, linear one. It's one where
you get to decide which chapter comes next. I like this a lot better. You
don't spend all of your time working on one single quest; there are lots
of side quests.
>>and you can actually
>>interact with your environment. (Maybe not all that much, but plenty to
>>prove a point.)
>No more than in Quake (treasure boxes = health/ammo boxes; both are
>goodies you want).
Dragon towers. Wider variety of "goodies", and not all of them are "good".
>>>No, they already have different people working on graphics and
>>>different people working on design, so it would NOT add to the cost.
>>>(And there shouldn't need to be a trade off!)
>>Huh?
>They have a design team and a graphics team, RIGHT? Each team
>generally involves people who aren't in the other team, RIGHT?
Yes, but how large each is is a question of priorities.
Each team is paid, in the end, out of *one* budget, RIGHT?
>Of course not. You're just trying to complicate a simple fact:
>different people are in charge of different parts of the game. A
>"fancy engine" and robust design do not have to be mutually exclusive
>or require more money, because they already have seperate people
>working on those seperate teams (programming and design).
Except, of course, that how many people they can have working on each part
depends on their budget, and they may not be able to afford to have enough
people on each part.
Also, in many cases, some people will do some of each...
>>There *is* a trade-off there. All engineering is trade-offs.
>Trade-offs within teams (3D acceleration vs. a zillion megs of
>textures), sure. That wasn't what I was arguing against, though.
Well, if you don't believe there's a trade-off between having a 10 person
design team and a 5 person programming team, and a 5 person design team and
a 10 person programming team, you're crazy. You can't just throw ten people
at both of them - that's too much money.
You're looking at too small a level. Is Bill the Designer going to spend
less time designing levels if you want better programming done? No, but you
may not hire Bill if you had to hire Bob the 3D Hacker.
Patrick Andersson
Alterus16 wrote:
> In article <356BDDB7...@mail.bip.net>, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Look at the textures in MM6, they're not very big/complex..Not any bigger
> >than what we're used to in games such as Hexen2, Jedi Knight, Unreal or
> >whatever. Why does it work inthese games? They look superior compared to MM6
> >(even the trees in MM6 i sprites for christ sake, and only that speeds up
> >things a lot!). Obviously the creators of MM6 couldnt get it work beacuse
> >lack of knowledge. Then they didnt want to spend any more $$$ on hiring
> >people who could get it to work right.
>
> Obviously you don't know what textures are or you wouldn't make such a
> stupid statement. I would suggest you go out and buy an inexpensive 3D
> program and then you MIGHT learn the read definition of a texture.
>
> The textures in Hexen 2 are very limited.
A defenition of textures:
In MM6: pixelated, cartoon like, "dead" looking. Looks quite good if you run it
in a small window. Looks awful on a 17" - 21" monitor in full screen.
In a hardware accellerated game: no pixelation, photo realistic(if 16 bit is
used) and more life-like because often effects suchs as: lightning, transperancy
and reflections are being used. Looks great even on large monitors.
btw, I use 3D Studio max so I don't feel the urge to buy a "inexpensive" 3D
program. Explain what textures has got to do with 3D programs. You can make
textures even in Paint Shop Pro if you'd like... Obviously YOU don't know what
textures are.
--
Patrick
Kari&Thorsten
>My own fault? My own fault that I have altered my system to get the best
>possible performance?Umm... sure, it's my fault.
>
>I also have a P233, (not overclocked), 64MB EDO RAM and a Matrox Mystique
s220
>(2MB RAM and no overclocking). It runs slow on that one too, when
>turning(smooth turn rate on) it is most noticeable, but it's also quite
>"choppy" when just walking straight forward. Turning the graphics down to
>"medium" and it became better(but still too slow). On "low" it was very
smooth
>and very playable(30FPS). I'm using Win95OSR2, Directx 5.2, latest sound
and
>graphics drivers available.
>
>
perhaps it is the 2 mb video card.
I have a P233, 64mb edo, full install on a udma drive, and a Diamond Stealth
II (4mb) and it runs perfectly fine.
No slowdown on turning at all.
Thor
Peter Seebach
In article <357079C0...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>In MM6: pixelated, cartoon like, "dead" looking. Looks quite good if you run
>it in a small window. Looks awful on a 17" - 21" monitor in full screen.
>In a hardware accellerated game: no pixelation, photo realistic(if 16 bit is
>used) and more life-like because often effects suchs as: lightning,
>transperancy and reflections are being used. Looks great even on large
>monitors.
Sorry, but no. In a hardware accelerated game, you get large smooth blobs
for textures. Are they smooth? Yes. Are they "photo realistic"? Not even
bloody close.
Both MM6 and the hardware game are using 16-bit textures. MM6 is using
significantly larger textures, with more detail. The hardware game is bluring
what detail there is to make it smoother.
MM6 has paintings that you can look at. Detailed paintings. The hardware
game has three kinds of wall.
Gorgeous George
On Sat, 30 May 1998 19:50:15 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
wrote:
>M&M's trademark has always been the wide variety of things unrelated to the
>"main plot" that you can explore. Who knew about Sheltem near the beginning
>of M&M 1? Most of the things you spent your time doing in that game had very
>little to do with the major plot, and I loved it. Ditto M&M3, and WOX.
So you just agreed that the central plot in MM6 is nearly invisible.
How can such a plot be strong and compelling? How is that any more
story than Quake had?
>>And MM6 is different how? :) (Right, the only difference is you
>>can't whack townspeople if you want light master, and you're concerned
>>with getting from the outside to the center, instead of the other way
>>around. Real big diff.)
>
>I guess, the difference is that reasons are given for things, and the world
>changes a lot more in response to your actions. The dragon towers quest was
>great. It actually *matters*, even though it has little, if anything, to do
>with the plot.
Right, it doesn't have anything to do with plot, and "MM6's weak plot"
was the topic, so why are we talking about this?
(BTW, the Dragon Tower thing is no more than "push a button to disable
a trap to get a goodie." Such things are in Quake [a little reversed;
in Quake you usually trigger the trap to get your reward].)
>>And this has what to do with the story?
>
>It's part of it. The story is not a simple, linear one. It's one where
>you get to decide which chapter comes next.
I don't buy the "You write your own story" bit. By that logic, Quake
had a great story too (and if it didn't, it's your fault for being a
boring player). Hell, by that logic, a close game of Pong had a good
story.
Mmmmmm... Pong. I need to dig out my 2600 emulator. :)
>Except, of course, that how many people they can have working on each part
>depends on their budget, and they may not be able to afford to have enough
>people on each part.
Fair enough. It seemed, though, that NWC had enough cash to fund
enough "graphics" and "gameplay" employees. They just made some very
dubious decisions on some things.
Patrick Andersson
Peter Seebach wrote:
> In article <357079C0...@mail.bip.net>,
> Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
> >In MM6: pixelated, cartoon like, "dead" looking. Looks quite good if you run
> >it in a small window. Looks awful on a 17" - 21" monitor in full screen.
>
> >In a hardware accellerated game: no pixelation, photo realistic(if 16 bit is
> >used) and more life-like because often effects suchs as: lightning,
> >transperancy and reflections are being used. Looks great even on large
> >monitors.
>
> Sorry, but no. In a hardware accelerated game, you get large smooth blobs
> for textures. Are they smooth? Yes. Are they "photo realistic"? Not even
> bloody close.
This depends on how detailed the textures are from the begining. In Quake 1 and 2
the detail aren't that good. "Smooth blobs for textures"? Yes IF you go as near as
you can to a wall and if the textures arent very detailed from the first place,
then it's true. But in Unreal you can "put your nose to the wall" and there will
still be much detail. I would call it photo realistic, since textures often are
scanned photos and without much loss in quality in games that use high quality
textures.
> Both MM6 and the hardware game are using 16-bit textures. MM6 is using
> significantly larger textures, with more detail. The hardware game is bluring
> what detail there is to make it smoother.
No. 8 bit are used in Quake and Quake 2, 16 bit is used in Unreal. You can choose
16bit in Q2 but the quality of the textures won't change since they're 8 bit from
the begining. Now, how detailed are the textures in MM6 when you face eg. a wall?
I wouldnt call that detailed, I would call that pixelation, I cant even figure out
what I'm facing! Much less detailed than the textures in Unreal are. Why is
"bi-linear and advanced texture filtering"/ "Level-of-detail mip mapping" (used to
remove pixelation) used in all new 3D hardware accellerated games? Because of
faster frame rate? No. Because the game developers think it's a lot of fun? No.
Because it looks much better and is more true to how we see things in real life.
Do you see large pixels when you are close to a wall, face, whatever? I hope
not(if you see pixelation, stop playing MM6 as an advice). Now, let's do some
experimentation. Put your face to the wall (so close that your nose touches it).
Now, how detailed is the wallpaper(asuming you have wallpaper with some kind of
patterns in it). Is it just as detailed as it was when looking from a little
further away? I don't use glasses and for me the wallpaper would become very
blurry, just like when moving *really* close to a wall in Quake. Ok, now look at
something that is much further away. It also becomes blurry(depending on eye
sight), just like in Quake. Now, are things blurry in MM6? No. Is that life-like?
No, it looks like computer made graphics to me.
> MM6 has paintings that you can look at. Detailed paintings. The hardware
> game has three kinds of wall.
Sure, the "hardware game has three kinds of walls". Now, what game are you
refering to? I would be very interested to hear about it.. Have you ever used a
map editing program for Quake or any other 3D game where you can see all available
textures? I don't think so.
--
Patrick
Peter Seebach
In article <3570ECD2...@mail.bip.net>,
Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>you can to a wall and if the textures arent very detailed from the first place,
>then it's true. But in Unreal you can "put your nose to the wall" and there
>will still be much detail. I would call it photo realistic, since textures
>often are scanned photos and without much loss in quality in games that use
>high quality textures.
But if you use high quality textures for everything, you either don't have all
that many textures on screen at once, or you thrash horribly.
I would say "photo realistic" implies resolution of at least 72dpi on the
actual textures, which means small textures or huge memory requirements.
>Now, how detailed are the textures in MM6 when you face eg. a wall?
Go look at the painting in the Abandoned Temple and you tell me.
>remove pixelation) used in all new 3D hardware accellerated games? Because of
>faster frame rate? No. Because the game developers think it's a lot of fun? No.
>Because it looks much better and is more true to how we see things in real
>life.
No, it's used because it's what the hardware does, period.
>something that is much further away. It also becomes blurry(depending on eye
>sight), just like in Quake. Now, are things blurry in MM6? No. Is that
>life-like?
Are things blurry in real life when you're at a distance such that you can
see a 3x3 area of wall? No. Quake doesn't let you put your nose to the
wall, you're still a ways off from that wall - and it should be crystal
clear. It would be, except they have tiny little textures.
Anyway, *IT IS A TRADE OFF*.
I would rather have a detailed world, like M&M 6, which has paintings, more
than one kind of stained glass windows, and dozens of little detail textures
all over. You would rather have a smooth and hardware accelerated world.
In the future, there may be games that have both. I'll wait.
>Sure, the "hardware game has three kinds of walls". Now, what game are you
>refering to? I would be very interested to hear about it.. Have you ever used
>a map editing program for Quake or any other 3D game where you can see all
>available textures? I don't think so.
I've played quite a bit of quake, and I know that Quake has texture-thrashing,
but it's controlled because it's per-area, i.e, there will be textures used
only in some areas of a map.
Can Quake model a really *large* room? Outside areas that aren't little tiny
boxes?
Well, no. Is that like real life? No. It looks like a gratuitous limitation
of computer graphics.
Whaddya know, they *all* have faults. You are free to prefer whichever set
of faults appeals to you.
Peter Seebach
In article <3570acc1...@news.feist.com>,
Gorgeous George <nos...@yada.yada.yada.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 19:50:15 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
>wrote:
>>M&M's trademark has always been the wide variety of things unrelated to the
>>"main plot" that you can explore. Who knew about Sheltem near the beginning
>>of M&M 1? Most of the things you spent your time doing in that game had very
>>little to do with the major plot, and I loved it. Ditto M&M3, and WOX.
>So you just agreed that the central plot in MM6 is nearly invisible.
No. I just "agree" that it's not always the only thing your characters
are involved with.
I personally think this is a big plus. I like non-linear worlds.
>How can such a plot be strong and compelling?
*sigh*. In a lot of "literature" (as opposed to genre fiction), the "plot"
is irrelevant or uninteresting, because the book is really about *character
development*. Is the plot of Davies' _The Rebel Angels_ really ... well,
I'd have a hard time describing a plot for it. Does that mean the book can
never be as compelling as the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby? No.
It is the *world* which is compelling; the plot is the thread that gives
large-scale direction to your experience of the world.
Is M&M6 literature? Far from it. However, they're going in a direction
I like.
>(BTW, the Dragon Tower thing is no more than "push a button to disable
>a trap to get a goodie." Such things are in Quake [a little reversed;
>in Quake you usually trigger the trap to get your reward].)
*sigh*. If you want, you can trivialize anything. I can trivialize love,
religion, and computer science, too. ("just break the problem into parts
and solve those.")
The question is not "if I describe this in the worst way possible, does it
sound bad", but what is it actually *like*.
I loved the Dragon Tower quest. Something that had been bothering me (and
indeed, which had nearly killed me once or twice before I caught on) for the
entire game turned out not to be some stupid game design decision, but an
actual part of the plot. For once, *I* got something for doing a quest. Not
just "more XP". Not just "more money". An actual change in the world.
It was a cool quest.
>I don't buy the "You write your own story" bit. By that logic, Quake
>had a great story too (and if it didn't, it's your fault for being a
>boring player). Hell, by that logic, a close game of Pong had a good
>story.
>Mmmmmm... Pong. I need to dig out my 2600 emulator. :)
No, because in Quake, there's never anything to the story but "and then I
killed that too". There's no interaction.
Maybe the interaction is "primitive". Maybe it's possible to suspend your
disbelief. By the same token, I could argue that going to lunch with a friend
is really not "interesting", because all that happens is I exchange words
(which don't affect the main plot at all) with a "character" who doesn't
appear to have anything to do with the story, push a button, and get a pellet.
Your generalizations lack because they can be applied to anything without
loss of generality. At that point, they become useless for descriptive
purposes. What game *can't* you say all of these things about? None.
That means they're null statements, try again.
>Fair enough. It seemed, though, that NWC had enough cash to fund
>enough "graphics" and "gameplay" employees. They just made some very
>dubious decisions on some things.
I would expect that the people who made those decisions liked those results.
I think the person they missed on their staff was "human interfaces". I
admit, this interface *sucks*.
However, the existance of the mages-learning-plate bug tells *volumes* about
how the interface code is working, and it looks to me like it could just be
that fairly early on someone made a *VERY* bad decision about how the engine
should model and react to user input, and that basically guaranteed the
inconsistencies we see. Essentially, it looks like everything in the game
is special cases. It doesn't look like there's really "buttons" - it looks
like any time you click, the game tries to figure out what area you may have
clicked in, based on what it thinks is on screen. This is, frankly, stupid.
There are better solutions. :)
(And if one of the NWC folks wants to correct me, feel free. I'm just
gauging this on similarity to the class of bugs I used to see in a monolithic
application that did the same kind of thing I describe above, where buttons
would mysteriously work when not visible, or fail when visible, because
the code-to-see-what-was-clicked was so horrible.)
Patrick Andersson
ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 1998 21:23:32 +0200, Patrick Andersson
> <sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
> >You're absoloutely right. A game must have more than fast framerates.
>
> Like Lara Croft or the Avatar or... um... what does Quake have, again?
Gameplay.
> > But a game must have more than just a good story too.
>
> BZZT.
>
> Graphics are necessary?
>
> Zork.
>
> Suspended.
>
> Beyond Zork.
>
> Hm, just about anything from Infocom.
>
> Nethack, ADOM, Angband.
Sure, but shouldnt adventures, RPGs and FPS games *evolve*. Not only in
gameplay but also in graphics? Nice graphics catches peoples attention. How
many people would have bought Unreal if it had the "same" graphics as MM6? Not
many. How many more people would have bought a game like MM6 if it had
hardware accelleration and great looking graphics? Many more(other than
RPGers) would have taken notice of the game, that's for sure. How many of
these would also have bought it? I dont know. What I do know is: graphics
sells just as much(more?) as a game with good story in it. I think I can prove
this by saying: Unreal or Quake 2.
I really loved adventure games when I had my C-64, I played many of the
infocom adventures. Later on I discovered other adventure games, these had
pictures. I thought they were better. It became like a reward to see a
fantastic picture at some locations and not only reading text and imagine how
the place would look like. Then I discovered Bards Tale and other games of
that sort, I never went back to the Infocom text-adventures, and then it goes
on with Underworld etc etc.
I don't feel this "reward" when going down in a dungeon in MM6, I know I won't
see any groovy lightning effects, I know I will see sprite monsters just like
I did when I played Underworld 6-7(?) years ago. I just don't feel like "going
back in history".
> > So, does better graphics equals better gameplay?
>
> Guns or Butter.
>
Games with accellerated graphics and great gameplay *are* available. This is
total BS.
> Why doesn't Quake have a good story?
>
> It's not about the story.
True.
> Why don't most RPGs have perfectly wonderful graphics?
>
> It's not about the graphics.
It's both. The graphics *are* there for everyone to watch, no matter if these
people are hardcore RPGers, reviewers, people intersted in nice graphics AND
story. Now, how many hardcore RPGers who doesnt really care about the graphics
as long as there is a good story is there? Let's compare to Unreal freaks who
also plays RPG's etc but are also spolit with hardware accellerated graphics.
I would say the non "hardcore" RPGing group is larger. What games at E3 gets
the most attention? The latest Wizardry game? A game with great graphics?
> > That is very subjective and I guess we could continue arguing about that
> >for as long as we live....
>
> If it's subjective, how come everyone who disagrees with you is a
> complete and utter idiot, unable to come up with an intelligent
> counter argument worth your time spent in replying?
>
> 'cuz you're just smarter than everyone else, I suppose.
No, I have the right to express my views, just like anyone else. I havent
called anyone an idiot either, if that's how you feel when I make a reply then
it's your problem.
You do have some good arguments about MM6 that i can *not* defend: there would
have to be a trade off in MM6 regarding large textures and perhaps also the
sprites(i think I've read that hardware accelleration and sprites don't mix
that good). So, yes you're right about that. For me no accelleration is a
bigger issue. I would easily trade less polygons, smaller textures, faster
frame rate, lightning and other effects for it. You are never going to
convince me that software rendering is better in RPGs because of (some small
IMHO)trade offs, and I'm never going to convince you the opposite in this
discussion. So, I guess I consider myself defeated ;-).
Have a good time playing Might & Magic 6.
--
Patrick
Gorgeous George
On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:16:59 GMT, ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote:
>On Fri, 29 May 1998 21:23:32 +0200, Patrick Andersson
><sens...@mail.bip.net> wrote:
>
>>You're absoloutely right. A game must have more than fast framerates.
>
>Like Lara Croft or the Avatar or... um... what does Quake have, again?
Fun? :)
(Well, multiplayer Quake, anyway.)
>> But a game must have more than just a good story too.
>
>BZZT.
Sure. It'd be better qualified if he'd said, "Today, a game must have
more than just a good story to sell enough to pay for its development
costs." Most customers aren't content anymore to simply "fill in the
blanks" with their imaginations. For one thing, if I need to do that
to any length, I might as well be writing my OWN fiction. You know,
something that'd be developing a marketable skill? ;)
>Graphics are necessary?
>
>Zork.
>Suspended.
>Beyond Zork.
>Hm, just about anything from Infocom.
Do these types of games sell well today? (Don't say you can't get
them; check some shareware sites and you'll find plenty.)
>Nethack, ADOM, Angband.
Well, I recognize the name of one of those. :) Do any of them even
cost anything? Would more than a handful of grizzled old Unix vets
BUY them today?
>> So, does better graphics equals better gameplay?
>
>Guns or Butter.
What does that metaphor mean, anyway? They're both bad for your
health. :) (Yes, I know it's "graphics vs. gameplay," the metaphor
just doesn't do anything for me.)
>Why doesn't Quake have a good story?
>It's not about the story.
It can be. It's tempting to say their target audience doesn't care
about the story, but Quake single player was roundly criticized by 3D
shooter fans for its basically non-existant plot (something id made an
effort to correct in Q2).
>Why don't most RPGs have perfectly wonderful graphics?
>It's not about the graphics.
Actually, it seemed to me most new CRPGs were just a step behind their
new action brethren in the graphics department. MM6 is just a step
behind Quake 2 (no 3D hardware support, basically).
Gorgeous George
>these would also have bought it? I dont know. What I do know is: graphics
>sells just as much(more?) as a game with good story in it. I think I can prove
>this by saying: Unreal or Quake 2.
That may be a little unfair, since I for one was a LOT more tempted to
buy Unreal when I saw I could have it for $25, versus Quake 2's $50
price tag.
>I would say the non "hardcore" RPGing group is larger. What games at E3 gets
I think sales trends would support that. :)
>You do have some good arguments about MM6 that i can *not* defend: there would
>have to be a trade off in MM6 regarding large textures and perhaps also the
>sprites(i think I've read that hardware accelleration and sprites don't mix
>that good). So, yes you're right about that.
The obvious solution would have been to use models instead of sprites,
which, in a real 3D engine, they should have done anyway. NWC's
argument for sprites was that they looked better. Yeah, they look
better as still lifes, but when they move (particularly the dragons),
and when you move around them... ugggghghghhhhhh. (Plus, they had to
severely restrict how far you could look up and down to keep the
sprites from looking totally stupid.)
>For me no accelleration is a
>bigger issue. I would easily trade less polygons, smaller textures, faster
>frame rate, lightning and other effects for it.
I wouldn't go as far as to say less polygons. Have you seen those
hills? Any less polygons and they'd be cubes. Smaller textures is no
biggie; I'm not the kind of guy who likes looking at "paintings on the
wall" up close (we have local museums for that). Faster frame rate is
always a good thing (until you exceed your montior's refresh rate :).
Actually, I almost always trade detail for frame rate (I could get
away with 20 some FPS at 640x480 in Quake, but always stayed in
320x200 for the 60+ FPS). I didn't see any "cool lighting effects"
that were worth the sacrifice. Actually, I'm still a bit uncertain
what effects they achieved that weren't in Quake!
Gorgeous George
On Sun, 31 May 1998 06:27:50 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
wrote:
>>How can such a plot be strong and compelling?
>
>*sigh*. In a lot of "literature" (as opposed to genre fiction), the "plot"
>is irrelevant or uninteresting, because the book is really about *character
>development*.
Right. The plot is weak to make something else strong. MM6's plot is
weak to afford non-linearity. You seem to keep agreeing that MM6's
plot is weak, but that MM6 is still good because a weak plot means a
strong something else. You're just agreeing with me, though, because
ALL I ARGUED was that MM6 has a weak plot. Just because "stuff
happens" doesn't mean the plot is strong, or even there. If that was
the case, we'd all be able to be millionaire fiction writers, because
we could just write that some shit happened and *POOF*, we'd have
compelling literature.
>Is the plot of Davies' _The Rebel Angels_ really ... well,
>I'd have a hard time describing a plot for it. Does that mean the book can
>never be as compelling as the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby? No.
Well, first off, I'm talking about compelling plot, not "compelling
work as a whole," and not "compelling character sketch" or "compelling
milieu fiction." Sure, not all fiction is plot-driven. But if it's
not plot-driven, chances are the plot is weak when compared to fiction
that IS plot-driven. MM6 is obviously not plot-driven. It has a weak
plot compared to games that are plot-driven. Demons are supposedly
going to take over the world, and only one or two people you meet the
whole game seem to give a damn. Honestly, there's no other indication
that the demons are any more of a problem than that battalion of
dragons and titans out west. The demon encounters are actually some
of the easiest to beat by the time you get to them. It's a good thing
those one or two people told me the demons were a problem, because
otherwise I'd have assumed they were just really angry goblins! :)
>It is the *world* which is compelling; the plot is the thread that gives
>large-scale direction to your experience of the world.
I disagree. MM6's plot gave me no direction. It's only once in the
middle and once at the end that I even SAW things relevant to the
plot. I'm not arguing anything else but MM6's plot, and MM6 would be
almost completely the same experience with no plot at all.
>>(BTW, the Dragon Tower thing is no more than "push a button to disable
>>a trap to get a goodie." Such things are in Quake [a little reversed;
>>in Quake you usually trigger the trap to get your reward].)
>
>*sigh*. If you want, you can trivialize anything.
What trivializing? The Dragon Tower is a trap. The NPCs in the game
say it's a trap. You eventually turn it off and it's no longer a
trap. You get goodies for turning it off. That's not trivializing,
that's exactly what happens!
>I can trivialize love,
>religion, and computer science, too. ("just break the problem into parts
>and solve those.")
Which, even in Comp. Sci., isn't the only way to attack a problem, but
that's a WAY different discussion.
>The question is not "if I describe this in the worst way possible, does it
>sound bad", but what is it actually *like*.
No, I described exactly what it was.
>I loved the Dragon Tower quest. Something that had been bothering me (and
>indeed, which had nearly killed me once or twice before I caught on) for the
>entire game turned out not to be some stupid game design decision, but an
>actual part of the plot. For once, *I* got something for doing a quest. Not
>just "more XP". Not just "more money". An actual change in the world.
Okay.
(I didn't find it nearly as fulfilling as that. I got hit ONCE by a
Dragon Tower, and that was from behind and before I knew they shot at
me. I wasn't even that high a level and the thing barely hurt me. I
found it ABSOLUTELY ABSURD that those things were supposed to protect
towns from Wyrm-riding Cuisinarts. Cuisinarts, you know, those guys
with 1000 HPs [I don't even think my knight had 250 at the time] and
huge resistances? That's not the whole of it. You want to know what
was really fucked up about the Dragon Riders and Dragon Towers tie-in?
The Wyrms COULDN'T FLY!)
>>I don't buy the "You write your own story" bit. By that logic, Quake
>>had a great story too (and if it didn't, it's your fault for being a
>>boring player). Hell, by that logic, a close game of Pong had a good
>>story.
>
>No, because in Quake, there's never anything to the story but "and then I
>killed that too". There's no interaction.
Like I said, by your logic, that'd be your fault. ;)
Besides, you also pick up treasures you need and have close calls in
combat, and yada yada yada. Same shit, different game. You don't
"talk" to "people," but the "NPC interaction" in MM6 ain't nothing to
write home about. Ya heard one peasant, ya heard 'em all. Maybe
Quake 2 has that kind of interaction with those annoying computer
updates that "give you direction" on what to do next?
>Maybe the interaction is "primitive". Maybe it's possible to suspend your
>disbelief. By the same token, I could argue that going to lunch with a friend
>is really not "interesting", because all that happens is I exchange words
>(which don't affect the main plot at all) with a "character" who doesn't
>appear to have anything to do with the story, push a button, and get a pellet.
I certainly hope your real-life conversations are more varied and
interesting than those in MM6!
>Your generalizations lack because they can be applied to anything without
>loss of generality.
What generalizations?
>At that point, they become useless for descriptive
>purposes. What game *can't* you say all of these things about? None.
>That means they're null statements, try again.
Well, at least I'm making an effort to stay on the same topic, so
NEENER NEENER NEENER to you too, buddy! ;)
>I would expect that the people who made those decisions liked those results.
That's really sad.
>However, the existance of the mages-learning-plate bug tells *volumes* about
Missed that one.
It doesn't matter anyway; it's an extra 30 AC points between Imperial
Leather (+24 AC?) and Gold Plate (+54 AC?), and when you're walking
around with everyone at AC 150 or above anyway, who cares. Bigger
INTENTIONAL boo-boos were the removal of multiple attacks (ala Xeen,
where fighters were guaranteed to do substantially more damage
fighting than magic-users), and letting magic-users use bows.
Hell, you only need ONE class in MM6: the sorcerer. Rush to master
water and healing will never be a problem. A sorcerer with master
dagger does only slightly less damage than a sword master knight, with
the potential to do MUCH MORE damage with a 3x hit.
>how the interface code is working, and it looks to me like it could just be
>that fairly early on someone made a *VERY* bad decision about how the engine
>should model and react to user input, and that basically guaranteed the
>inconsistencies we see. Essentially, it looks like everything in the game
>is special cases. It doesn't look like there's really "buttons" - it looks
Well, then they obviously need a few more special cases. :) But
yeah, I agree. It feels like they built the core real-time 3D engine
and then tacked a bunch of stuff on later. (You get the idea they
changed their minds a LOT during development.)
Peter Seebach
In article <3573b31d....@news.feist.com>,
Gorgeous George <nos...@yada.yada.yada.com> wrote:
>Right. The plot is weak to make something else strong. MM6's plot is
>weak to afford non-linearity. You seem to keep agreeing that MM6's
>plot is weak, but that MM6 is still good because a weak plot means a
>strong something else.
I guess, there's two senses here:
1. Plot weak, i.e., you can't really change anything, all that happens is
you kill everything and see the credits.
2. Plot weak, i.e., you can decide what to do.
The pre-scripted plot is essentially non-existant; the selection of things
you can do that move the game forward is large and well chosen, IMHO.
>Well, first off, I'm talking about compelling plot, not "compelling
>work as a whole," and not "compelling character sketch" or "compelling
>milieu fiction." Sure, not all fiction is plot-driven. But if it's
>not plot-driven, chances are the plot is weak when compared to fiction
>that IS plot-driven. MM6 is obviously not plot-driven. It has a weak
>plot compared to games that are plot-driven. Demons are supposedly
>going to take over the world, and only one or two people you meet the
>whole game seem to give a damn. Honestly, there's no other indication
>that the demons are any more of a problem than that battalion of
>dragons and titans out west. The demon encounters are actually some
>of the easiest to beat by the time you get to them. It's a good thing
>those one or two people told me the demons were a problem, because
>otherwise I'd have assumed they were just really angry goblins! :)
Heh. Okay, in that sense, I suppose I can see it. I suppose it depends
on how you look at things. I was looking at everything else as ways of
learning your way around and getting equipped to handle the council quests.
>What trivializing? The Dragon Tower is a trap. The NPCs in the game
>say it's a trap. You eventually turn it off and it's no longer a
>trap. You get goodies for turning it off. That's not trivializing,
>that's exactly what happens!
What trivializing? Friendship is a moron biscuit. The people you meet
tell you it's good. Eventually, you become friends with someone and
enjoy it. You enjoy having made a friend. That's not trivializing, that's
exactly what happens!
In other words, the fact that the sequence of words is trivial does not mean
the experience is. I thought the dragon towers was a great quest. It
affected the world I lived in - I was no longer shot out of the sky randomly
in some regions.
Essentially, the thing that I think makes that cool is that it's a way in
which I can interact with a part of my environment that I had not expected
to be able to interact with. In most fantasy games, there are traps; I've
rarely seen traps you can turn off, and never before seen a trap where there's
actually a *reason* for which that trap needs to be turned off.
>(I didn't find it nearly as fulfilling as that. I got hit ONCE by a
>Dragon Tower, and that was from behind and before I knew they shot at
>me. I wasn't even that high a level and the thing barely hurt me. I
>found it ABSOLUTELY ABSURD that those things were supposed to protect
>towns from Wyrm-riding Cuisinarts. Cuisinarts, you know, those guys
>with 1000 HPs [I don't even think my knight had 250 at the time] and
>huge resistances? That's not the whole of it. You want to know what
>was really fucked up about the Dragon Riders and Dragon Towers tie-in?
>The Wyrms COULDN'T FLY!)
Sure they could, they were just, uhm, tired, yeah, that's it.
I haven't done the dragon riders yet...
And yes, I agree, there's something wrong with fireballing dragons...
>I certainly hope your real-life conversations are more varied and
>interesting than those in MM6!
Well, depends. Not all of them are. ;)
>>I would expect that the people who made those decisions liked those results.
>That's really sad.
Agreed.
>>However, the existance of the mages-learning-plate bug tells *volumes* about
>Missed that one.
Basically, if you see "Sorry, I can't teach you anything", you can click on
where the word "Plate" would be if the skill were offered, and you learn
plate.
This tells you a lot about the game's structure.
>It doesn't matter anyway; it's an extra 30 AC points between Imperial
>Leather (+24 AC?) and Gold Plate (+54 AC?), and when you're walking
>around with everyone at AC 150 or above anyway, who cares. Bigger
>INTENTIONAL boo-boos were the removal of multiple attacks (ala Xeen,
>where fighters were guaranteed to do substantially more damage
>fighting than magic-users), and letting magic-users use bows.
I basically agree, although I think it's quite reasonable to let mages use
bows.
They just shouldn't be as *good* with them.
>Well, then they obviously need a few more special cases. :) But
>yeah, I agree. It feels like they built the core real-time 3D engine
>and then tacked a bunch of stuff on later. (You get the idea they
>changed their minds a LOT during development.)
The main thing that looks bad to me is all the strangely modal interface
code; it really looks like no one sat down and defined how the game would
interact with the user, it just got tacked on, and it's the game's biggest
weakness.
Patrick Mcginley
Gorgeous George (nos...@yada.yada.yada.com) scribbled something about:
: On 28 May 1998 16:15:38 -0500, pat...@earth.execpc.com (Patrick
: Mcginley) wrote:
: >You should actually be complaining that id is a huge company, bigger than
: >NWC, and yet they spent next to NOTHING on story.
: Wow, you really picked the wrong topic to compare Quake and MM6 on.
I wasn't comparing Quake & MM6, I was comparing the resource management of
two companies.
: >The reason you don't understand why companies don't give it all, is that
: >it's guns or butter (graphics vs gameplay.) There is a tradeoff, consumers
: >will only pay so much for a game, and while it might be an incredible game
: No, they already have different people working on graphics and
: different people working on design, so it would NOT add to the cost.
: (And there shouldn't need to be a trade off!)
Completely rediculous, unrealistic, and altogether a statement very
ignorant of simple economics.
: >However, someone who only played the game for 2 hours by his own admission
: >who feels the need to complain about the complexity of the bitmaps like he
: >knows what he's talking about is obviously a nincompoop.
: Grow up.
Ouch!
--
.......................................................................
Man as an individual is a genius. But men in the mass form the Headless
Monster, a great, brutish idiot that goes where prodded. - Chaplin
+Patrick McGinley+
ski...@mail.hsc.wvu.edu
I found a potion called "Essence of Fate", I can't figure out what it does
however. Its worth lots though. Any help appreciated...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Eric Vanheest
ski...@mail.hsc.wvu.edu wrote:
: I found a potion called "Essence of Fate", I can't figure out what it does
: however. Its worth lots though. Any help appreciated...
I'd love a savegame with this item in it; I haven't seen it in any of the
hex codes available.
George Ruof
e...@netcom.com (Eric Vanheest) wrote:
Maybe cause it's not in the game.
--
George Ruof gr...@pacificnet.net
Senior Programmer New World Computing
I speak for myself, not my employer.
Please do not repost this message without prior permission.
DrDungeon
>Without good graphics, no real atmosphere.
Patrick Andersson
DrDungeon wrote:
> >Without good graphics, no real atmosphere.
> Well, it looks like somebody's gonna buy U9 afterall!
LOL. I would be the last one in this NG. Digital controll for navigation
just like in Tomb Raider/MM6?!!? Sucks. Keyboard/digital controlls
belongs in 2D platform games and not in 3D games where
precise/comfortable controlls are important. And I hate games that are
in third person FOV as in Tomb Raider, it takes away the feeling of
really *being there*. They've totaly missed the point of a 3D world if
they use third person FOV. If U9 had analog controlls and had first
person FOV, then I probably would have bought it. Btw, how can you be so
sure that gameplay will be so lousy in a game just because it has good
graphics?? Doesnt make sense at all.
--
Patrick
Evan Day
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Patrick Andersson wrote:
> Why do you people think games like Unreal etc. sells so good? Because of
> the "great" story? Because you get to shot aliens? No. Because of the
> gorgeous graphics and special effects which makes the atmosphere in a
> game so much more fun even if it has a lame story. MM6 would have
> appealed to this very large group of people also and it would have sold
> *a lot* more. It's seems like some people in this NG can't understand
> that most people that likes Unreal, Quake etc. also loves RPG's,
> strategy, and adventure games. I don't think there is anyone who only
> plays action games. There are some people in this NG that ONLY plays
> RPG's, that's for sure ;-)..
Sounds to me like you're suggesting we remove the RPG elements from the
game and add a couple of BFGs and let people run loose in Darkmoor
fragging each other. The average twitch gamer - I use the word "average"
because there are people who like both Quake and M&M6 (heck, it's fun to
pop open squake on my linux box while waiting on a long download. I can
usually finish a level or two before getting board and firing up angband)
- is more interested in getting that last frame/sec than deciphering a
riddle or finding a stonecutter. Adding glitzy graphics isn't going to
change the game play or attract anyone who isn't prepared to think beyond
shooting everything that moves.
Uh oh, now I'm some RPG snob who would rather be playing Bard's Tale I for
the next 20 years. Did I mention that I thought the Jedi Knight graphics
weren't all that stellar (like most people, apparently), but the game was
still enjoyable? If you're not happy with what NWC is putting out, design
your own game, license the Quake engine, and have at us. Alternately,
check the game out, decide you hate it, and pray you can return it.
Telling someone enjoying a game how much it sucks is only slightly less
pointless than telling someone who hates a game how amazing it is.
Where was I going? To address your last point regarding sales, M&M6 seems
to be selling quite well. I will say that if it was just another
Quake-clone with bows instead of nail guns I certainly wouldn't have
bought it. *shrug*
Not a flame, just a long winded reaction to people (in general) who have
an amazingly high expectation of what a few programmers are capable of
accomplishing in a semi-fixed amount of time with a fixed amount of money.
Great job, NWC - I'm anxiously awaiting HOM&M3 and M&M7.
George Ruof
"R. McPherson" <rjmc...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 ski...@mail.hsc.wvu.edu wrote:
>
>:
>:
>:I found a potion called "Essence of Fate", I can't figure out what it does
>:however. Its worth lots though. Any help appreciated...
>:
>
>Whoa! I gotta have it. Where was it.
>It probably gives you +15 to the statistic of the month.
>So if it were January, then it would probably give you +15 to might.
>But maybe not.
>
>We've got to figure out what the formula for gold potions is.
Have fun, there are no gold potions in the game.
Patrick Andersson
Evan Day wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 1998, Patrick Andersson wrote:
>
> > Why do you people think games like Unreal etc. sells so good? Because of
> > the "great" story? Because you get to shot aliens? No. Because of the
> > gorgeous graphics and special effects which makes the atmosphere in a
> > game so much more fun even if it has a lame story. MM6 would have
> > appealed to this very large group of people also and it would have sold
> > *a lot* more. It's seems like some people in this NG can't understand
> > that most people that likes Unreal, Quake etc. also loves RPG's,
> > strategy, and adventure games. I don't think there is anyone who only
> > plays action games. There are some people in this NG that ONLY plays
> > RPG's, that's for sure ;-)..
>
> Sounds to me like you're suggesting we remove the RPG elements from the
> game and add a couple of BFGs and let people run loose in Darkmoor
> fragging each other.
Uhh.. Why? Beacuse I want better graphics in RPGs?? Are you telling me MM6
would have been a Quake clone if the hardware accelleration would have worked
for it? And people call *me* stupid..
> The average twitch gamer - I use the word "average"
> because there are people who like both Quake and M&M6 (heck, it's fun to
> pop open squake on my linux box while waiting on a long download. I can
> usually finish a level or two before getting board and firing up angband)
> - is more interested in getting that last frame/sec than deciphering a
> riddle or finding a stonecutter. Adding glitzy graphics isn't going to
> change the game play or attract anyone who isn't prepared to think beyond
> shooting everything that moves.
As I've said, most people dont just play Quake or Unreal, they play RPG's,
Strategy etc etc. I think these people would find MM6 more attractive IF the
graphics were better. I'm used to hardware accelleration, I'm used to 30-40
FPS. Of course it feels like a "downgrade" graphics wise to play MM6 for most
people that play hardware accellrated games also.
I've understand that many in this NG doesnt have a 3D card becuase they dont
play Unreal etc anyways. And they feel that they must defenend RPGs against
the evil 3D people who are going to turn their belowed RPG games into Quake
clones and take over the world with colored lightning...
But I'm sure it'll change. Even Myth and Dark Omen had hardware
accelleration(not RPG's but at least they're showing us that also non-FPS
games benefits from hardware accelleration). And MM6 *could* have worked.. I'm
sure MM7 will be accellerated,
just like every other 3D game is.
--
Patrick
Jena
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 22:50:33 GMT, gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof)
wrote:
>"R. McPherson" <rjmc...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 ski...@mail.hsc.wvu.edu wrote:
>>
>>:
>>:
>>:I found a potion called "Essence of Fate", I can't figure out what it does
>>:however. Its worth lots though. Any help appreciated...
>>:
>>
>>Whoa! I gotta have it. Where was it.
>>It probably gives you +15 to the statistic of the month.
>>So if it were January, then it would probably give you +15 to might.
>>But maybe not.
>>
>>We've got to figure out what the formula for gold potions is.
>
>Have fun, there are no gold potions in the game.
Yeah and there is not a figure called George Ruoff in the game? I had
you clearly in my sight but you did not want to talk to me!
George Ruof
je...@it.mail (Jena) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 22:50:33 GMT, gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof)
>wrote:
>>Have fun, there are no gold potions in the game.
>
>Yeah and there is not a figure called George Ruoff in the game? I had
>you clearly in my sight but you did not want to talk to me!
There's not. My name has only one "f" in it. ;)
I'm sorry I didn't have time to talk, I was busy working on the Heroes 3
E3 demo. :)
There really are no gold potions in the game. There are no gold colored
potion bottles in the graphics for the game.
Mike Weldon
In article <3574A42F...@mail.bip.net> Patrick Andersson <sens...@mail.bip.net> writes:
>> Sounds to me like you're suggesting we remove the RPG elements from the
>> game and add a couple of BFGs and let people run loose in Darkmoor
>> fragging each other.
>
>Uhh.. Why? Beacuse I want better graphics in RPGs?? Are you telling me MM6
>would have been a Quake clone if the hardware accelleration would have worked
>for it? And people call *me* stupid..
I have a feeling that if they had included hardware acceleration, the same
crowd would be complaining about the lack of multiplayer internet deathmatch
support.
Mike
Gorgeous George
On 3 Jun 1998 13:44:52 -0700, wel...@sdd.hp.com (Mike Weldon) wrote:
>I have a feeling that if they had included hardware acceleration, the same
>crowd would be complaining about the lack of multiplayer internet deathmatch
>support.
Interestingly, BOTH those ideas WERE on the drawing board at one time.
:)
George Ruof
bl...@blurffle.plurf (Gorgeous George) wrote:
Multiplayer was never considered for this game. Might and Magic Online
and Might and Magic 6 were two separate products.
Evan Day
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Patrick Andersson wrote:
> Evan Day wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 May 1998, Patrick Andersson wrote:
> > Sounds to me like you're suggesting we remove the RPG elements from the
> > game and add a couple of BFGs and let people run loose in Darkmoor
> > fragging each other.
>
> Uhh.. Why? Beacuse I want better graphics in RPGs?? Are you telling me MM6
> would have been a Quake clone if the hardware accelleration would have worked
> for it? And people call *me* stupid..
From your post above you seemed to be espousing "Graphics are better than
storyline" and that M&M6 would sell better if it followed that formula. I
was merely trying to point out that if the game ditched the story for
hardware acceleration, it wouldn't be M&M6. *shrug*
> > The average twitch gamer - I use the word "average"
> > because there are people who like both Quake and M&M6 (heck, it's fun to
> > pop open squake on my linux box while waiting on a long download. I can
> > usually finish a level or two before getting board and firing up angband)
> > - is more interested in getting that last frame/sec than deciphering a
> > riddle or finding a stonecutter. Adding glitzy graphics isn't going to
> > change the game play or attract anyone who isn't prepared to think beyond
> > shooting everything that moves.
>
> As I've said, most people dont just play Quake or Unreal, they play RPG's,
> Strategy etc etc. I think these people would find MM6 more attractive IF the
> graphics were better. I'm used to hardware accelleration, I'm used to 30-40
> FPS. Of course it feels like a "downgrade" graphics wise to play MM6 for most
> people that play hardware accellrated games also.
I won't argue this one. Better graphics would be fine with me, although
anyone who finds 15-20 fps to be unacceptable has unrealistic expectations
for current hardware... M&M6 gets at least 15 fps worst case for me, i.e.
in the Temple of Baa with the skeletal horde, but I have a high-end P2.
I don't see how even a 3D card could render that many skeletons and get
any better performance. *shrug*
> I've understand that many in this NG doesnt have a 3D card becuase they dont
> play Unreal etc anyways. And they feel that they must defenend RPGs against
> the evil 3D people who are going to turn their belowed RPG games into Quake
> clones and take over the world with colored lightning...
I have nothing against 3D, but I have yet to see anything that used it
that justified buying a card. If Ultima: Ascension turns out okay and
requires a 3D card, maybe then I'll buy one. If I was into sims, I'd
definitely have one (or two).
> But I'm sure it'll change. Even Myth and Dark Omen had hardware
> accelleration(not RPG's but at least they're showing us that also
> non-FPS games benefits from hardware accelleration). And MM6 *could*
> have worked.. I'm sure MM7 will be accellerated, just like every other
> 3D game is.
Some games will benefit, and some won't. Anyone up for a 3D-accelerated
spreadsheet? The 3D graphs will really impress the suits when you make a
presentation ;)
NWC said they'd revisit acceleration. That's their call and I certainly
won't run to buy a card if they do end up supporting it. The current
engine is fine. If I was only getting 3 or 4 fps, I'd probably be kicking
and screaming just like you.
-Evan