New SA Client

[Siteswap]

I do remember them saying it was something like 95% of the client base did not like KR.

Which is ironic as they actually planned to discotinue 2d when 95% of the userbase did use KR.

 

[Lord Chaos]

What does this have to do with what you quited me on? o.o

Well, I was commenting on your first part, but quoted your second part.

And yes, I hope they do make a macro converter, that would be so nice.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

...
Need to see the difference in art between KR and SA? It's been shown.

No one is going to go through and find every single difference, but there IS a difference in many places.

No I do not need to see the pictures again. I saw them the first time and say .... (Points the Hypocrisy Finger) they are comparing a production system to a Beta System. When KR was being Beta'd, bet the farm they were saying, "No Fair, your criticizing a Beta System".

I mean it is no real mystery why they are doing it.

When things go to production, it may be much harder to create change. I understand this logic and have subscribed to it ... on occasion.

I see the KR vs SA (Oh, give me a switch to use KR) as being "I like the 127 Grey better than the 128 Grey".

In every respect it is counter productive.

It polarizes people for/against SA and convinces the 2D people that KR/SA suck.

If the switch were made it removes the impetus for change in SA.

It turns into an Ego/Pride of Authorship thing.

 

[lucitus]

...

Ok, I went into KR and SA and did some picture taking. Every shot provided were taken at Default zoom levels for each client first in one, then in the other form the same tile, then cut out as precise as possible to match the images being compared, then saved as PNG to retain image quality. No further image editing has been done to tweak the clarity, pixelation or details. Each image is as I see them in game.

First up, the Banana Trees, one tall and one short from Isamu Jima (45.0N x 9.12W for those who want to visit them):

Tall Banana Tree

Short Banana Tree

Second are a couple of floortiles... dark redwood and light yellow... mind you again these are the same tiles (something that seems weird given the yellow wood tiles):

Dark Red Hardwood Floortiles

Light Yellow Floortiles:

Next is the "famed" UO sandstone... in this case a small section of Luna Sandstone... note the texture differences, color, and how the shadowing brings out detail in the KR version:

Next is a larger view, my upper patio at my cabin. The patio was created and decorated with KR in mind. Notice the difference between the potted plants, the fountain, squirrel statue, bonsai tree, etc. The two rubble plants in the bottom right are lush in KR while they look straggly and wilted in SA.

And lastly, a look at items in grid view. Now here is somewhere where I'm more of a "let's split the difference" in opinion. The SA/2d graphics are too small, KR too big and in the cases of equipment (armor and weapons, not shown), the difference between KR and Legacy are simply too much that it took quite a while even for me to be able to identify common weapons and armor by sight. In this case I would want 2d/SA item artwork, but at a higher resolution for quality and larger size in the grid slots. Note both UI settings are 85%. Also... no commas!

This is very sad, KR is a good client, but i dindnt get a chance, if the things now fixed in SA Client combinend with the KR client, it will be a wonderfull work!

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Well, I was commenting on your first part, but quoted your second part.

And yes, I hope they do make a macro converter, that would be so nice.

That is what I thought. But even still the ability to do something really had no bearing on what I had posted, I posted based on what is done...not what could. Currently all the artwork is from the 2d client, and all the character models are from the KR client. If this is not what you were responding to, I appologize again...and maybe you can just once and for all make it clear as I obviously am to slow this morning to keep up with you. o.o

 

[Pepino Gonzales]

2d is better....period

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

What he said.. if I meant creatures and NPCs I would have said so.. same goes for gumps or terrain.

And besides, not liking the look of a creature is "personal preference"... stop trying to make it sound like "fact".

Fact:

Before KR, Rune Beetles were black.

Fact:

In KR and SA, Rune Beetles are not black.

Fact:

In 2D, my character looks like she is riding her horse.

Fact:

In KR and SA, my character looks like her feet are dragging the ground when riding her horse.

I really could not care less about the rest of the art, terrain, etc...as long as those 4 facts remain, along with several other art/graphical issues, I will not play KR or SA.

And yes, that is my personal preference...and a FACT.

 

[King Frankie]

SA is a KR revamp what did you lot think? why spend money on something new when you can make something old better. they basicly followed what ppl thought was a nice client and added their own touch to it. i bet they didnt change anything in the server coding so they actully could prevent cheaters.

5 cent tossed enjoy.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

SA is a KR revamp what did you lot think? why spend money on something new when you can make something old better. they basicly followed what ppl thought was a nice client and added their own touch to it. i bet they didnt change anything in the server coding so they actully could prevent cheaters.

5 cent tossed enjoy.

Do you mean the server code they can't change because of people who wont get off their high horse and delete the 2d client? Or do you mean the server code that is not needed to be change since all cheating happens client side? I'm just a tad confused and what you are even talking about, or if you even know what you are talking about. *tips hat*

 

[Lord Chaos]

Do you mean the server code they can't change because of people who wont get off their high horse and delete the 2d client? Or do you mean the server code that is not needed to be change since all cheating happens client side? I'm just a tad confused and what you are even talking about, or if you even know what you are talking about. *tips hat*

The graphics isn't server code controlled. And the cheating could be dealt with by simply slightly changing the 2D client as well.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

The graphics isn't server code controlled. And the cheating could be dealt with by simply slightly changing the 2D client as well.

Again confused why I am quoted? As an accent? If you are just quoting me out of context then please don't, as to me you sound silly quoting me and then repeating what I said.

 

[Siteswap]

(from Coldren's link)

OMFG YES PLEASE. Hire this person! NOW!

This is the UO of my dreams -- 2D graphics, but in hi-res. Same style, same look, just hi-res.

Now thats what I'm talking about. THIS ... is a UO upgrade. It puts KR/SA to shame.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

The character, horse, fence, and hay I agree with... the terrain, I still favor KR/SA's terrain.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...


Ok.. Once again, we're getting off track, and bias' are starting to show. Everyone step back. We need to stop and make sure a few points are understood before this becomes another Me. Vs. Them thread, as it has already degenerated into to some small degree.


First Point - We can all agree, one client is better than.. Well, more than one?

From a technical, and a cost-benefit standpoint, which is the better alternative: 2 Clients with 2 entirely different code bases supporting 2 different, let's call them, art styles, or 1 client with 1 code base supporting 2 art styles?

Ideally, yes, 1 art style would be best, but here's the problem. The Dev's let the cat out of the bag with the entirely different art style allowed in KR. Some people have grown to like it. Weather or not I or YOU like it doesn't matter - Some players do, and we should respect their tastes as well as our own, or we're all just being god damned hypocrites.

So to that end, a KR toggle makes sense for EVERYONE, Pro-KR or not.


Coldren has the purpose of the thread and idea down 100%.

Zodia and Siteswap are in the wrong thread.

 

[TheGrimmOmen]

But that doesn't answer the question as to why the Legacy art is pixelated to begin with. If it's something the devs consider an issue that they intend to fix then please make a statement to that effect.

The reason the legacy art is pixelated is simply because they couldn't use aliasing and maintain a decent border around the animations when the background was chroma keyed out. There is no plans to attempt to "fix" this at this time, and honestly, I wouldn't want to - but that's just me.

-Grimm

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

...


Ok.. Once again, we're getting off track, and bias' are starting to show. Everyone step back. We need to stop and make sure a few points are understood before this becomes another Me. Vs. Them thread, as it has already degenerated into to some small degree.


First Point - We can all agree, one client is better than.. Well, more than one?

From a technical, and a cost-benefit standpoint, which is the better alternative: 2 Clients with 2 entirely different code bases supporting 2 different, let's call them, art styles, or 1 client with 1 code base supporting 2 art styles?

Ideally, yes, 1 art style would be best, but here's the problem. The Dev's let the cat out of the bag with the entirely different art style allowed in KR. Some people have grown to like it. Weather or not I or YOU like it doesn't matter - Some players do, and we should respect their tastes as well as our own, or we're all just being god damned hypocrites.

So to that end, a KR toggle makes sense for EVERYONE, Pro-KR or not.


Coldren has the purpose of the thread and idea down 100%.

Zodia and Siteswap are in the wrong thread.

Oh...I did not even realize it was your post I was posting in when I pmed you about it...haha.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

The reason the legacy art is pixelated is simply because they couldn't use aliasing and maintain a decent border around the animations when the background was chroma keyed out. There is no plans to attempt to "fix" this at this time, and honestly, I wouldn't want to - but that's just me.

-Grimm

O.K. I am sorry, but just to get this cleared up...are you saying the legacy art work is not getting updated because it is well...old? Nothing wrong with that, just wondering if that is what you are saying here. Thank You *tips hat*

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Hopefully C&D I've been able to help you understand me a bit better via the PMs

 

[Trebr Drab]

...

The character, horse, fence, and hay I agree with... the terrain, I still favor KR/SA's terrain.

I agree. I assume you are including the plants you showed earlier in this thread. They look very good like that. I'm not sure we all saw that though, depending on our computers.
I also liked the stonework from KR that you showed above. Again, I'm not sure we all saw the same thing.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Again confused why I am quoted? As an accent? If you are just quoting me out of context then please don't, as to me you sound silly quoting me and then repeating what I said.

Well, it sounded like you were saying that the 2D was solely to blame for the problems and that cheating cannot be curbed because of the 2D client.

 

[Coldren]

... the terrain, I still favor KR/SA's terrain.

That I can agree with, as well as the stonework. Although to me, the stonework looks like a slightly different color.. I could see around that though for the depth it gives it.

 

[Coldren]

The reason the legacy art is pixelated is simply because they couldn't use aliasing and maintain a decent border around the animations when the background was chroma keyed out. There is no plans to attempt to "fix" this at this time, and honestly, I wouldn't want to - but that's just me.

-Grimm

Forgive me, again, but graphic design isn't my strong point... And also forgive me if I have some terminology wrong.

Am I to understand the reason classic client looks the way it does is simply because no one has or took the time to go back, and clean up the tile art like Saphireena did?

The way I see it, a decade ago, it was blocky and limited in color because of memory concerns and the size of each texture or tile art. So rather than having the rendering engine programmed for AA, why not simply update the size and quality of each tile/texture?

So if you were to, right now, crop out the image of the bail of hay from her work, save it in whatever tool you use to create the art files, why wouldn't it work?

Moreover, I'm referring to STATIC objects. Obviously assets that require animations are a bit more difficult.. But the bail of hay, the fence, the paper doll, book shelves, beds, chairs, floor tiles, walls (Non-moving hidden walls, that is).. They're 1 frame objects, aren't they? Or maybe 1-4 if they can be turned to face different directions.

I know there are a LOT of them as you said in the other thread, so it's not an enviable task, long, dull, and drawn out.. But how DIFFICULT is it? And perhaps more importantly, could the SA or KR, or even classic client handle a texture of that quality if it requires a larger file size?

Again, I don't understand, which is why I'm asking an expert for some type of cliff note as to why it doesn't work like that, if you could kindly provide one

 

[Crysta]

It sounds simple, but there are several thousand items and tiles they'd have to do that to, and every one would have to be painstakingly detailed by hand (to my knowledge KR used more modern texture techniques to get things done... to replicate the old stuff properly it would require being done by hand).

Plus the multi-tile objects would all have to match up properly.

Plus they wouldn't be able to release it incrementally.. they would have to wait until everything is done or suffer from a storm of "why isn't "x" art fixed up yet" again and again and again.

Plus they just spent money on redoing the art (technically twice, though the second was to a lesser extent).

Plus they can't do anything without approval from above, and i'm sure the idea has been brought up and shot down several times now, and I bet doing KR was the compromise they had to make (the full 3D attempts were shot down as well, btw).

 

[meridus]

My 2 cents.

I was a 3d player. That went away and I adapted to KR. SA comes along, and I suppose I could adjust again. But not to blurry graphics.

Frankly I prefer the KR artwork. But hey, I guess I'm in the minority. But I just simply can not stare at a pixelated computer screen. I'm just getting too old and impatient. I want to enjoy what the artists created. I figure if it takes more horsepower in my computer, then I'll get one.

So please make KR an option. UO is a special game, I really want to be able to enjoy it.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

I know there are a LOT of them as you said in the other thread, so it's not an enviable task, long, dull, and drawn out.. But how DIFFICULT is it?

That's one of the reasons why I simply said a KR artwork toggle. Since those are already a higher resolution, it would be the easiest and fastest version to implement.

If there were time to break everything up and do certain segments at a time, I would break up the graphics options as follows:

Terrain: No change, keep the SA terrain as is. While I'll miss the "tall grass" of KR, SA is a nice looking terrain overall.

Models: Here have a high and low resolution setting, but use the KR models as running both Legacy and KR models would make for HUGE patches due to the animation method used. Maybe an optional download/replacement file for Legacy?

Plants/Trees: Here I would have the 2d vs KR toggle (though my preference by FAR are the KR plants due to how lively they are compared to 2d... this is probably my biggest "style" preference)

Building tiles: Use the 2d tiles as the base set and ADD IN the KR higher resolution/higher detail tiles as new tiles entirely. Have the resolution toggle affect non-player house building tiles in the world (low = 2d, high = KR)

Items: Low Resolution = current 2d artwork as is, High resolution = same 2d artwork, but revamps (i.e. Saphreena's upgrade style in the old pixel graphics challenge thread). Here is where I favor the style of 2d artwork more, I just wish it were higher resolution so that smaller items are more visible and there is more detail and less pixelation.

I simply use the KR artwork as the optional setting because it's the "fast way" compared to the type by type as listed above.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Well, it sounded like you were saying that the 2D was solely to blame for the problems and that cheating cannot be curbed because of the 2D client.

Nope I simply contrasted that cheating has nothing to do with the server code (which you said) And I said that the server code can not be update for as long as the legacy client remains as is. Not a graphical debate simply talking about programing code in that particular post.

 

[meridus]

While I'm rambling...

When 3d first came out, one could zoom without items pixelating. A patch came along (don't remember which one) that changed that. Or ruined it in my mind. If memory serves it was an optimization or something.

So how was that originally done? Or why is that not possible now?

 

[Sabbath]

So what you're saying, Crysta, is that it would take a LOT of work It sounds like a monumental, if not impossible, task. That's truly a shame - I really do love to look at and enjoy the graphics in the games I play. I'll keep playing UO one way or another until it's final day but I do wish that the resolution could have been improved. I would play much more often if it did...simply because the higher rez graphics are easier on my eyes. The style doesn't bother me (2D/KR) but the resolution is a bit of a game changer for me.

With that said, I just give thanks that UO will continue on in any form and thank the devs for doing the best they can

 

[Ailish]

YES!!! Look at that! Now THAT is UO!! Look at the horse! It doesn't closely resemble a hippo, it looks like a horse!! A UO HORSE!!

I love it!

Why couldn't they do THAT instead of this ...

For the record, I have been pretty darn close (like, say, on top of) many *real* horses in my life. Mostly, they look more like the one in your picture than the one in Saph's picture.

Do not think I am saying Saph's work was not lovely. Just saying that the second pic looks more like a *real* horse.

 

[UO Crazed]

It's a good feeling I have for UO, this new SA client. They made the 2D client even better (as far a grahics are concerned). They kept to the 2D atmosphere, but it's a new client! I find that Luna and such spots are laggy...but in whole, I can really dig this client.

It may be time for me to switch from 2D. Since the last patch, speed is a hell a lot faster! Way less choppy.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

So what you're saying, Crysta, is that it would take a LOT of work It sounds like a monumental, if not impossible, task...

It is monumental.

It is complicated by the need to try to get it right in all respects.

Take a Staff (one that can be easily seen) sit down. I think you will find the Staff is .... sitting down as well. It is a symptom of just how much work it is to get it all right in all respects. If it were done right, then the data file on the art work would grow ... considerably, multiplying the problem even more. Consider this would need to be done for every staff model in the game.

 

[Siteswap]

...
Zodia and Siteswap are in the wrong thread.

No. Were not in the wrong thread. If your idea comes to fruition then it effects the players who are happy with 2d and/or SA, for the reasons Ive already stated. You cannot therefore present a one sided post/debate petitioning for something that effects everyone (again, for the reasons ive already stated).

The Devs therefore need to know that there are players out there that DO NOT want your idea implemented. KR has had its day, has failed, and is being replaced (by a client that is getting more support from players than KR ever did).

Let KR die for the greater good.

 

[Heartseeker]

...
Zodia and Siteswap are in the wrong thread.

No. Were not in the wrong thread. If your idea comes to fruition then it effects the players who are happy with 2d and/or SA, for the reasons Ive already stated. You cannot therefore present a one sided post/debate petitioning for something that effects everyone (again, for the reasons ive already stated).

The Devs therefore need to know that there are players out there that DO NOT want your idea implemented. KR has had its day, has failed, and is being replaced (by a client that is getting more support from players than KR ever did).

Let KR die for the greater good.

The problem with your idea is; what greater good?

SA looks like a downgrade from 2D.

Go to Destard and look at the Dragons,Drakes and Wyverns.

The scaling is all wrong, and the detail is a pixelated mess.

The fact that the devs have been working on this for two years is mind boggling.

How is it possible that a game released in 2009 looks worse than when it was first done in 1998?

ps. The fact that Saph in her spare time produced such graphic gems, must be an embarrassment to the art department working on UO.

 

[Harlequin]

For the record, I have been pretty darn close (like, say, on top of) many *real* horses in my life. Mostly, they look more like the one in your picture than the one in Saph's picture.

Do not think I am saying Saph's work was not lovely. Just saying that the second pic looks more like a *real* horse.

Just like the giant beetle, the artwork is indeed more lifelike. Most of them when viewed individually, are pretty amazing. The issue is how it integrates with the other elements - esp the players' avatars.

I don't know alot about horses but I do know different breeds of horses can look very differently. First time I saw a real horse, I thought to myself "That's 1 fat horse! Look at that tummy! Looks nothing like those racehorses I see on TV." Even now, when I think about horses, the first image that comes up is the lean and muscular thoroughbreed race-horse.

The legacy artists obviously based their sprites on these leaner horses and exaggerated the athletic-looking features.

Though I must say the while the horse in KR looks good colour-wise and skin-wise, however, it's anatomy looks really weird.

 

[Snakeman]

Your correct Heartseeker, I just got done looking at some Iris 3D pic's & even those are at least clear & crisp. Saph needs to go give the Art crew some lessons

 

[pgcd]

Ohhh... the black outline is so good it makes me wanna cry. I also think that it shouldn't be too hard to implement it in UOKR at least on mobs - they are 3D objects, aren't they? In that case it should be pretty simple to render them with the outline. If they are 2d renders already... well, then I'm afraid that adding the outline would require a long, long time, and that means it's not gonna happen.

(And that hi-res legacy screen is indeed awesome).

 

[hawkeye_pike]

This is exactly what I would expect from a new UO Client:

Images from Andrea's Ultima Online Page

 

[Coppelia]

For the record, I have been pretty darn close (like, say, on top of) many *real* horses in my life. Mostly, they look more like the one in your picture than the one in Saph's picture.

Do not think I am saying Saph's work was not lovely. Just saying that the second pic looks more like a *real* horse.

Well, except for the hole in the mane, the horse is well modelised. On a still it's cool. But it's badly animated. And if I remember well, on the standing pose, the horse has the front legs slightly bend. A real horse has its leg straight when standing still. They use the block of the articulation to rest their muscles.

This is exactly what I would expect from a new UO Client:

Images from Andrea's Ultima Online Page

Actually, Saphireena's version has a neck that's too short. She probably made the mistake because in legacy client, women's long hair are too low and cover a part of the face.

 

[Old Man of UO]

For the record, I have been pretty darn close (like, say, on top of) many *real* horses in my life. Mostly, they look more like the one in your picture than the one in Saph's picture.

Do not think I am saying Saph's work was not lovely. Just saying that the second pic looks more like a *real* horse.

I have an Arabian horse that looks a lot like the one is Saph's picture, and a Suffolk draft that fit the outline of the KR drawn horse almost perfectly. But my two Tennessee Walkers and my Foundation Quarter horse look nothing like either. There are so many size and shape variations of "real" horses that I can't understand how someone can say those in any of the clients don't look like "real" horses.... they do, just not the one you may be thinking of.

 

[Connor_Graham]

I have an Arabian horse that looks a lot like the one is Saph's picture, and a Suffolk draft that fit the outline of the KR drawn horse almost perfectly. But my two Tennessee Walkers and my Foundation Quarter horse look nothing like either. There are so many size and shape variations of "real" horses that I can't understand how someone can say those in any of the clients don't look like "real" horses.... they do, just not the one you may be thinking of.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course.....

 

[Old Man of UO]

...

How is it possible that a game released in 2009 looks worse than when it was first done in 1998?

...

If you are going to make a wildly critical statement like that, at least check out the graphics from 1997 or 1998. Here are two pics from the original tutorial, and are pixelated messes compared to what we have in SA. Of course that is because the original client was written for 640x480 screens and then updated to 800x600. No comparison in the quality that we have today, which is much better regardless what you are implying.

 

[Coldren]

Plus they just spent money on redoing the art (technically twice, though the second was to a lesser extent).

And THAT is the part that gets me.

I understand there are thousands of tiles, animation concerns, and what have you. That was not lost on me.

But the fact that they have already recreated everything AT LEAST ONCE, for KR, is a sign that not only is it POSSIBLE, it's been DONE. But they stubbornly refuse to look at what the majority of people are asking for: 2D style at higher resolutions.

/rant

With KR, they essentially said, "**** that, we'll do whatever we want to do because recreating the world to look totally different isn't as boring as making everything we currently have look better. It's not any cheaper or less time consuming, in fact it's moreso, but what the hell, right? New and different is ALWAYS better! We need to take a decade old game and make it look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like what kept it going for a decade!"

Obviously not what they said, but sure as hell seems to be what they keep THINKING.

/end rant

Besides, increasing resolution and quality of an art asset doesn't need to necessarily mean re-alignment. Does the bale of hay in Saph's work look any bigger than the low-res version? What re-alignment would be necessary?

If they want to stop flushing money and time down the drain, and stop putting their arses on the line with new clients, they'll buckle down, do the boring, tedious job, and give the players what they've been ASKING for from the start, rather than continually regurgitating what they WANT to give.

And if it's the higher-ups that are stopping the game from getting the visual face lift it's players have been asking for, maybe they should ask why their decisions and direction for every MMO since UO has resulted in an UTTER CATASTROPHE, but a decade-old engine with a specific style continues to outpace anything new they bring to market.

Dammit, now I'm getting pissed...

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

....
Dammit, now I'm getting pissed...

One might want to focus on the UO Teams stated goals and priority.

Some can blithely blow off things like stability and performance with pearls of wisdom such as "I have been doing CGI for the last 90 years and no way does a 64bit pixel depth take any more computer assets than a 2bit pixle depth does. No way does shading and textured take more Computer Assets than NOT doing them. No way does it take more Computer Assets to get Water to look, act and behave like water than not doing it". That is just so easy to say ... in an online, anonymous message forum.

Truths are much harder to deal with. The UO Team gets to deal with the Reality of UO, the Truth. We get to deal with our fantasies of what is easy and what is hard as DEFINED BY US.

Try this out, Enigma's Fantasy as to what REALLY happened.

Yeah we can do this thing, it will be rather easy, will increase subscriber counts and keep people happy. We will create a pseudo 3D client with new artwork. ...... Some Months Later ... Ok, things are not as easy as it looked, the data has escalated way beyond expectations, costs have escalated way beyond expectations, it is NOT clear the goals can be achieved. We NEED TO COMPROMISE the project to get it done.

..................... Years later .................

Yeah we can do this thing, it will be rather easy, will increase subscriber counts and keep people happy. We will create a pseudo high resolution, totally new look, feel, functionality client with new artwork. ...... Some Months Later ... Ok, things are not as easy as it looked, the data has escalated way beyond expectations, costs have escalated way beyond expectations, it is NOT clear the goals can be achieved. We NEED TO COMPROMISE the project to get it done.

..................... Years later .................

Ok, we have failed twice to update the client. We need to take a no nonsense approach and evolve the client. We need to build something with solid architecture that can be enhanced and upgraded over time. Highest Priority is performance, stability and legacy functionality, except where it can be replaced with intuitive functionality. We must build a client that from the get go is close enough to the legacy Client that the majority, if not all, subscribers will move to. Over time, we can then upgrade and evolve the new Client.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

One thing that bugs me most is that SHOULD the SA Client fail again,a lot of budget would have been wasted that could have been better spent on improving the game content.

However, I feel that for UO being successful over the next years, it will need an improved game client. I still think SA has great potential. But A LOT of graphical improvements would need to be made.

 

[Coldren]

Perhaps it's you're writing style, but I often feel I'm missing some major point whenever I read one of your posts.

1) I never, EVER, said anything other (and in fact blatantly stated in previous posts) than CLIENT STABILITY is issue number one. We need something that works.

2) You seem to be making the statement, "They can't update 2D art because it's HAAARRRDDDD." Did I ever make a statement saying it's "Easy". No! I only asked WHY THEY CAN'T SEEM TO DO IT.

No, you're right, it's MUCH easier to develop a completely new engine, render some models in 3D, then break them down into 2D isometric models only to find out their brand new engine can't support AA, which is a technology that has been around and used as far as I recall since, what, QUAKE 2? And then on TOP of that, redevelop the look of every single piece of art, only to have it come out looking fuzzy and blurry in 2009, when a GRAPHICS CARD can have more memory than the ENTIRE SERVER which ran your damn game in 1999.

Christ, I know I don't know much of anything about graphics, but doesn't it DEFY common sense to do ALL that work, rather than just figure out how to have your engine push through a 32-bit art asset instead of a 16-bit?

And as for your fantasy scenario? Here's what happened.

1) UO is outdated - Lets make UO2!
2) Scrapped. Let's reuse stuff from UO2 and make UO:3D!
3) UO still looks outdated. Lets make UO:X
4) Scrapped.
4) UO STILL looks outdated. Let's add NINJAS.
5) UO STTTIIILLL looks outdated. Let's try an ENTIRELY NEW ENGINE that looks NOTHING like the present game!
6) Huh. Imagine that. Most people don't like it, even though it looks less outdated!
7) Scrapped. Let's resuse stuff from step 5, which failed abysmally, and and make the models a little smaller and a little more blurry! It's a surefire COMPROMISE.

Yeah, blurred in a little content with client issue, but the point is there.

I know, I'm nothing but an anonomoyus person without a clear picture of what the Dev's have to work with. But it doesn't take an industry insider to look at this pattern and see what's wrong, and wonder why the hell it continues to repeat itself. Why do they keep trying to reinvent the wheel (in terms of graphics) when all we continually ask for is a more rounded one? It's a testament to the devotion and passion of UO players and veterans that the game is still running.

I want SA to succeed. I like some of the UI features it brings to the table. A new client is important. I want UO to advance and stay relevant.

But you can't tell me with a straight look on your face that they couldn't have made UO look like what Saphrieena did in her spare time, with a team of developers and a 40-hour+ work week.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

Perhaps it's you're writing style, but I often feel I'm missing some major point whenever I read one of your posts.
...

Some solid advice, that you can clearly ignore, do not try to impress me with day care psycho babble. If you do not understand me and you do not see any point then do the right thing the simple thing ignore me or make a reply that has nothing to do with me. One might think I have a zero tolerance towards incompetent people that try to win by insisting others are not relevant, cant speak English, can not communicate etc.

....
And as for your fantasy scenario? Here's what happened.
...

A defining difference between us I make it clear I do not know the TRUTH of the events, that I only have an outsiders observance of what happened. YOU say you KNOW THE TRUTH of what happened from and insiders perspective. If that is NOT what you meant to communicate then buy a clue, your stating a fantasy/opinion and pretending that some how demeans/diminishes what your refuting. It doesn't

...
But you can't tell me with a straight look on your face that they couldn't have made UO look like what Saphrieena did in her spare time, with a team of developers and a 40-hour+ work week.

I am going to tell you this simple piece of intuitively obvious logic. They couldn't because they didn't. Your failure to KNOW THE TRUTH as to why they couldn't does NOT constitute proof that they could have.

It should be intuitively obvious, that this team would rather have UO win every award possible for art, playability etc. To attract every MMORPG player in the world. This should give everyone a clue, they would do all of this IF THEY COULD HAVE.

They didn't, it should be intuitively obvious, they couldn't for some reason.

We have choices,

We can assume the UO Teams from the first day of design to now are total loser, morons, incompetent (repeat) losers.

We can assume the UO Teams from the first day of design to now have been varying levels of above average to exceeds expectation stewards of UO.

I choose the later. I have the tangible fact that UO is still here 11+ years later as the basis for my belief.

I choose to believe this UO Team has a plan.

I choose to believe they are not going to be pathetic whiners and inundate us with all the reasons things can not be done. Besides that would be so counter productive, it never does any good to drag the dirty laundry of reality out for everyone to make something of.

I choose to give them their opportunity to perpetuate the above average to exceeds expectations of UO's History.

I choose to believe they have well founded reasons for doing the things they do.

I choose to believe the choices they make are, in their opinions, as stewards of UO, WHAT'S BEST FOR UO.

I choose to believe that the current UO Team and all Past UO Team members are HUMAN. They make mistakes.

I choose to believe that every single UO Team member has ALWAYS ADVOCATED FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS BEST FOR UO.

I am NOT going to set out here as a subscriber and SECOND GUESS the UO Team, making ... claims of what they can and can not do. How hard something is or how easy it is.

 

[Kaleb]

SA clent is not all that bad i only have 2 peeves:

1: the legacy containers- When i switch to legacy containers and open them they appear to be empty but they are not, you can read whats in there by hovering your cursor over the pack but there is no items drawn. Being mostly a Mage character its normal for me to have many spellbooks and runebooks when they get spread out in the grid it makes it harder to find a certain book plus the backpack is more immersible gameplay wise to me.

2: Zoom - Not so much the feature its self but the fact that when I get it to where I want it where everything seems to draw and run great and not be to large or to small, when i log out it gos back to the default zoomed out view. ARRRGH!!

Just these 2 things are enough to keep me from using the SA client ATM.

 

[Surgeries]

I've tried to have my voice heard for years. I've watched others try too. It falls on deaf ears.

You are welcome, of course, to keep trying. In my opinion, we can't win. We never could. Even Garriott couldn't win his battle with "them", EA, the system in place, the Corp., what have you.

People who are WAY WAY more successful in Life than you or I EVER could hope to be (unless you are personally worth 100, 200, 500 million dollars, or more) are those who try, and keep trying, with a Positive Mental Attitude.

Period.

Quitters never win.

Winners Never Quit.

Kudos to Coldren.

Way to be a Loser, Trebr Drab...at least... you Win at Losing and Quitting!!

NOICE!!!!



:loser:


As a small point of reference...

It took Ten THOUSAND attempts (and Failures at it, mind you) to make a Light Bulb work.

It took seven years of ridicule, and relentless trying to get Post It Notes to be accepted as a viable product, at 3M.

What's your claim to fame?

You posted 100 times about Graphics?

You want a Lollipop?

Maybe a Pancake on your head?



EDIT: I have been able to reproduce almost all of the functionality of UOA, in SA, with the exception of mounting my Swampie or Horse with one keyboard click...but I won't stop trying to find the answer...otherwise...I will end up losing, like you did with the Graphics Thingy!!

 

[Coldren]

Some solid advice, that you can clearly ignore, do not try to impress me with day care psycho babble. If you do not understand me and you do not see any point then do the right thing the simple thing ignore me or make a reply that has nothing to do with me. One might think I have a zero tolerance towards incompetent people that try to win by insisting others are not relevant, cant speak English, can not communicate etc.

Where did that come from? All I said was sometimes I don't understand the meaning of what you say, or that I'm not understanding it because of the way you say it.

It was an omission that *I* don't understand what you say. It was in no way a condemnation of what you say or how you say it. It's wasn't an expression of intent to ignore what you say, or that I somehow dislike what you say (that I do understand).

Day-Care psycho babble? What? Here's something I suppose could be interrupted that way:

Don't read between lines that aren't there.

All I said was, I sometimes don't understand what you are saying, and I sometimes feel that I'm missing something important in what you say. Period. I got no beef against you or anyone else, weather they agree with me or not, weather they like me or what I say or not.

A defining difference between us I make it clear I do not know the TRUTH of the events, that I only have an outsiders observance of what happened.

I only know what I see, and understand what I understand. And I KNOW building a whole new graphics and UI is a difficult task, even if I don't know the details.

And I also have made clear I don't know the TRUTH of events.. Which is why I continually have ASKED them.

YOU say you KNOW THE TRUTH of what happened from and insiders perspective.

I have never said that. In the last post, I directly stated I don't know what the truth is from an insiders or Dev's perspective.

What I DO state is what I understand about technology, computers, and programming. And I've repeatedly stated I could be wrong. I have never said "This is true with 100% certainty." I've always stated, "From the way I see things, this APPEARS to be true. Why isn't it?"

I am going to tell you this simple piece of intuitively obvious logic. They couldn't because they didn't. You failure to KNOW THE TRUTH as to why they couldn't does NOT constitute proof that they could have.

They couldn't because they didn't? Or they didn't because they COULD NOT? Or they didn't because they WOULD NOT?

No doubt, you've heard "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". (Yes, I'm aware the saying is usually "Beauty", but I've heard this variation before.. somewhere...) Truth is what I SEE. Now if you can, please tell me what I have seen so far is wrong? What fact have I stated that is incorrect? You will have my gratitude for pointing it out.

You're right, it DOES NOT constitute proof that they could have. But as I said, I have some very small capacity to understand a little bit of technology. THAT is why I have repeatedly ASKED THEM to give me that clue that you claim I need to buy. What does it cost?

Everything I know about programing and computers (again, in my limited understanding) tells me that the engine they used has produced games with far superior graphics in 3D for MMO's, one of which is WAR, and another DAoC, both of which Mythic produced.

It tells me that redoing every art asset to fit a brand new engine, with new scaling and rendering issues, is by no means a trivial task. But it can clearly be done, because it HAS been done.

It tells me that Saphrieena showed the world it's possible to take those 16-Bit graphics, polish them up, and give them an amazing level of detail while preserving the style and feel of the original.

I'm asking now, as I have been, to know that TRUTH you seem to emphasize. No one seems willing to say why it can't be done, other than to offer the fact that they HAVEN'T done it.

We can assume the UO Teams from the first day of design to now are total loser, morons, incompetent (repeat) losers.

Which I would never state. I just want to know why they can't do it. That's all.

We can assume the UO Teams from the first day of design to now have been varying levels of above average to exceeds expectation stewards of UO.

I have nothing but respect for the team. They clearly know what they are doing, and they are being paid to do it. And I like them all as people. If KR/SA looks the way it does not because they simply chose NOT to make UO look like what Saph has demonstrated, than it MUST be because it CAN'T be done.

Again, I'm asking, WHY. I'm not accusing them of anything. I'm blatantly saying I don't know why, but I WANT to know. I WANT to understand.

I choose to believe they are not going to be pathetic whiners and inundate us with all the reasons things can not be done.

So you believe explaining why something can't be done makes someone a pathetic whiner? I doubt that's what you mean, but that is what you are saying.

I am NOT going to set out here as a subscriber and SECOND GUESS the UO Team, making ... claims of what they can and can not do. How hard something is or how easy it is.

I make the base assumption that everything they are doing is hard. I don't know how our exchanges got so far off track, but you seem to think I have some sort of disdain for the Dev team, or that my intention is to appear condescending. This is simply not the case.

Let's start over, because what I am asking seems to be lost in translation, often times likely due to my own errors.

Here's what I want to know:

Is it POSSIBLE to make UO look like what Saphrieena has shown us it COULD look like?

I'm not asking if they CHOSE not to.
I'm not asking if they are PLANNING to.

I'm asking.. Is it POSSIBLE?

 

[Siteswap]

The problem with your idea is; what greater good?

Having only 2 graphical sets to maintain, update, and add to instead of 3. Two is bad enough .. but 3! It would be better if UO only had 1 client but it looks like were stuck with 2 as usual. Lets not make it 3 by having a KR enabled graphical option in SA.

SA looks like a downgrade from 2D.

Agreed. But its the client EA have chosen to go with.

Go to Destard and look at the Dragons,Drakes and Wyverns.

Agreed. But its the client EA have chosen to go with.

The scaling is all wrong, and the detail is a pixelated mess.

Agreed. But the same could be said of KR.

The fact that the devs have been working on this for two years is mind boggling.

Agreed. But the same could be said of KR.

How is it possible that a game released in 2009 looks worse than when it was first done in 1998?

Agreed. But the same could be said of KR.

ps. The fact that Saph in her spare time produced such graphic gems, must be an embarrassment to the art department working on UO.

I agree 100%.